Liz Wheeler: 10 Reasons Not To Believe Climate Change Criers

This is a surprisingly interesting video. Liz is talking to a youth conference of some sort (so you know they have been heavily Warmista Indoctrinated in school) and audience participation is low (as it usually is with kids). But instead of going into the technical bits, she has a set of clear reasoning that anyone can get (yeah, inattentive kid friendly). So things like pointing out WE get told we can’t have an opinion on Climate Catastrophic Change yet THEY use a child as their main spokesman even though Saint Gretta IS a child and NOT a “Climate Scientist”. So a different set of reasons than “the usual”.

She does a nice job of pointing out the rhetorical devices and logical traps used by the Warmistas.

The intro says Liz is on One America News Network hosting Tipping Point, so I guess now I have a reason to find / watch them. (Like most media women, she’s not hard to look at ;-)

It’s about 47 minutes so 4.x minutes per “issue”.

Subscribe to feed

About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in AGW and GIStemp Issues, AGW Climate Perspective, Global Warming General and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to Liz Wheeler: 10 Reasons Not To Believe Climate Change Criers

  1. Gary says:

    Looks like the group is Young America’s Foundation.'s_Foundation

    These kids are conservative and likely less susceptible to Warmista Indoctrination.

  2. serioso says:

    Okay, Mr. Smith. I watched the first ten minutes. And what does the lady do? Make a whole bunch of unsupported statements about what climate scientists [incorrectly] predicted. Which climate scientists? She doesn’t say! Which percentage of climate scientists? She doesn’t say. Her procedure is called creating straw men. And you fell for it. Enough said. Shame, I say, shame for inflicting this garbage on us. And why did you fall for it? I say you lose your skeptical nature when something you see agrees with your previous convictions. Sloppy. Try a little healthy skepticism!

  3. H.R. says:

    Serioso – Why would Liz Wheeler document what has already been documented, with links to images of the published material contemporaneous to the predictions when it has already been done.

    “50 Years of Failed Doomsday Eco-pocalyptic Predictions”

    Perhaps she gave a reference at the end. Perhaps her objective was to have the young people verify or refute her claims, which would be an excellent exercise with a mind to developing healthy skepticism. It’s easy enough to do, as I have just demonstrated. If she gave the sources, that would be like giving out the answers to a test before the test.

    You admit to watching 10 minutes of the video. I skipped through the video hoping for some cc but no luck, so you are 10 minutes up on me. But neither of us know the whole of her presentation or her objective. If it was to spark skepticism, then footnotes would be counter to her objective.

    So perhaps this wasn’t a rigorous scientific presentation, but rather an introduction to reasons to question the consensus (and consensus ain’t science) and a challenge to dig deeper.

    But how would either of us know? Neither of us watched it to the end.

  4. H.R. says:

    Oh, my. I owe Serioso an apology. We didn’t have to watch the video at all to understand Liz Wheeler’s presentation. She was giving a logical presentation, not a technical presentation. E.M. explained the purpose and conduct of the presentation, including an example, in his intro to the video.

    I’m sorry, Serioso (seriously). My bad. But you’re worsioso. You didn’t understand the video or the logic and you got to see 10 minutes of it… seriousalsoly.

  5. E.M.Smith says:

    Oh I just gotta love how Serioso can go all volcanic on NOT HAVING WATCHED IT.

    Now, had he actually observed the offered video, he would have noted that at one point she asks one of the kids in the Q&A “Did you get your copy of my book? Look in chapter” and I think it was 10… So you see, ALL of what she said was fully documented in her referenced book that was handed out to the participants of the event. At another point she holds up her notes (about an inch thick) and offers a copy of it to another kid.

    So Serioso is upset that the (extraordinarily well documented long long list of Chicken Little Predictions that have NEVER EVER come true) list of references is not spoon fed to him in the 10 minutes he chose to sample, so goes all Splody! Spewy… Just amazing. I’ll need to post more stuff like this, it’s fun to watch the result!

    BTW, she DOES give specific examples, even pointing out that the kids are sitting in chairs and the specific for their site said they would be in boats by now…

    But then you again fall back to that very boring only thing you do. Insults.

    Really, stretch a little. Learn a new trick or two.

    Her procedure is called creating straw men. And you fell for it. Enough said.

    Um, no. Her procedure is called “Audience Appropriate Style”. As a teacher, I appreciated how she “leveled” against the class and “pitched” at the right level. Doing citations and quotes from science papers and lists of names and dates would lose that audience. All that was in the book she handed out. Oh, but right, you didn’t watch that part of the video; preferring to “insult from ignorance” rather than “asses and evaluate the material”.

    Shame, I say, shame for inflicting this garbage on us.

    Again with the “shame” thing? I thought we covered that already? I do not shame. Period. The whole shunning and shaming thing is something my family got over when the left the Amish community. “Shame” is just handing your moral compass over to someone else and giving them power over you. No benefit in that. I have my own internal moral compass and by sticking to it, I never need ever deal with “shame”, and certainly not from someone other than myself.

    Now, as to “garbage”, since you DID NOT VIEW IT you can not possibly have an informed opinion. Shame, SHAME! ON YOU for spouting such garbage based on no information!! (See, I can play the shame game too ;-)

    And why did you fall for it?

    Weak insult “to the person” in the form of an implied failure noted and ignored as it is content free.

    I say you lose your skeptical nature when something you see agrees with your previous convictions. Sloppy. Try a little healthy skepticism!

    Then more appeals to insult and denigration noted and ignored as content free. However, there is one minor point in there. The idea that I’m not skeptical because YOU didn’t like it. That’s just Bull Shit.

    I watched the whole thing, generally was able to map her (age appropriate) statements about failed predictions to KNOWN TO ME ALREADY statements from others (like Tony Heller) that were with citations; so KNEW SHE WAS VALID AND CORRECT before I chose to post the video. I applied my skeptical filters and she passed.

    Now what’s particularly intriguing to me is your complete inability to see the audience, to know that as kids you do NOT load them up with boring as hell citations, and realize she was doing a great job of age appropriate presentation. Somehow I’d over estimated your abilities and thought maybe you had some clue about classroom presentation, leveling to the audience grade level, using age appropriate vocabulary, etc. Sorry for that.

    Then again, the only real skill I see you demonstrate is Troll Skills in insult and misdirection. I’ve been dealing with such stuff since about 1980 so I know all of the tricks. You have many of them but are still too ham handed. You need to work on subtlety, establishing some rapport before twisting the hook (the surprise element makes it more effective) and finding non-insult phrasing. Do that, you can make it to at least Journeyman level. But not even watch the video and then just toss crude insults? My God Man, that’s barely Apprentice Troll level.

  6. E.M.Smith says:


    I went looking for a written list of her 10 things, but didn’t find one in the time available. (It is “in the book”). When I get more time, I’ll watch this again and add “show notes” on them…

  7. Julian Jones says:

    Certainly the failed CC predictions part is correct and much else; particularly analysis of socialism. But her promotion of contemporary capitalism (which is clearly also in deep trouble) is questionable – and her promotion of nuclear is plain silly. Doesn’t she know that wind power is now coming in at half the price of nuclear now ? Or that wind energy is easily stored, ironically in the way that maintains nuclear output in UK – pumped storage.
    We have plainly been sold a ‘crock’ …. on pretty much everything.
    Our real problems seem to lie, in every sense of the word, within the over-sized social & economic systems we operate within. The EU is a classic case study (dunno about USA …). Our EU economy is simply bad centrally planned socialism under capitalist license; as continued QE demonstrates the EU economy’s inability to actually create real wealth.
    German historian Wittfogel, in Oriental Despotism (1959) coined the term Hydraulic Empire to describe many past failed civilisations’ social & economic systems and appears relevant to our present dilemmas. Hydraulic Empire’s cannot help but create needless social complexity (Joseph Tainter, USA, The Collapse of Complex Societies (1988), one explanation for continued QE ….
    With apologies if I posted here before, but William Blake (1757 – 1827) seemed to understand better than our contemporary political scientists :
    “And all the Arts of Life. they changd into the Arts of Death in Albion.
    The hour-glass contemnd because its simple workmanship.
    Was like the workmanship of the plowman, & the water wheel*,
    That raises water into cisterns: broken & burnd with fire:
    Because its workmanship. was like the workmanship of the shepherd.
    And in their stead, intricate wheels invented, wheel without wheel:
    To perplex youth in their outgoings, & to bind to labours in Albion
    Of day & night the myriads of eternity that they may grind
    And polish brass & iron hour after hour laborious task!
    Kept ignorant of its use, that they might spend the days of wisdom
    In sorrowful drudgery, to obtain a scanty pittance of bread:
    In ignorance to view a small portion & think that All,
    And call it Demonstration: blind to all the simple rules of life.”
    eg *Water power is nearly twenty times better, owing to its reduced social complexity, than nuclear at creating wealth and social equality …

  8. A C Osborn says:

    Julian Jones says: 15 October 2019 at 8:28 am
    I don’t know where you get your Wind Power values from, it certainly isn’t the UK.
    Yes there are CfDs coming in below Nuclear, even below Gas, but none of them have actually been built or supplied 1 Mw of power.
    The only reason UK nuclear is so high is due to them demanding the same subsidies that Wind Power currently enjoy for any new Nuclear builds.
    No one in their right mind is going to try and build unsubsidised generation to compete with subsidised Energy.
    You obviously have an unhealthy relationship with water power, which could never ever compete with the Steam Engine, let alone Petrol & Diesel for any real work, unless scaled up to very large Dam size for generation. Which takes the correct topography and large areas not available to the UK.

    For current UK Wind subsidies see

  9. julian jones says:

    BBC News – Climate change: Offshore wind expands at record low price

  10. A C Osborn says:

    Like I have already said, they are in the future and have not been built and have not supplied 1 Mw.
    When they have and continue to do so they will still NOT be cheaper than Nuclear could produce at because they need Backup, which is not costed to them and should be.
    Other counties are not subsidising Nuclear output, only a stupid government like ours with it’s climate change act would create the market conditions that require it to do so.

  11. We live in an abundance of free kinetic energy. Some further refs; the colossal PS capacity in much of UK can provide all the backup we will ever need, even with our ludicrous population densities; while protecting water resources and the £billions of flood damage here, etc :

    As for my “unhealthy relationship with hydropower”, I have stated here previously, I promote small river hydro for its huge economic & biodiversity gains (I am a deeply frustrated salmonid angler and river hydro correctly implemented is the best mechanism for protecting biodiversity.) Returning most funds to postgraduate studies to further the science here.
    You seem unaware of the advances in r-o-r hydro since 1800s …

  12. Apologies AC, I did misquote the economic gain of hydro, it is (apparently) only 8 or so times better than nuclear; it’s the gas generators that .5 economic gain vs 10 for community (or private) small hydropower*. Coal probably comes in between gas & nuclear. *Cardiff Business School

  13. H.R. says:

    @E.M. re the video: No need to do any extra work related to that video. In your response to Serioso, I gathered enough information to understand how it was all going.

    I did sample through the video and had already guessed at how it went: audience appropriate and some sort of handout with the object being to teach the kids to rethink all they have been spoonfed. I did note that she took questions from the kids at the end and Liz looked pleased that they were asking questions.

  14. M Simon says:

    Even if current climate theory is correct (it can’t possibly be) it fails even when self referenced.

    Caltech nailed it:

    Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas.

    Click to access Lecture6.pdf

    Water vapor (WV) and CO2 absorb/radiate in the same bands. There is on average 50 times as much WV as CO2 in the atmosphere..

    What is the problem? Obviously the oceans are way too big.

  15. Thank you M Simon, more on the importance of restoration of Water Cycle, the ‘grassroots’ stuff, from the great Walter Jehne (ex CSIRO):

    Strange how we learn all this stuff about the Water Cycle at around 11 yrs (in UK) at a simple level but rarely if ever applied, only slowly coming into Climate planning. I met and learned much from Walter in 2009, making an early film on SOCS, 45 mins :

  16. Simon Derricutt says:

    OK, about 2 minutes of intro, 24 minutes of lecture (2.4 minutes per point), and the rest open questions. Very much aimed at the actual age-group and US politics, and so I can’t really see this as much use to persuade any of the people I know who are certain that CO2 is evil and the reason for climate change. When I show people the history from places like the UK Met office, NASA or NOAA, or other places that should have a high confidence-level, the comments are along the lines of “you can find whatever you want on the internet” and they continue to believe what’s on the BBC and in the newspapers every day.

    Likely I’ll be told that the latest typhoon in Japan is evidence of just how real the Climate Emergency is. On the news it’s said to be the worst for 60 years (itself an interesting number given the 60 year cycles), and they won’t get the simple fact that it was worse 60 years ago than now (this one had scary windspeeds of 200kph, but in 1959 they were up to 300kph). Maybe one of the consequences of the current zeitgeist is that if it’s more than 30 years ago and hasn’t been experienced before by the young, then it’s unprecedented. I’ve seen on the news several on-the-spot interviews with young people saying something along the lines of “I’ve never known it this bad”, with the most obvious being a youth of around 15 years old.

    WUWT had a partial list of climate predictions that didn’t come true back in 2014 at that Serioso could refer to. IIRC there’s a few more such lists pointed to in the 121 comments. For the predictions made after around 2000 there are links to check that those predictions were actually made; for earlier ones it’s a bit harder to find the original text to check the provenance but I do recall a lot of them since at that time they were in the news. Probably all genuine predictions, therefore, though I couldn’t swear to every one. All stuff we were told was definitely going to happen if we didn’t obey (and of course we didn’t obey).

    With so many previous failed predictions, maybe we should believe the IPCC when it says that such predictions are mathematically impossible to do since it’s a chaotic system and we don’t know enough.

    I might have a way to get renewable energy 24/7/365 and I put a link to the the logic up in the last comment on Tips here (may have fallen down a black hole there but it seemed the logical place to put it rather than WOOD). That’s going to annoy the people wanting the GND to get into law, since they couldn’t argue against a non-polluting zero-Carbon option…. I could of course be wrong, and we’ll see once I have experimental results. Still, nobody has pointed out any errors in the logic so I’m feeling pretty optimistic. Funny thing is that the Extinction Rebellion people are asking for the impossible. They don’t want nuclear power, they don’t want fossil fuels, they want only wind and solar power (where a lot of fossil fuels go into making those things), and they don’t want plastic straws. OK, I’ll give them something they think is impossible and is none of the above. Can’t do a lot about the straws though – they’ll have to use pasta straws instead.

    One graph I really like is from the Met office, showing this “hottest evah!” year plotted against the range of temperatures back to 1772. (live plot)
    When you look at that you can see that it’s really not that special, and there’s pretty much as long below the average as above it. Just one spike of a day or two that just reaches beyond the previous hottest in 246 years or so, but 6 times the temperature was lower than 95% of the years and 5 spikes hotter than 95% of the years. Add in the known hot bias of modern temperature records (from UHI) and the ability of the electronic sensors used today to see much shorter temperature excursions (a second response time rather than 10 minutes) and the plot becomes even less of a hot year. AFAICT, though, even this Met office official data isn’t enough to show people I know that Global Warming is neither catastrophic nor due to CO2 concentration, since they’re being told every day on the news that only reducing the CO2 emitted will save them from all dying in a furnace.

  17. E.M.Smith says:


    I’d put a notice in W.O.O.D. text for a few months that I was deprecating TIPS pages, yet some folks are still using them. So, ought I keep making new TIPS pages?

    The high level of interest by the Waristas in “psychological” aspects tells me they know it is mostly a psy-op and not an actual event. All they really care about is why you are not herded into the mental pen, not your evidence nor arguments. It’s a propaganda mind game, near as I can tell.

    The good news is that it isn’t (yet) a majority in the pen AND the cold has come. We’re getting record setting cold this year and the winter is young; plus large snow volumes. IF they can’t “bring it home” in the next year or two, it will be painfully obvious that it’s a Big Lie.

  18. Simon Derricutt says:

    EM – it seemed the subject was more suited to a tip than a discussion of what’s in the news, but I could have added it to WOOD and maybe should have done. KISS principle (which I’m fond of). Still, TIP was there and still open. Personal satori moment of understanding where the standard definitions of things made a cock-up, and maybe I’ve explained it well-enough that others can see it too.

    “Waristas” may be a Freudian slip…. I used to simply accept the consensus until I spent the time actually looking at the data after a friend introduced me here, since I also have an inbuilt deference to recognised authority. It turns out though that simply showing people the data doesn’t have much effect when the YSM is telling them lies every day. As a psy-op it seems to be working pretty well. They’ll explain the coming cold times as being a result of warming, and people will accept it despite the cognitive dissonance, because they have too many other things (like paying the larger bills) clamouring for attention. Of course, if my idea actually is correct and I can build it here (and I think I can make one) then I’ll be selling it as a zero-Carbon renewable and use their propaganda against them. It has a certain irony….

  19. Larry Ledwick says:

    Put a final post in the most current tip thread saying it is being locked and no further will be used please go to the most recent WOOD thread.

    The close the thread to comments.

    I happen to like the tips because the WOOD threads are so active it is tough to go back and find “tips” you put in the WOOD threads, because the get full so quickly and it is sometimes hard to remember where the comment you are looking for might be buried in all the random contents.

  20. philjourdan says:

    Sorry-oso, you claim to have watched 10 minutes yet you did not read a single word of what was written. Or you failed to understand any that was written. Your first whining objection was directly addressed by EM in his narrative.

    It is no wonder I never read more than your first sentence. I do not do fake news or lies.

  21. Another Ian says:

    From an Australian perspective

    “Attention, students. Because so many of you missed Friday’s classes, what with your little climate party and all, today I’m assigning extra work.

    Let’s begin with mathematics. 558,400,000 is a really big number. Can anyone here tell me what it might represent? No? Well, that’s the amount in tonnes of carbon dioxide that Australia emitted last year. I’ll just pause here for a minute until Samantha stops crying. By the way, Samantha, your sign at the climate rally needed a possessive apostrophe and “planet” was spelled incorrectly, so I’m putting you back in remedial English again.

    Where were we? Oh, yes. 558,400,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide. Let’s see how we can reduce that number. Ban coal mining? That’ll knock off a big chunk. Ban petrol-powered vehicles? Good call. That’s another slab of emissions gone.

    Does the class believe we should ban all mining? You do. Interesting. For your homework tonight, I want you all to design batteries that contain no nickel or cadmium. Good luck getting to school in electric cars without those. And there’ll be no more steel wind turbines once the iron ore mines are closed. It’s just the price we’ll have to pay, I suppose.

    Even with all those bans, however, Australia will still be churning out carbon dioxide by the magical solar-powered truckload. Cuts need to go much further. More people means more human activity which means more carbon dioxide, so let’s permanently ban immigration. Is the class agreed? Hmmm. You’re not quite so enthusiastic about that one. Come on, students. Sacrifices must be made.

    Speaking of which, how many of you have grandparents? Not any more you don’t. And Samantha is crying again. Can someone please take her to the school safe space and let her “process some emotions”, or whatever the hell it is you kids do in there? Thank you. Sing along with Kim Carnes: “All the world knows of her charms/She’s got/Stop Adani arms”

    Who agrees we need to simplify our lives in order to reduce emissions? Returning to earlier times, when emissions were much lower, might help save our earth. So goodbye to air travel, the internet and your mobile phones. People got by without them in the past and they’ll survive without them in our sustainable future.

    Still, those emissions will be way too high. Just for fun, let’s ban Australia and see what happens. All factories, houses, streets, farms – gone. All people gone. Every atom of human presence on this land mass, completely erased. At that point we’ll have finally cut our emissions to nothing. We’ve subtracted an annual 558,400,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Congratulations, children. By eliminating Australia, you’ve just reduced the world’s yearly generation of carbon dioxide from 37,100,000,000 tonnes to just … 36,541,600,000 tonnes.

    Still, every tiny reduction helps, right? Maybe not. Let’s have a quick geography lesson. Tyler, please point out China on this map. No; that’s Luxembourg. China is a bit bigger. Try over here. There you go. Here’s the thing about China. How long will it take for China to produce the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide that we’ve slashed by vanishing Australia? One year? Two years? Five years?

    Not quite. Start the carbon dioxide clock on China right now, and that one enormous nation will have matched our annual output by October 30. China adds a whole Australia to the global emissions total every twenty days. For that matter, China will have added another 1,190,953 tonnes by the end of this one-hour class. Even a tiny increase in China’s output puts Australia in the shade. Various experts last year estimated that China was on course for a five per cent carbon dioxide boost. This would mean an extra 521,637,550 tonnes – or basically what Australia generates. Our total is the same as China’s gentle upswing.

    So maybe your protest was in the wrong country. Here’s another assignment: write letters to the Chinese government demanding it stops dragging people out of poverty. Make sure you include your full name and address, because the Chinese government is kind of big on keeping records. Send a photograph of yourself standing in front of your parents’ house.

    You might repeat this process in India. In fact, rather than going to Europe for your next big family holiday, prevail upon your parents to visit India instead. The tiny village of Salaidih would be the perfect place to tell slum-dwelling residents they shouldn’t have electricity. They’ll probably thank you for it. Or they should, if they aren’t stupid climate deniers. Indian paupers must avoid making the same tragic affluence mistakes as us, so we must keep their carbon footprints as tiny as possible. Can you imagine how terrible is would be for the earth if all of India’s one billion-plus population owned cars and air-conditioners? It really doesn’t bear thinking about.

    One further assignment: tonight, locate a clean, green alternative source for $66 billion in exports. That’s how much was raised last year by the Australian coal industry.

    Working it out won’t be too much of a challenge, I’m sure. After all, you know science and stuff. About half of your signs on Friday claimed you know more about all these things than does the Prime Minister.
    Show him how advanced your brains are by devising a brand-new multi-billion export bonanza.
    Hey, look who’s back! Feeling better, Samantha? That’s nice. Feelings are the most important thing of all.”

  22. Josh from Sedona says:

    I kind of had a little problem with her stating that the scientific consensus at one time was that the Earth was flat. Aristophanes calculated the circumference of the Earth in like 1:50 BC and that Columbus’s time no one thought the Earth was flat or I mean no educated person thought that, the whole Flat Earth myth is something started by Washington Irving

Comments are closed.