Are we polluting our children’s minds?

Just a general conversation with young kids, about (so called) Climate Change, will reveal that they are being fed much disinformation – be it via the media, the school curriculum or even from their parents and close relatives.

It seemed to me that much of the ‘knowlege’ espoused from these children’s mouths was very biased towards the THEORY of Carbon Based Man Made Climate Change (CAGW). Please remember a theory is still unproven.

My Husband remembers that in 1943 – while in the 4th grade at school, in his weekly reader, it espoused the fact that within ten years America would have used up all of its oil reserves…. never happened yet the kids were fed that information!

Reading my news online I came across the following, which I believe backs up what I was thinking/experiencing. Get the children young enough, teach them what you want them to know and believe, therefore indoctrinating them, and you have the whole future society doing your bidding (perhaps?).

What Are Schools Teaching Kids About Our Energy Future?
By Art Horn 

A very important component of our future energy development and production will come not necessarily from the truth but what is perceived to be the truth. Make no mistake, what today’s young people are taught in school about energy and its relationship to global warming will determine what direction we go in developing the critical energy resources we need. Plentiful and affordable energy is as important to the future of the world as the daily intake of food and water is to the survival of every man, woman and child alive today. Reliable and affordable energy is the nourishment of our way of life, without it we will starve and die.

I worked as an on air meteorologist for 25 years, mostly with NBC stations. Now I am self-employed. Recently I was presenting my program about how weather works to a middle school. During a break between groups I had a chance to look around the library where I was presenting my program. I thought it would be interesting and revealing to see what kind of books about energy and climate the library was providing to the students. It didn’t take long to find the answer.

The first book I found with little effort was titled “Are we running out of energy?” by Christiane Dorion and published by Arcturus books. Interestingly the logo for Arcturus books is a polar bear with a little star above its head. This book is overtly against traditional energy production. In chapter one on the second page, the author states “There are huge problems with using fossil fuels. First, they are non-renewable because they take millions of years to form and can only be used once. If we keep using them as we are now nearly all of the existing reserves will be gone by the end of the twenty-first century. Second, when we burn fossil fuels we produce polluting gases that contribute to warming the earth’s temperature. This is why we need to find alternatives.”

There are several factual problems with this paragraph. First there is no reliable estimate of how much fossil fuel energy is left in the earth. Some estimates indicate there could be hundreds of years of recoverable oil and natural gas buried in the earth’s crust. Secondly the author is referring to carbon dioxide “pollution” that is released by the burning of fossil fuels. Calling carbon dioxide pollution is misinformation designed to deceive the student. Pollution kills things, carbon dioxide is an essential component of the earth’s atmosphere and without it all plant, animal and human life would die. It is standard operating procedure to call carbon dioxide pollution in the alarmist man-made global warming industry. The environmental movement constantly uses the “carbon pollution” lie to push their anti-energy development agenda.

As I read through the book I found that virtually every page was full of misconceptions, errors if not outright lies. From page 10 “Discovering new reserves can also cause problems. As the earth’s temperature has risen with our burning of fossil fuels.” The author states that the reason the temperature has risen is because of burning fossil fuels. This is an assumption with computer models as the only “evidence” that this is true. The temperature of the earth has been rising since the bottom of the “Little Ice Age” around the year 1700. The rate of warming has not increased in the last 160 years. Half of the so-called global warming in the last 160 years was from 1910 to 1945. The next warming period was from 1977 to 1998. The rate of warming recently was exactly the same as the 1910 to 1945 warming. The warming stopped in 1998 and trend has been zero ever since.

The title of Chapter three is “Why is the climate changing?” The first sentence says “For nearly 200 years people have been changing the earth’s atmosphere by burning coal, oil and gas on a large-scale and pumping out massive amounts of carbon dioxide and other gases.” She never mentions that as a percent of the atmosphere the total increase in carbon dioxide since 1800 is .01%. She then also states that “The earth’s temperature is warming faster than at anytime in the past 10,000 years.” This is clearly false. Ice cores from Greenland indicate that the earth’s climate has warmed and cooled many times during the past 10,000 years. The warming periods have often been much more rapid than the current rate. She also never mentions that over the last 160 years of thermometer measurement the earth has only warmed 1 degree Fahrenheit and the warming is not accelerating.

She goes on to mention that “Polar bears face the loss of their icy wilderness in the Arctic” but never informs the student that there are now an estimated 25,000 polar bears in the Arctic, up from an estimate 5,000 in the 1960s. Any middle school student reading this book will come away with the message that oil, coal and gas are bad and we must stop using them immediately no matter what the consequences.

Another book I found was titled, “A Green World?” by Nicola Baird published by Franklin Watts, a division of Grolier publishing. This is a highly biased book written by a far left environmentalist. Nicola Baird has been a board member of the Forest Stewardship Council and has served as an editor of publications at the radical environmental group Friends of the Earth. On every page of this book the author claims that basically everything that humans do is threatening the earth’s well being and we need to change our evil polluting ways. She mentions Rachel Carson’s book “Silent Spring” and the damaging effects of DDT. Of course she never mentions that the banning of DDT has caused the death of tens of millions of people in the third world who were bitten by malaria carrying mosquitoes. DDT is the only proven chemical that can safely kill those mosquitoes.

She also is telling the students reading this book that so-called “polluters” should pay for their destruction of the environment and climate. She says “However, some people believe that preserving the environment will not necessarily harm economic growth in the long-term, and that businesses can find a balance between the two, if they have to.” The “if they have to” implies some kind of government regulation to force companies to “go green” of else. She goes on to endorse the policies of other radical environmental groups such as Greenpeace with quotes such as “In half an hour enough of the sun’s energy is received by the earth to power humankind’s activities for a year.” Ignoring that fact that solar power always needs traditional fossil fuel power plants to back them up at night or when it’s cloudy.

In yet another book called “Natural Disasters” by Claire Watts and Trevor Day published by DK publishing there is a section on Climate Change. The book says “For about the last 100 years our planet has been growing warmer, but in the last few decades the rate of change has increased dramatically. Many scientists believe that this global warming is largely due to the enormous volumes of polluting gases released by burning fossil fuels.” The authors have clearly decided that the message is more important than the facts. Data from the Hadley Center global temperature record shows that since 1945 earth’s average temperature has only increased in one 21 year period, from 1977 to 1998. There was a slight cooling from 1945 to 1976 and no warming since 1998. This is not a dramatic increase over the last few decades but the unaware students will be left with that message. The section also recites the mandatory threat to polar bears due to decreasing ice. Sea ice in the arctic is cyclical and is tied to the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO). When the AMO is in the warm phase the Gulf Stream pumps warmer water into the Arctic and the amount of sea ice is reduced. In the cold phase of the AMO the flow of warm water in the Gulf Stream slows and sea ice in the Arctic increases. The Atlantic has been in the warm phase since the mid 1990s and will continue to be for another 10 years or so. After that the AMO will return to the cool phase and sea ice will increase again in the Arctic.

I shuffled through a few more books and found “Water For Life” by Valerie Bodden published by Creative Education. On the very first page the book trumpets “Temperatures are warming as greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide trap heat in the atmosphere. As one reads through the book the same messages are repeated that I found in the other books. Human activity is destroying or will destroy the earth and we need to change our ways if we’re going to save nature. The book continually says that our use of water is excessive and methods of using water to generate power like hydroelectric plants destroy wetlands and harm fish migrations. On page 21 the author says “global warming caused by the production of greenhouse gases appears to be a growing threat to earth’s water supply. Although some scientists disagree about the extent of global warming, many believe that earth’s surface temperature could increase by 2 to 11.5 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century. As a result many of the world’s glaciers could melt, causing the rivers they supply to at first overflow and then slow to a trickle. Warming temperatures and melting glaciers may also cause sea levels to rise and submerge coastal wetlands and cities.” I think it’s interesting that the author chose to mention wetlands first and then cities submerging.

The point is that this is another of an apparently endless series of books made for middle school students that condemns how we live and how we make energy. If this one school library is a microcosm of other school libraries around the country than these same messages are being pounded into the heads of our youth day after day, year after year with virtually no opinion from anyone other than environmentally driven eco-authors whose mission is to re-invent energy production with no idea of how to do it. By the time these students are old enough to question the assumptions and errors in these books it might be too late to reverse the direction the radical environmental movement has taken us.


 As a final thought, have you as a parent looked into what information – disinformation is being spoon fed to the young minds, who will lead our nation into the future? Man Made Global Warming – Climate Change is not a proven fact, so feeding your children disinformation is a disservice, a very dangerous one at that! Maybe it is time to look at your school’s resources and curriculum.

About JustMEinT Musings

I like writing, reading and expressing my opinions. I prefer natural health and healing to pharmaceutical drugs. Jesus Christ is my Lord and Saviour.
This entry was posted in Anthropological Global Warming, CO2, GENERAL MUSINGS, Indoctrination and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

46 Responses to Are we polluting our children’s minds?

  1. Dikran Marsupial says:

    “Please remember a theory is still unproven.” No theory can ever be proven, only disproven, this is a fairly basic truism of the philosophy of science. It is rather ironic that an article on [d,m]isinformation should begin with such an error. It may be the case that some textbooks have errors, however a much better solution has been provided by the IPCC in the form of the WG1 Scientific Basis Report, which sets out the mainstream scientific position on basically all relevant issues. I would strongly recommend it as the next book you read on the topic.

    For a classic example of misinformation, you could do little better than “She never mentions that as a percent of the atmosphere the total increase in carbon dioxide since 1800 is .01%.”. This is a rather selective choice of measurements that makes the increase in carbon dioxide seem negligible. However, the 0.03% of carbon dioxide in the pre-industrial atmosphere was responsible for 9-26% of the natural greenhouse effect that makes the earth about 33 degrees centigrade warmer than it would otherwise be. A rise from 0.03% to 0.04% seems rather more substantial when that information (the strength of the effect) is included. If you want to avoid indoctrination of our children, I suggest you might want to start with some introspection and self-skepticism.

    I’m sorry to leave a rather critical comment on your blog, but I am also vary concerned about misinformation.

    • You are entitled to leave what you term ‘a rather critical comment’ on my blog, that is what a conversation is for. I made it quite clear that so long as you do not attack me personally, your comments/conversation would be most welcome.

      • Dikran Marsupial says:

        I’m glad you took the comment in the intended spirit. However, it would be constructive if you could respond to the point raised, namely that while while Art Horn is clearly against indoctrination of our children (I am not keen on it either), he very clearly presenting a rather nuanced view of the facts, and hence is perpetuating attempts to indoctrinate the parents of those children into believing that fossil fuel use is not a problem. The climate debate is full of such nuanced presentations, which can very easily mislead, and it is vital that these presentations are not repeated without appropriate caveats from those who actually have investigated the science in some detail themselves. I can strongly recommend as a place to go and investigate such skeptical arguments.

        Would you agree that Art Horn (at least in the specific example I gave) is presenting his argument in a rather less than straightforward manner (he suggests that the rise in CO2 if very small, leaving the reader to implicitly infer that therefore the rise in CO2 cannot be responsible for the observed rise in temperatures, however this inference would be faulty as it ignores the strength of the effect)?

  2. Your math is incorrect. The scientists have claimed that we have had an 80 PPM increase in CO2. Accepting that as fact and I don’t but for argument’s sake here are the facts. The fractional equvalent of 80 PPM is not your figure but actually 8/100,000ths of 1%. To graph this, I could only come up with 12 points per inch. I would actually have to have a graph 694 feet long and the increase would only be 3/4 of 1 inch on that graph. The key is that we have had a hundred years of industrial revolution and it ONLY increased the CO2 by 8/100,000ths of 1%

    The reason is the the specific gravity of CO2 is 1.52 or in other words 152% heavier than air. It SINKS TO THE GROUND WHEN RELEASED!. It does not rise into the atmosphere unless we repeal the law fo gravity. This is why they use it in fire extinguishers and spooky ground fog in the movies.

    As far as polar bears going extinct because of ice melting, that is an absolute fraud. It is true that polar bears depend upon seal pups for food that they get from ice caves. If all the ice melted, the seals would continue to mate but then would have to deliver their pups on solid ground which would provide a veritable smorgasbord for the bears. The bear population would actually increase becasue it is a little known fact that animals inicrease or decrease their offspring according to available food or prey. As to polar bears drowning becuase the sea ice went away, this is another absolute fraud. Look up polar bears in any text and you will note that they are classified as a sea mammal the same as seals and walruses. They can swim non stop for over 60 miles at 6 mph more than twice as fast as a human can swim.

    These are just a few FACTS from my scientific refutation of global warming theory. Another fact is that there have been no control studies done according to the Scientific Method in violation of the Scientific Method which negates all the research. There are also no experimeents proving the theory according to the Scientific Method. Instead they sustitute CONSENSUS which is why the Scientific Method was created, to eliminate consensus.

    Blessings on you and yours
    John Wilder

    • Thanks John
      A delightful response. It is such a shame the opposing sides need to fight. I could wish for an open and scientific debate. The facts you gave are well known. It is aslo well known that CO2 is essential to life on this planet, so with the soon to come into effect – Carbon Tax in Australia – effectively we will be taxed for breathing.

      Reciprocal Blessings,


      • Dikran Marsupial says:

        Opposing sides do not need to fight. Science proceeds via rational argument, you can disagree without it being a fight. Sadly John’s argument about CO2 sinking to the floor is demonstrated to be false by direct observation. If you go and measure atmospheric CO2 at the top of a mountain in a rural location, you will find it is about the same as the measurements from Mauna Loa (the Keeling curve) or any of the other stations worldwide where CO2 is routinely measured. If CO2 sinks, where did the mountaintop CO2 come from? The reason CO2 doesn’t sink to the ground is wind. The atmosphere is turbulent and this mixes the gasses in the atmosphere.

        If John question whether the post-industrial rise in atmospheric CO2 is due to anthropogenic emissions, that is also a question easily resolved. If nature were a net source of carbon into the atmosphere, then the annual rise in atmospheric CO2 would be greater than annual anthropogenic emissions (as both man and the natural environment would be contributing to the rise). However, it isn’t, the annual rise is on average only about half anthropogenic emissions, which establishes that the natural environment is a net carbon sink, taking more carbon out of the atmosphere than it emits. This has been the case at least for the last fifty years for which we have reliable direct measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

  3. Dave Leaton says:

    Hrmmm . . . odd . . . a teacher should be a proponent of critical thinking. Where is Dikran’s comment? You’re concerned with misinformation, but you advocate for children to simply believe what they are told–or, rather, what you tell them. I’d like to see just how intelligent and thoughtful you are. Engage the material. Engage the responses. Don’t hide. Knowledge is responsibility. Dikran responded to you, yet you refuse to acknowledge it–do you not want to take responsibility for your misunderstanding of theory?

    Oh, and you do know that your God did not make an endless supply of fossil fuels, yes? Or is someone feeding you a whopper? Regardless of the climatological effects–the rapid decline of Arctic sea ice (and resulting albedo feedback), the rapid sea level rise, the increase in global humidity, and increasing ocean acidity–you’re going to have to face the fossil fuel music at some point. If you don’t encourage sustainable energy sources now, these children you allegedly care for will be left killing each other for the dregs of the oil drum and the last dribbles of the natural gas fountain (indeed, they already are).

    Finally, you do realize you’re projecting when you say this: “Get the children young enough, teach them what you want them to know and believe, therefore indoctrinating them, and you have the whole future society doing your bidding (perhaps?).” No better example of this method of indoctrination has ever existed than the example of religious indoctrination. That is precisely how organized religion is reproduced as a cultural feature–precisely why “Jesus Christ is [your] Lord and Saviour.” Had you been born in Islamabad, Hanoi, or Mumbai, your religious faith would probably still be adamant, but the details would undoubtedly be different.

    • The comment you asked about is visible for all to see…… need I appologise for not being at my computer all hours of day and night?

      Dave I am apalled that you would sink low and attack my personal faith on this blog. Yes it is visible and no secret, yet I have not brought it to the fore in my discussion yet you did? I am not ashamed of stating Jesus Christ is My Lord and Saviour and I shall not hide my faith. Whether I became a Christian as a child or as an older adult should be neither here nor there – but as you raised the issue I became a Christian as an adult, with an adults faith. Whether it was in Pakistan, Istanbul, London, Seattle or Sydney has no bearing on the fact.

      Children can be taught things but as they come to a certain level of adutlhood they can, if they so choose, decide for themselves. (Stalin was a Divinity Student, Hitler was a Choir Boy and Benito Mussolini was a Roman Catholic – in the opposite camp you will discover Pope Benedict was in the Hitler Youth Movement! and not to be left our Julia Gillard was raised a Christian and now is a staunch athiest) Many will not – many will simply allow themselves to blindly follow. If you have a brain and a heart, you will grow up and question….. I can only hope these children who are being taught THEY are responsible for AGW, will question it in due course and come down hard (if they are able to) against all this hogwash they are being filled with now.

      I pray you will forgive me for asking you to refrain from attacking my Faith. If not then I must also tell you I will not allow you comment on my blog. I said this is a conversation
      and to me that means being polite and not attacking me or my personal beliefs as you did.

      • Dave Leaton says:

        I’m not attacking your faith, JustMe. As I said, I think your faith would be just as strong were you born within Islamic or Buddhist culture. I’m pointing out the fact that Christianity as a system of belief is typically developed within childhood. Theologians have recognized the advantages of early indoctrination for centuries (probably a whole lot longer). Many question what they were given, but few turn away after having invested themselves for so long. And, of course, the unknown is a powerful, if irrational, argument for belief. It’s easy to say “you can decide for yourself,” but the actual decision is not so easy, not when the surrounding culture is normed to organized religion. It also requires leaving who you were as a child and adolescent, and becoming in many ways a new person.

        You say “hogwash,” but, again, upon what basis do you choose one opinion-maker over another. You have two people in this comment stream who are presenting you with what seems to be factual information–statistics and theory anyway. How do you choose who is right? John Wilder says, “The reason is the the specific gravity of CO2 is 1.52 or in other words 152% heavier than air. It SINKS TO THE GROUND WHEN RELEASED!. It does not rise into the atmosphere unless we repeal the law fo gravity. This is why they use it in fire extinguishers and spooky ground fog in the movies.” Now, I point out that CO2 has been measured for decades in the stratosphere. You have a choice. If you don’t believe that CO2 is resident in the stratosphere, then you’re calling hundreds of scientists liars, over the course of decades, long before the modern development of the theory of AGW (though long after Arhennius). If you do believe that CO2 is resident in the stratosphere, then John Wilder is wrong about at least one thing. I won’t say that he thinks you’re stupid enough to believe him without question, because it’s quite likely that he’s simply been misinformed.

        Now, if you do agree that John is misinformed about atmospheric CO2, then you might go back to his first argument, that CO2 has only increased less than 1% over the last 150 years. I won’t copy/paste when it takes little energy to click a link: go here for the rebuttal to Wilder. After having read the rebuttal, I’ll ask you again: upon what basis do you decide who is right?

        As far as the polar bears go, Wilder might be right. Maybe both the bears and the seals can adapt to the rapidly changing conditions. Maybe bear numbers will skyrocket until the seal population is wiped out and a new equilibrium is established. Or, maybe the polar bears and seals will not be able to evolve quickly enough. A hundred years is a very short amount of evolutionary time for mammals and other long lifecycle animals.

        To you, John Wilder, I say this: if your mind is open, as it should be, then you should be willing to test your theories against what the science is telling us, unless, of course, you believe that tens of thousands of scientists are all involved in a massive conspiracy to steal tax dollars from you. In that case, there’s no point in discussing anything with you.

  4. I believe you are confusing the common meaning of the word “theory” with the scientific meaning of the word. In the present case, the word theory means that the science is on solid ground; just as we do not completely understand the theory of gravity, yet it is there, and we understand its effects if not its exact cause.

    This type of example cannot be compared with incorrect predictions of oil reserves from grade school newspapers.

    When scientific theories are postulated, experiments can be performed to see if the theory holds true — and in this case, it most certainly holds true.

    Based on the laws of physics and assumptions about future emissions, scientists warned us more than 20 years ago that droughts, floods, extreme precipitation events, and fires would increase. Indeed, they all have, and in a very significant proportion. And, Australia has had perhaps more than its fair share of all of the above. It is notable that the temperature of the surface of the ocean around Australia was higher last year than ever before in recorded history. These hotter ocean waters feed enormous rain storms and cyclones.

    Due to the increased temperature of the atmosphere, a global average of up to 4% more water vapor is being held in it. However, the amount held in the air over land is higher because temperatures over land are higher. This increased percentage of water vapor has an enormously disproportionate effect on storms — for example, an increase in water vapor of 5% can lead to a 200% increase in precipitation, and certainly you have seen that during the flooding in Australia last year, and now in the record-breaking floods along the Missouri River in the upper Midwest in the U.S. right now.

    At the same time the American southwest is experiencing a drought that is worse than anything every recorded, with an all time low humidity of 1% in Nevada, and the worst fires in history.

    Cities in the state of Texas are experiencing temperatures unheard of, as hot as 117 °F (47.22 °C), yesterday.

    Need I also mention the worst tornado swarms in U.S. history.

    This is all due to the increased energy in the atmosphere.

    Yes, our children need to know what we face because they are the ones who will be paying the price for our folly in not doing something to halt the continued emissions of CO2.

    For more information, please check my blog (no commercial content is permitted):

    Climate Change: The Next Generation.

    I have been blogging on climate change since 2007, and unfortunately the news only gets worse and worse,. I’ll be posting on Greenland soon (do you have snow cones in Australia? that is what Greenland is melting like right now).

    Thank you for reading.

    Tenney Naumer

    • You don’t think the world is cycling… in climate/weather as history records it has always done? You are keeping a close watch on space weather? The tilting of Earth’s axis too? The number of volcanoes going off and the sliding of the various techtonic plates…. or are you infering that human kind is also responsible for them. Perhaps Julia and Bob will work out a way to tax those natural happenings in a similar fashion they want to tax carbon dioxide.

      • Dikran Marsupial says:

        Climatologists have looked at these issues in some detail, in what they call “attribution” studies, where they see how much of the observed warming can be adequately explained by the underlying physics (chapter 9 in the most recent IPCC WG1 scientific basis report). For instace, the IPCC explicitly state that most of the warming observed in the first half of the 20th century can be attributed to changes in solar forcing.

        Volcanoes have very little long term effect on climate. In the short term (a few years) the aerosols they emit cause cooling, this is observable by the brief dip in global temperatures following events such as Pinatubo. Volcanos do emit CO2 as well, but the amount each year is only about 1% of fossil fuel emissions. If you look at atmospheric CO2 measurements there isn’t even a detectable blip following major eruptions.

        Tectonic plates do shift, but so slowly that they only affect climate on a geological timescales (millions of years), mainly by the effect of changes in the chemical weathering thermostat affecting levels of atmospheric CO2.

        For tilting of the Earth’s axis, I presume you mean Milankovic cycles. Again, this is well understood and incorporated into mainstream climate science. If the post-industrial rise were attributable to Milankovic cycles, this would be apparent. Milankovic cycles do not have much of an effect on a centennial scale.

        By space weather, I assume you refer to the solar-wind/cosmic ray argument of Svensmark? There is very little support from experiment or observation for that theory (although the theory is interesting). There has been a multi-million euro project running at CERN (the CLOUD project) looking to see if the basic mechanism proposed by the theory can be reproduced in clean experimental conditions, and they have had very little success.

        Science should have an effect on taxation, however taxation should have no effect on science. Taxation has no bearing on the physics of the climate, so I would advise that it is best not to mix political and scientific arguments, as it gives the impression of bias.

      • Dave Leaton says:

        Many of the natural ‘cycles’ and forcings of the last century were actually working to cool the planet. The long-range temperature record shows a definite trend downward, perhaps heading toward the next ice age in the cycle, until the last century. And the last 40 years spikes sharply upward. If we interrupt the effect of long-range cooling on the polar regions (growing ice cap reflects more and more solar energy–to an extent) by getting rid of the ice caps, then we risk greatly enhancing the natural warming spike on the other side of the cooling spike.

        JustMeinT, you can’t–or shouldn’t–proclaim the validity of the science that reveals the natural cycles and then deny the validity of the science (often done by the same scientists) that reveals 20th/21st century global warming. Or are you relying on science for the idea of natural cycles?

  5. With regard to this:

    “I think it’s interesting that the author chose to mention wetlands first and then cities submerging.”

    Early settlers naturally avoided building near known wetlands due to their unhealthy properties, like malaria-carrying mosquitoes. The towns were built away from them.

    It is for this reason that the wetlands will be affected by sea level rise before the cities.

    • Well said I do not dispute that, however look at a world map and note just how many cities and towns are built on waterways… obviously done in early history to faciitate goods coming in and out by boats.

      • Dikran Marsupial says:

        Land near waterways are not necessarily wetlands. Wetlands are areas where the soil is permanantly or seasonally saturated, which doesn’t necessarily ocurr around all waterways. As Tenney said, early settlers avoided building near known wetlands, pointing out settlements near waterways in no way contradicts that.

        Note that the mosquitos that are the vector for malaria don’t like freely flowing water (e.g. rivers) and prefer to lay their eggs in ponds, so a city built near a free flowing river is consistent with Tennys’ point. Good for transport of goods, bad for malaria, good place for a settlement. It is ironic that an unintended side effect of the canals built by the British in India for better transport of goods caused an increase in malaria to Indian cities, which all of a sudden were next to large areas of slow moving water, ideal places for mosquitos to lay their eggs.

        In the U.K. there is an increasing problem with flooding due to building on flood plains. These have not been previously used for building as people have always avoided such wetlands, but the population density in the U.K. means this is now becoming less easily avoidable. If early settlers hadn’t avoided them, they would already have been settled.

  6. There is a further aspect of sea level rise and the wetlands. In many regions near the sea, wetlands have been drained to make way for agriculture. Some regions, particularly in Egypt, Bangladesh, and some Pacific islands are already experiencing sub-surface infiltration by sea water, rendering them unfit for agricultural production.

    • I do hope you are expending all this energy in argument and proving facts to be incorrect – on the original author of the article I passed along? He said he was a ? retired meterologist – I suspect that gives him a certain amount of credibility when it comes to matters of climate/weather.

      • Dikran Marsupial says:

        In science, credibility is irrelevant, whether a scientific argument is correct depends on the correctness of the premises on which it is based and the internal consistency of the logic by which the conclusion is drawn. One should be skeptical of any argument, regardless of the source, especially if it conforms with ones own expectations.

  7. re: “Of course she never mentions that the banning of DDT has caused the death of tens of millions of people in the third world who were bitten by malaria carrying mosquitoes. DDT is the only proven chemical that can safely kill those mosquitoes.”

    This is not correct. It was already known in the 1950s that mosquitoes were developing resistance to DDT.

    Please note:

    “A WHO study released in January 2008 found that mass distribution of insecticide-treated mosquito nets and artemisinin–based drugs cut malaria deaths in half in Rwanda and Ethiopia, countries with high malaria burdens. IRS with DDT did not play an important role in mortality reduction in these countries.[123][124]

    Vietnam has enjoyed declining malaria cases and a 97% mortaility reduction after switching in 1991 from a poorly funded DDT-based campaign to a program based on prompt treatment, bednets, and pyrethroid group insecticides.[125]

    In Mexico, effective and affordable chemical and non-chemical strategies against malaria have been so successful that the Mexican DDT manufacturing plant ceased production due to lack of demand.[126]”

  8. Hey Dave
    I don’t dispute that CO2 is present in the stratosphere, but it is windblown just like dust. When the wind dies down the dust and CO2 settle out. We have had a very small increase in the CO2 relative to the world level.

    If you were REALLY serious about limiting CO2 then why not call for an immediate ban on all carbonated soft drinks. We manufacture CO2 to pump into soft drinks.

    Why not call for an immediate ban of beer brewing, wine and distilled spirits which all count on fermentation and billions of cubic feet of CO2. Oh and by the way you would also need to call for immediate cessation of all yeast bread because this too contributes mightily to CO2.

    We can increase CO2dramatically more than we have and the plants will take it up because it has been proven that plants thrive in a CO2 rich environment. Owners of Greenhouses actually pump into their greenhouses CO2 to increase yields.

    We are such a small part of the total world environment that it really does not matter.

    By the way, there are no experiments according to the Scientific Method proving anthropogenic warming. This is why they talk about consensus which has no place in science. Also there are no control studies or double blind studies being done on global warming like in real science designed to eliminate tester bias. Not to mention the “heat island effect” that most of the heat sensors are located in densely populated areas.

    John Wilder

    • Dikran Marsupial says:

      Winds significantly above the surface don’t really die down. Dust, unlike CO2, has non-negligible drag, so it is not a reasonable comparison anyway.

      The reason we would not call for a measures against carbonated drinks is because the carbon dioxide they contain came from the atmosphere in the first place, so from that point of view it is carbon-neutral (the only additional carbon is from the fossil fuel expended in injecting the CO2 under pressure).

      Again, for alcahol and bread, the carbon comes from the plant material the yeast feeds on, which came from the atmosphere and hence is carbon-neutral.

      Essentially the only carbon that makes a long-term difference is the carbon that has been re-introduced to the carbon cycle by digging it out of the ground (where it has been for millions of years) and burning it. Just cylcing the carbon from one part of the carbon cycle to another is no problem, so there is no reason to legislate against it.

      If plants can take up the additional CO2, then why haven’t they? They will take up some of the CO2 from fossil fuel emissions, the oceans will take up more, but full equilibriation will take millenia, and it won’t even start until we reduce emissions to a level where uptake by these natural carbon sinks can at least match our emissions.

      “We are such a small part of the total world environment that it really does not matter.” is a specious argument. If I had one HIV virus in my bloodstream, that would be a very small part of my total body, but I would certainly say that it mattered.

      There is no scientific experiment that can ever prove anything. You can only disprove by experiment. Thus requiring proof is an irrational stance as it is well known that it is unavailable. General relativity has not been proven, evolution has not been proven, quantum physics has not been proven the list goes on; all of these things are generally accepted as true even though they have not been, and cannot be proven (only corroborated). Pointing out that AGW is not proven is as technicallty correct as it is meaningless.

      The urban heat island effect is corrected for in the temperature records. If you generate the data using data from rural stations (or stations labelled as good or better by Anthony Watts very useful surface station project) you get the same result. Scientists do check that their results are robust to such issues.

    • Dikran Marsupial says:

      I forgot to mention, regarding concensus. The consensus (such as it is) is a consequence of the science pointing in generally the same direction, not the cause. Whether a scientific theory is true does not depend one iota on the proportion of scientists that believe it is true. However, the fact there is a broad concensus amongst climatologists is relevant to the debate. For those who do not have the expertise or the time or the energy to investigate the science for themselves, we need to delegate that task to some group of individuals who do have the expertise and the time and the energy to understand the science as fully as is currently possible. The fact that about 97% of climatologists think that AGW is broadly correct is evidence (but not proof) that it is broadly correct. For most scientific subjects there is a broad concensus, and on most ocasions it is correct (forming what Kuhn would describe as a scientific paradigm). Occasionally there will be a Gallileo figure, or a Newton, or an Einstein that overturns these paradigms, but that happens only very rarely, and for every Gallileo, there are thousands and thousands of scientists who are merely mistaken and ignored by history.

  9. Dikran
    You need to study the ways that we generate CO2 in the lab for soft drinks. We are not suctioning it out of the air but are literally manufacturing it in the lab. Fermentation is a net positive contributor to CO2 as well.
    Your info is incorrect.
    John Wilder

    • Dikran Marsupial says:

      O.K., so the carbon, where does it come from? If you can give me a verifiable reference that demonstrates that the carbon dioxide in carbonated drinks is from fossil sources, then I will agree with you that it is a contributor to the rise in atmopsheric CO2. One would need to work out though whether it was a sufficiently large source to be worth legislating against.

      However, that is a rather minor point, I’d be interested to hear your response to the other, more substantive points. For instance why is CO2 observed to be well mixed according to both surface station measurements and satelite observations, which show that background CO2 levels vary by only about 7ppm across the globe (see NASA AIRS project ). According you your argument, that should be impossible.

    • Dikran Marsupial says:

      “Fermentation is a net positive contributor to CO2 as well.”

      That is simply incorrect. As I said the carbon in the CO2 from fermentation is from plant matter (I’m rather partial to a glass of Laphroaig every now and again), and the carbon in that plant matter was taken from the atmosphere. Thus all the fermentation is doing is returning carbon back to the atmosphere where it came from, and thus has no net effect on atmospheric CO2 levels. Of course all food production, unless you grow it in your garden, consumes fossil fuel in production and transport, but there is no additional carbon emission from fermentation.

  10. Dikran Marsupial says:

    Well haven given a few days for a reply, I think it is worth asking who is doing the misleading and who is misled.

    I have indicated I am willing to change my mind if given evidence (see a couple of posts up). John has given no such indication. That is rather suggestive of a lack of the self-skepticism that guards against being mislead. It is human nature for us to be more accepting of information that conforms to our expectations, so we need to be more skeptical of our own views, not less, if we want to seek the truth.

    John presented many points (in rhetoric this is a device known as argumentum verbosium – presenting so many arguments that an opponent probably hasn’t the energy to deal with them all, thus creating the impression that they can’t). However I did address the majority of points that I thought incorrect, providing counter arguments. John has not been able to refute any of them, or admit he was wrong and has left the discussion. This suggests that perhaps John’s arguments are not as strong as he thought, and perhaps he has been misled by skeptic arguments, and is misleading others by uncritically propagating them.

    As a scientist and a christian, I think the truth is very important, and I also know that we human beings have a gift for self-deception, which can only be dealt with by self-skepticism.

    • Hey Dikran
      I have done my own research and have not depended upon others for my info. Please note that I answered questioins this am.. I took leave of the discussion, not becaue I am not sure of my findings or doubt them but because it is futile to discuss this with avowed global warming fear mongers who believe themselves to be true.

      As to the ice sheets growing smaller, this too is a lie. Punch into google the phrase
      Glacier Girl. This is a documentary of guys going to Greenland to rescue a P-38 Lightening figher plane that was abandoned in 1944 when it ran out of gas and they had to land on the glacier. It provided a testament that the ice sheet not only had not gotten smaller but had actually grown in height by 268 feet. They had to burrow down that far into the ice to recover the plane that was landed on the surface. More environmental lies have been promulgated over decreasing ice sheets. This proves them to the liars that they are.

      John Wilder

      • Dikran Marsupial says:

        Firstly, most of the concern about the Arctic is about sea ice extent/volume, not the greenland ice sheet. If you don’t accept the satelite imagery that shows sea ice extent and volume have both been decreasing at a rapid rate, then there is always the fact that the northwest passage has been navigable by normal vessels for several years in the last decade. In the past it has been navigable by specially designed vessels (i.e. ice breakers) but not by ordinary vessels. Most of the historical transits of the norwest passage were made by vessels that deliberately got themselves stuck in the ice, so the navigation wasn’t completed in a single year.

        Now to greenland and glacier girl. Glaciers are formed by snow compacting to form ice. The reason that glaciers don’t grow infinitely thick is because they flow from the region where they accumulate outwards, in this case to the ocean. In steady state conditions, the rate of accumulation is the same as the rate at which ice flows out to sea and the glacier keeps the same thickness. Thus if you leave an aeroplane on top of a glacier, it will get buried by snow and then ice. How thick the covering of ice depends on (i) how long it is left there (ii) how much it snows (iii) how warm it is there and (iv) what kind of terrain the ice is flowing over. If the ice is flowing over flat ground, then it tends to thin and speed up. If it is flowing over rough ground, then the extra friction between the ground and the bottom of the glacier causes it to move more slowly and the ice thickens. Thus you can’t tell much about glaciers melting by looking at just one spot, without considering the dynamics of the ice flow. Thus it does not prove that anyone is a liar.

        “but because it is futile to discuss this with avowed global warming fear mongers who believe themselves to be true.”

        It is a shame that you have resorted to insults. I am no “avowed global warming fear monger”, I have merely presented counter arguments to scientific arguments you have presented that are clearly incorrect. Note that I am the one on this thread that has demonstrated the ability to admit they were wrong (see below).

        Anyway, the point I have been making is that if you use scientific arguments that are obviously false to anyone familiar with mainstream science, you will marginalise yourself out of any debate that is likely to affect policy. I have tried with honest intentions to help you improve your arguments (as strong debate is a good thing); if you do not want to accept that help, that is for you to decide. But frankly you are doing the skeptic movement a disservice.

  11. It is nice to have you return to see if questions posed have been answered.
    I am NOT a scientist, merely an observer who tries very hard to read in plain language what the politicians are saying and proposing to implement.

    Today I came across (sorry no longer have link) an article about airplanes and CO2 at high altitudes, versus CO2 at human levels. There was some discussion about the speed of the wind at the higher altitudes as opposed or different from the ‘normal’ speed of the winds at the human level (exclude hurricanes and the like). The discussion seemed to be saying that what emissions come out from commercial and military aricraft get caught up in the high speed winds ‘up there’ versus what humans may contribute which falls back to the earth to be a part of the normal cycle. Are you familiar with what I am trying to explain? If science is claiming that industry spewing CO2 into the air is getting caught in the atmosphere…. and a different opinion is that it falls back to the ground in the normal cycle of things —- BUT aircraft pollution stays longer in the atmosphere before falling as rain…… that seems like something that maybe of importance to discussions re AGW.

    John was saying CO2 falls back to the earth….. I was interested in his opinion. I don’t think he was talking aboout aircraft specifically though.

    In the past twenty of so years the number of commercial and military flights has enormously increased. I note that the EU is planning to impose a tax on all flights that cross their airspace.

    I keep a questioning mind…. it is part of who I am.

    Thank you for the discussion.

    • Dikran Marsupial says:

      The fact that there is CO2 in the stratosphere (above the level jets fly) is a demonstration that the argument is incorrect. As is the fact that proxy data records (e.g. ice cores) show there was plenty of CO2 in the atmosphere prior to air travel. If air travel is responsible for there being CO2 even at the tops of mountains, how is it that there have been trees at the tops of those mountains, some of which are hundreds to thousands of years old, and hence pre-date air travel. A questioning mind is a good thing, but you have to follow where the answers to those questions lead. In this case, John is simply wrong about this. CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere, there are many lines of evidence that are inconsistent with air travel being the explaination.

  12. Jets do emit CO2 into the atmosphere and it takes longer for it to settle out from 35,000 feet but the Law of Gravity still applies.
    There are over 5,000 jets flying over the USA at any given time. What is important is not the CO2 emitted but the exhaust temps of over 1,800 degrees which could account for the one degree rise in temps.

    • Dikran Marsupial says:

      As I pointed out on the more recent thread, the idea that air travel is responsible for the rise in atmospheric CO2 is implausible. Atmospheric CO2 was at levels of about 315ppmv when the measurements began at Mauna Loa. Since then they have only risen to about 390ppmv. Thus you would need more than four times as mucch air travel to have ocurred before 1958 than ocurred afterwards to explain the 315ppmv observed in 1958. However that is clearly not the case as air travel has increased enormously over the last twenty to thirty years.

      On the earlier thread, I pointed out that 380ppmv is aboiut 750 billion tons of carbon, for air travel to be responsible for that amount you would need planes to carry about 500 tons of fuel on each flight, which is clearly impossible.

      Also the idea that the temperature of the exaust of airplanes is responsible for the rise in temperatures is also a non-starter. If you calculate the waste heat produced by all fossil fuel emissions it isn’t nearly enough energy to explain the observed rise in temperatures (see e.g. The energy we receive from the sun however is vast, so it only takes a small change in greenhouse gasses to trap a small additional percentage of that energy to explain the observed rises.

      For another demonstration that the CO2 sinks argument is incorrect, people have been mining for thousands of years, e.g. Grimes Graves in Norfolk is an ancient (anglo saxon) flint mine They are unventilated (they are basically just artifical caves dug into the ground with a relatively small opening at the surface. So why aren’t they full of carbon dioxide?

    • Dikran Marsupial says:

      Note I have responded to this point, but for some reason the post hae been in moderation for some time.

    Here is the link explaining how soft drinks are made. We manufacture CO2 by combining acid with certain kinds of rocks which produces CO2.

    • Dikran Marsupial says:

      Thanks for the link John, I am happy to concede I was mistaken on that one (not the fermentation one though).

  14. Dave Leaton says:

    John: “Jets do emit CO2 into the atmosphere and it takes longer for it to settle out from 35,000 feet but the Law of Gravity still applies. There are over 5,000 jets flying over the USA at any given time. What is important is not the CO2 emitted but the exhaust temps of over 1,800 degrees which could account for the one degree rise in temps.”

    John, just making claims like that isn’t good enough. Do the math. How much CO2 is emitted by jets? How does that compare with all other combined human sources? How does CO2 emitted at 35k feet end up at 100k feet? How does that 1800 degrees compare to the amount of energy required to raise the average global surface temp 1 degree? What do you think generates more heat, 5000 cities or 5000 jets? You’d have a better argument if you chose 5000 cities, obviously, but even 5000 cities don’t matter much.

    JustMeinT, CO2 does not fall out of the atmosphere as particulate matter in rain. And I’ll probably beat Dikran to the point about the carbon cycle, but he’ll explain it better than me. Even if CO2 remained in the lower troposphere, the natural carbon sinks would struggle to keep up with the rapid increase, and radiative transfer via CO2 would still go on lengthening the path of longwave radiation (that process badly named the “greenhouse effect”) as it finds its way out of the Earth system.

    John, truly . . . the ice thing . . . there are thousands of people watching and documenting the sea ice extent decrease–beyond the direct satellite measurement, and these are people who . The U.S. Navy is part of the hoax? Come now. The same goes for ice sheet and glacier extent decrease. Greenland is losing mass. The situation is complex, though, since increased atmospheric water vapor might lead to increased snowfall. Greenland is unusual, though, in size and structure. Globally, glacier mass is decreasing, in some cases threatening an end to plentiful, year-round water for large cities.

    I haven’t heard of the story of the P-38, but I do know that glaciers operate by continuous snowfall packing down and being forced out into rivers of ice. It’s entirely possible that the plane would have sunk even while the overall glacial mass decreased, simply through the normal operation of a glacier. I also know that when I put a dark pebble on a snow field, the sun heats the pebble and it sinks into the snow.

    Finally, your claim of lies. Because of the social production of knowledge within modern science, it is exceedingly difficult for someone to lie and get away with it. Indeed, the modern scientific process is the best way (not perfect, though) to approximate the shared reality. Nothing else comes close. Consider religion. For all its benefits, as a method of understanding and predicting the future, it’s pretty bad. Almost everyone has a slightly or significantly different interpretation of the most fundamental “truths.” What you’re saying, though, with the claim of “lies,” is that the entire social network of scientists is creating, supporting, and/or spreading the lies. In other words, everyone’s in on it–thousands of publishing scientists, tens of thousands of practicing scientists, and hundreds of thousands of people who have enough math and physics to understand the basic processes to the point of being able to check the published work. All of these people, you say, are willingly, knowingly passing a lie to the public. And you want me to believe this without evidence. If you were me, who would you believe?

  15. Hey Dikran
    You are wrong about fementation as well. Carbon in its inert form does no damage to the environment. If you beleive that pseudo science it is the CO2 which does damage. When you add the yeast (a form of bacteria) it generates decay and the corresponding relsease of CO2.

    For example, you can homegenize grape juice and bottle it and no fermentation takes place. Or you can just let it sit at room temp and CO2 takes place as the result of the fermentation process.
    You are completely wrong about fermentation.

    Now as to the ice sheets, I was referring to Al Gore’s schlocumentary (which has been banned from being shown in british schools because it is so riddled with errors) where he said that the Greenland Ice Sheet wqs melting and for proof he showed a video of a massive ice berg breaking free and falling into the ocean with a huge splash. Now it is true that glaciers move and they extend beyone the land mass which causes them to break off. This orocess is called “calving icebergs”. For the record, Greenland calves 10,000 to 15,000 icebergs a year and has done so for several thousand years.

    Now as to the satellite photos, they cherry picked those. We have the ice sheets growing back now true to the cyclic nature of cooling and heating which has been constantly taking place for thousands of years. It has NOTHING to do with mankind.

    You simply can’t in good conscience dismiss the ice sheet growing in height by a whopp[ing 270 feet just since 1944 when the plane was abandoned.
    John Wilder

  16. Dikran Marsupial says:

    Again the “pseudo science” is insulting; if the science was on your side you would not need to stoop to that sort of rhetoric.

    The carbon in the CO2 comes from plant material. The carbon in that plant material was taken from the atmosphere. Thus all fermentation is doing is returning the carbon back to the atmosphere and thus has no effect on atmospheric CO2. If I take $10 from my wife and then give it her back a day later, has she become richer? No. Likewise if fermentation releases carbon back into the atmosphere from which it was taken, then it has no effect on atmospheric CO2 levels.

    “schlocumentary” more insulting terms, again your criticism of Gores doccumentary would carry more weight if you kept to the science and avoided such rhetoric. Gore’s film is not banned from being viewed in U.K. schools, it can be shown provided that the known errors are pointed out. Quite right too. I don’t think pictures of ice bergs calving is evidence of anything either. I have already said that ice accumulates in central greenland and flows out to the oceans. The motion of glaciers is monitored by satelite, by photograpic record and by GPS. That is data that does provide evidence. I’m not a big fan of “an inconvenient truth”, I am no a fan of “the great global warming swindle” either; both have been criticised as having too many factual errors. However I would not use TGGWS as evidence that the skeptic side of the argument is incorrect, as that would be an ad-hominem. I would rather look at the content of the argument rather than the source.

    Actually, the satelite data does not show cycles in sea ice extent. Can you provide some evidence that the Arctic ice sheet (the one I was discussing) is “growing back”?

    I didn’t dismiss the ice sheet growing in height by 270 feet. I said you needed to consider the terrain over which the ice sheet is moving before you can tell whether 270 feet is anomalous or not. If the plane landed in an area where ice is squeezed into a constricting valley in the terrain below the glacier, ice can thicken by compression. Now if you can provide solid evidence to show that is not the case, then like with the carbonated drinks, I will admit that I am wrong.

  17. It really does not matter if the ice accumulated in a valley or on a mountaintop. It ACCUMULATED in contradiction to what Al Gore and other scientists have stated. That is really nitpicking. Do you think that snow accumulates more in a valley than on an ajdjacent plain. It snows all over. It has increased by 270 feet since 1944 when all of this global warming was supposed to be taking place.

    • Dikran Marsupial says:

      Al Gore and other scientists have not said that ice won’t still accumulate (more moisture in warmer air may well cause an increase in snow, as observed in Antarctica), they are saying that it is flowing faster and hence more is lost to the ocean. That is not the same thing. I also did not suggest that it snows more in a valley than it does on an adjacent plain. The thickening is due to compression as the ice meets a constriction as it is flowing out towards the ocean. This is much like a tsuami, which in the open ocean is quite shallow, but as it approaches land, friction with the bottom causes the wave to slow down and water piles up behind it causing it to grow in height. It is a local thickening of the ice, as soon as the ice reaches the other side of the constriction, it speeds up and thins out again.

    • Dikran Marsupial says:

      Having looked into it a bit more, I went and had a look at the data for Greenland ice core data (look for the “GRIP” project, you should have no problem finding the details). Here is one datafile (in this case focussing on NO2)

      The first few readings are:

      Eurocore GRIP
      depth age N20 uncertainty
      mean (1 sigma)
      [m] [yr AD] [ppbv] [ppbv]
      73.8 1962 297.1 5.7
      83.09 1933 292.7 3
      92.62 1892 274.7 2.1
      103.06 1848 276.5 3.1

      This may not have formatted too well on this blog, but if you loow at the first datapoint, you will find that ice from 1962 is at a depth of 73.8m or 242 feet and ice from 1933 is at 83m or 272 feet. Thus a plane that has been in the ice since 1944 being at 270 feet doesn’t seem than anomalous to me (it is unlikely that snowfall is identical everywhere across greenland, and as I said you also have to account for the flow of the ice to have a good estimate of expected depth).

      So Glacier Girl is not evidence of anyone lying, she is buried at pretty much the depth the scientists might expect from analysis of ice core data.

      • Dikran Marsupial says:

        O.K. well it has been about a week. John, do you accept that Glacier Girl was buried at about the depth one would expect from looking at Greenland Ice core data?

  18. Hey Dikran
    It did not only snow in the area that the planes were downed. This is simply an attempt on your part to obfuscate the obvious.

    And Dave, I am not claiming all the scientists are lying, just the ones that the leftist media publishes.
    There are thousands of scientists claiming that it is hogwash. We had a senate subcommittee meeting where hundreds of dissenting scientists claiming being blackballed from having their refutatiton articles published.

    In legitimate science there are always control studies and double blind studies to alleviate tester bias. I DEFY YOU TO SHOW ME ONE PUBLIHSED CONTROL STUDY OUT OF THE THOUSANDS THAT Congress has authorized billions of dollars for.

    John Wilder

  19. I have filed FOIA requests for control studies to various groups receiving funding and have yet to find a control study or double blind study funded. So much for your legitimate science. In the meantime it is widely reported that the temp sensors are in heat island regions with some being placed next to air conditioner condensers spewing heat.

    John Wilder

Comments are closed.