Archives quotidiennes :

better to know...?, energy and fields

We’re Teaching Kids Scarcity in an Age of Abundance

by N. Harden, Aug 27, 2026

Students head back to classrooms this month. Many arrive already convinced their future is hopeless.

In a Lancet Planetary Health study of 10,000 young people across ten countries, 75% said the future is frightening and 56% said they believe humanity is doomed. A 2025 PNAS study found one in five Americans aged 16 to 24 is afraid to have children because of the climate. That gloom has deepened over time. In Yale’s long-running survey, the share of Americans 18 to 34 who say global warming is already harming this country rose from 40% in 2012 to 64% in 2022.

What’s causing such a dramatic shift? It could be what’s missing in the classroom. Teenagers name teachers as their leading source on climate and energy. Seventy-one percent say they learned “a lot” or “some” from a teacher, ahead of parents at 67% and social media at 63%. Yet the median high school science teacher spends one or two hours a year on the subject, and three-quarters of teachers say they have never been trained to teach it.

The teaching gap shows. Nearly three-quarters of teens believe ocean plastic is a major contributor to climate change. (It’s not.) Energy illiteracy is even worse: fewer than a third of high schoolers can name the three sources that generate most American electricity. Energy literacy scores among high school seniors fell between 2017 and 2022.

What fills the gap is the phone. Researchers at the University at Buffalo, writing last fall in Climatic Change, found that heavier social media use correlates with what they call “climate doom,” the belief that warming will collapse social and economic order. When other researchers examined 100 climate videos on TikTok, only eight cited a reputable source.

A video feed full of ignorance and despair doesn’t make a good curriculum.

…

climate-debate

2025 Study: ‘There Exists No Unequivocal Experimental Evidence For The CO2 Greenhouse Effect’

by K. Richard, Aug 25, 2026 in NoTricksZone 

…data on CO2 cannot be explained by the model of the greenhouse effect as the driver for temperature”

Today’s climate models assume there is a perpetual positive feedback as more CO2 is added to the atmosphere; CO2-induced warming produces more and more warming.

But Dr. Peter Stallinga uses empirical evidence-based data in his 2025 paper to determine the actual feedback sign is negative – and by a factor of two. This destroys the catastrophic runaway warming narrative.

“…feedback [from added CO2] is empirically found to be negative [by a factor of 2]”

The research emphasizes the statistical connection between CO2 and temperature is not consistent, shifting across different time periods or theoretical frameworks. For example, the paleoclimate relationship between CO2 and temperature may be 2000 ppm per K, whereas it is assumed to be 100 ppm per K over the last 60 years.

These wildly divergent relationships suggest that complex, varied physical processes influence the climate system rather than a single, dominant factor (i.e., rising CO2 emissions).

Ultimately, the study concludes that the greenhouse effect alone cannot adequately explain all observed atmospheric data.

“On a contemporary timescale, it is clear why the temperature has risen so little compared to the GHE model; CO2 simply does not have a large enough effect on temperature.”