The Miseducation Of An Entire Generation: Climate Change

Written by Dr Roger Higgs

earth sun rise

Especially urgent is the need to get the truth into schools and universities, to correct the 30 years of damaging misinformation on the cause of climate change force-fed to our young people.

Besides this miseducation of an entire generation, be angry also for:

(1) being so completely misinformed and ill-advised by the insidious International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (run by the United Nations, need I say more?) and, in turn, by governments and the media, all of which have huge vested interests in promoting the ‘CO2 Delusion’ that man can affect climate (e.g. UN quest for global governance; more laws; ever-increasing taxes; university research grants; researcher salaries; etc.);

(2) the forcing upon us of unnecessary and ineffectual wind ‘farms’ and solar ‘parks’ (note the feel-good names; government thinks we’re stupid), not only wrecking the scenery (see formerly gorgeous Cornwall and weep) and killing birds, but also destroying irreplaceable agricultural land;

(3) being forced to pay far too much for energy (much worse to come), to cover the construction/installation costs and hopeless inefficiency of these ‘renewable’ wind and solar projects.

Climate change is driven by the sun, not CO2 (see links below). Please don’t misunderstand – real environmental pollution (plastics, vehicle emissions inhaled by city-dwellers, chemical leaks, etc.) is a very different matter. All geologists adore and care deeply for the environment.

Please feel free to forward this post anywhere/everywhere, as widely as you can, ideally to all your contacts (Facebook?), and encourage them to do the same.

Please see my two previous posts here:

(As a result of the above two posts, Dr. Higgs website has received 10,000 reads in the past 5 days, climbing quickly …)

Here’s some information about Dr. Higgs:

Read more at Ice Age Now

Comments (2)

  • Avatar



    Well said Dr. Roger Higgs
    I would also like to add…
    The UN-IPCC’s assumption that around 1750 the atmospheric CO2 levels were in equilibrium with the global temperatures, when, according to the UN-IPCC, CO2 mediated climate was optimal. But I ask is that what we should wish to aim for, is it what is truly needed ?
    This (UN-IPCC assumption) implies that the climate and CO2 use by vegetation on the planet were also at or close to optimum. But why should the natural venting of CO2 be at, or be near to the planet’s natural requirements for life? That would imply natural CO2 production and use are linked, and that is a bit far fetched (even for the UN-IPCC).

    This implication from their assumption is back in 1750 the CO2/global temperatures were at optimum, and therefore matched all other life requirements on this planet, and so we should return to it.
    But that was back in the LIA, why should we wish to have plant life struggling along at those levels of CO2? Why should we wish to have all life on this planet restricted to 1750 values?
    This idea is at it’s heart anti-life; for as atmospheric CO2 levels rises ALL life benefits from the consequential increase in plants’ abundance.

    IMO any CO2 atmospheric level from 400 to 1000ppmv is preferable for today’s life requirements, thankfully with the expansion of coal use globally assisting natural CO2 venting, that should be achievable.

  • Avatar

    Robert Beatty


    “Especially urgent is the need to get the truth into schools and universities, to correct the 30 years of damaging misinformation on the cause of climate change force-fed to our young people.”
    A good place to start would be a comprehensive lecture on the application of Henry’s Law, together with field studies involving a bottle of soda water, a chemistry set, and a temperature adjustable container.
    The results should show conclusively that we have no control over the level of CO2 in the air unless someone can come up with a way of changing the temperature of the oceans.

Comments are closed