Connect with us

Education

Global warming indoctrination

Published

on

Parents, take note: Attacks on liberty, even by teachers, in our schools - common Core and other global initiatives put a worm into this apple, producing students who do not think. Here's another worm: when teachers take a prey from among their own students. Not to mention a teacher who prostitutes herself to a corrupt seller of offices. Or an anti-bullying campaign that pulls a cruel humanitarian hoax by replacing one kind of bullying with another.

The US Department of Education used taxpayer funds to indoctrinate children to believe the dubious global warming theory.

Details of the global warming event

On July 20, 2011, the Education Department held a children’s reading event in Washington, DC. The event organizers handed out free books. Two of them came from the Nickelodeon network’s “Big Green Help” series. (Penny Starr at CNS News has the most detailed report on the event.) The books each featured a licensed Nickelodeon character: “Spongebob Squarepants” and “Dora the Explorer.” Each book told a fanciful story on this theme:

  1. Global warming is occurring.
  2. Man, through his “unnatural” activities, is responsible for it.
  3. Man can stop it by giving things up.

The teaching text is very facile. One might expect that in a children’s book. But “facile” here means more than “written for a three-year-old.” It’s way too simple, and says many things that simply do not follow.

What’s wrong with the logic?

Penny Starr’s piece quotes the Spongebob book:

Earth has these gases called greenhouse gases…They’re in the atmosphere to keep the temperature of the planet just right. Carbon Dioxide is one of those gases. But when we make more greenhouse gases than the planet needs naturally, like you’ve been burnin’ tires and fuel, it locks the heat in the atmosphere. That makes the planet hotter than it should be. That’s global warming. And that’s not good.

That argument assumes at least three things:

  1. That the sun shines at the same exact brightness, year after year, decade after decade, century after century.
  2. That every other “greenhouse gas” stays at the same level everywhere.
  3. That if carbon dioxide rises, nothing will take it away just as fast.
How Ronald Reagan would address the global warming hoax, if he were alive. Photo: Gene Tew, CC BY 2.0

How would Ronald Reagan address Mr. Obama, if he were alive today? Photo:

None of these assumptions is safe. The sun shines in cycles. Sometimes it shines hotter, sometimes colder. In the Middle Ages, the son shone bright enough for Greenland to be truly green. (Eric the Red was not the shady real-estate salesman that global warming alarmists make him out to be.) Then at about the time of the first English settlements of North America, the Little Ice Age set in.

Carbon dioxide is not the only “greenhouse gas.” Water is another. When clouds roll in, they moderate the temperatures during day and night. Any warming of the ocean would produce more clouds that would provide shade. Any engineer knows what to call this: negative feedback. When something makes the globe hotter, something else will act to cool it down. No problem.

Besides the clouds, any global warming that does occur will make plants grow. When plants grow, they take in carbon dioxide. That is how they grow.

But that’s too much for a thirty-second sound bite in a children’s cartoon. It’s also inconvenient for a government that wants to control how we think and act, in the smallest detail.

More inconvenient facts

Those aren’t the only facts that give the lie to the global warming narrative. A few more:

The government suspended Charles Monnett, the scientist who first said that polar bears were drowning. Questions had come up over how he ran his projects.

New evidence, from satellites, shows that when the earth gets warmer, it dumps the excess heat into space. Heat moves in three ways:

  1. Conduction. Touch a hot stove and you’ll see—or feel—what that means.
  2. Convection. When air gets hot, it rises, and cold air moves down to replace it. This is how sea and land breezes work. (Baseboard heaters work the same way, by setting up convection currents in room air.)
  3. Radiation. Anything that gets hot, will give off radiation. That works for a whole planet as well as one small object on it.

Whoever built the climate models that the United Nations relies on, forgot to account for radiation. We now know that radiation disposes of far more heat than anyone realized.

The real issue

Why is the government spending money that it doesn’t have, doing something that only local school boards should worry about? More than that: why is the government giving a science lecture full of rookie mistakes?

Could this have anything to do, perhaps, with UN Agenda 21? Why else try to convince children that global warming is real?

Environmentalism is always about control. To get the kind of control they want, they must persuade people to hand it over to them. Children are far easier to persuade than are adults—and global warming is only one of many lies that environmentalists tell.

This is one government contract that Nickelodeon, if they really cared about their (adult) customers, should never have taken.

Featured image: a stack of schoolbooks with an apple on top

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Editor-in-chief at | + posts

Terry A. Hurlbut has been a student of politics, philosophy, and science for more than 35 years. He is a graduate of Yale College and has served as a physician-level laboratory administrator in a 250-bed community hospital. He also is a serious student of the Bible, is conversant in its two primary original languages, and has followed the creation-science movement closely since 1993.

CATEGORY:Education
12 Comments
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

12 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tracy

We are too small on this earth to change the climate and some of the above organizations are noted for their hard core swing to the left. Global warming science is not science because it is divided along political lines and something that is science has no political bent. An example is bacterial infections are usually healed with pennicillan. Both left and right agree with that statement and medical science proves it. All the cars in the world could fit in the state of Delaware which is 1/79000th of the earth’s surface which is very, very small.

Clem

Hi Terry.
I’m not from America, and I was brought up believing in evolutionism and in global warming. However, I’ve been following american politics for a few monthes now, and I’ve been trying to understand the point of views of Republicans and especially Tea Partiers on science and social debates.
I’ve then stumbled upon this website (along with Conservapedia) and read interesting things, very different from what I was taught in school. To give you an example, creationism is considered as scientific as the existence of Santa or unicorns where I live.
Reading articles and theories on this website sure has opened new grounds for my opinions, sometimes really surprising to me : dinausors live among us, comets and water on Mars came from the Earth…
I have a few questions about this article above :
_How can you say this : “That argument assumes at least three things[…]”. Major global warming theories take the 3 points you mention there after into consideration.
_Do you have figures for your “water cools it down” and “conduction” arguments ?
_Do you seriously believe that negative feedback occurs in every system, and maintain it balanced whatever may happen ? (I studied physics and biology for quite some years). One of the main points of global warming theories is that human-based greenhouse effect actually is an offsetting factor in what would stay a balanced system without it.

I have many other questions, but I hope you are willing to answer those few. I’m wanting to debate politely and respectfully with someone who doesn’t share the same beliefs. I’ll add that I was also brought up in a religious environment and read the Bible. However, I hope (and I don’t think you will, having read some of your articles and comments) that you won’t base your answers on faith and interpretaion of sacred texts, since I want to discuss about science.

Oh and also, @Tracy : All the nuclear weapons in the world could fit in the little town of Fukushima, which is very, very small.

Clem

Hi.

First of all, I want to stress that I’m not challenging your your accomplishments and your honesty.

Then I’d like to go back on what you call “underlying assumptions”. To me underlying assumptions are concepts and ideas that are implied within another idea or concept. However, you must show or prove that they lay there.
So you took the ideas “Global climate warming is true. It is affected by human activities. It’s bad”
And you said it also means this :
” 1. That the sun shines at the same exact brightness, year after year, decade after decade, century after century.
2. That every other “greenhouse gas” stays at the same level everywhere.
3. That if carbon dioxide rises, nothing will take it away just as fast.”

Nobody else than you says this. If you take a look at this : http://americasclimatechoices.org/climate_change_2008_final.pdf ,which is a good example of the arguments you “seek to weaken”, you’ll see that they take other factors including the ones in your “assumptions” into account.
I most certainly agree that it was not refered to in those children books though.

About the feedback… Are you saying that negative feedback will be enough to prevent climate changes ? On the VERY long run, maybe. Else, how do you explain the Little Ice Age and other climate changes trhroughout centuries ? We don’t care about the global balance in terms of thousands of years, but mainly about how our children and grand-children will be negatively affected in the years to come. Furthermore, there is positive feedback too. (eg http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~victor/recent/scheffer_etal_T_CO2_GRL_in_press.pdf ).

And as for radioisotopes dating… I had trouble to find clear data on what Steven A Austin thinks but I was able to get on this website (http://www.epicidiot.com/evo_cre/vr_radioisotopes_age_earth.htm#outline) which explains very well what he said, and why he’s wrong.

And it’s not just about this article… Why does creation science always rely on single examples to counter well-established theories ? One guy believing in global warming lied, so the entire theory is a fraud ? One guy “found” that some rocks were younger than was everybody thought, and then the whole radioisotopes dating is false ?
I have the feeling that you used the words “derived data” for facts that you don’t want to believe in.

To use another example from geology, the proportion of crystallised minerals in a sample found after a volcanic eruption is a raw datum. Do you challenge the original depth (of existence of this sample) that this proportion shows as a derived datum ?

I don’t think that the majority is always right, but I have issues with your methodology. What type of derived data do you accept ? More accurately, how do you draw the line between raw and derived data ? Would you rather always rather believe the 1% scientists despised by their peers than the other 99% ?

PS : do you believe that the theory of relativity is false ?

Clem

I didn’t admit that the children books made the same arguments. I said that what could be blamed on them is that they didn’t present the whole theory, including those “other factors”. As you wrote, those are simple books, for young people.
The global warming theory, however, integrates those “other factors” BEFORE finding out that manly activities still affects the climate. It DOES weaken the scale of the warming, they say it themselves.

I don’t think I forgot about the Little Ice Age, since I mentionned it myself in my previous post. Why wouldn’t you see it as “normal and appropriate” if you don’t believe that men affect the climate ?

About the negative feedback again… You state that it “will negate any effect of man on the climate”. Can you back this ?
In the same sentence you recognize that man have effect on the climate, and you say that SOMETHING will be able to counter any single imput that he will have ? SOMETHING will be able to evaluate the influence of man and accuratly strike back, through negative feedback, in the other direction ?

With Geochron, you just fall again in what I pointed as a repititive logical flaw in the way you build your arguments :
_A (among millions of others) supports theory 1.
_A makes a mistake (or lies).
_Theory 1 is plain wrong.
That’s not how science works.
Moreover, here the failing comes from Austin, not from the lab. The samples he took DID NOT come from the same location. Oh of course they all were in the Great Canyon. But in different lava flows.
Even if we imagine that it was the lab that made the mistake, it doesn’t prove radioisotopes dating wrong. It proves that a lab made a mistake. That is all.

I had trouble finding informations on Hartnett and Carmeli, but I could finally read his points on creationwiki.org. Hartnett in particular had quite a strange way of “proving” things. It amused me to see his biography :
1 Studies, believe in what 99% physicists believe.
2 Converts to extremist christian church.
3 Suddenly changes all his views on the universe and start building theories backing up creation science.

Dark matter and dark energy have become more than just concepts in the past few years. However, let’s just look at what they were thought as in the beginning : explanations built up to fill gaps in the relativity theory. They are strictly coherent mathematically, and even if they are proven wrong in the future, they are part of a general theory that stands solid.
And yes, I and all non-creationist physicits admit that they could be proven wrong in the years to come. We see that this a a frontier for science, that we need to push, and we consider a lot of different explanations, not entering what you call a “special form of circular reasoning”.

However, what made laugh about Hartnett is his justification about why we can see (and people 6000 years ago could see) stars that are (and this is raw datum) millions of light years away. Well Hartnett simply assumes that the light from the stars travelled, during the “creation”, FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT to get to us. This is COMPLETE nonsense. It’s not backable by anything.

He says here (http://creation.com/the-heavens-declare-a-different-story)that “god stretching out the heavens” during creation refers to a supposedly massive and temporary shift in the laws of physics at that moment that explains why we can see those stars.
If this is not basing “science” on faith, I don’t know what it is. Quotes and interpretations from the Bible will never be a valid proof for “science”.
And we’re not even talking about derived data here, it’s actually worse : it’s an interpretation of a sacred book in order to back an interpretation of an observation. (positions of galaxies and stars from Arp and HBN).

Clem

I knew about this MWP, and nobody is denying it. In fact, see : http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16892-natural-mechanism-for-medieval-warming-discovered.html

Flawed logic once again : why would the burden of the proof be mine ?
YOU are saying that negative feedback will counter “any effect of man on the climate” . You didn’t back this.
I’m not praying any court, I don’t want any sanctions on the economy.
My evidence, is there. I posted links to it, and it’s shared by 99% of the scientific community. Your evidence, however, is different. You don’t provide any links towards scientific articles. All the creation scientists you refer to are considered fraud by the large majority of their peers. You never shared real links to this “correspondence” you’re supposed to have.

You never answered my questions about backing your arguments with evidence. You keep using single examples to say that wholes theories are wrong.
Even if geochron is wrong, it doesn’t make the radiosisotopes dating wrong !!

Talking about Hubble is actually bad for your own case. Maybe he used these words, and ased an interpretation on personal beliefs. But what then ? Then the scientific community counterproofed it and tested it for a whole century and found out he was right.

That’s the difference between creation science and real science as it seems. In real science you have many theories, scientists fight about them, counterproof and test them, and in the end the come with the good one. Creation science has a model based on the Bible and then tries to make everything fit to this model, coming out with the most crazy explanations. Dinosaurs living as the same time as men ? Earth 6000 years old ? Water on Mars on comets WERE EJECTED DURING THE GREAT FLOOD ? Any normal child above 8 years old will laugh about this.

As a christian, I operate a clear separation between science and faith. I don’t need to believe that the Genesis is science-proof to believe in God.

I came here to see what creation science was and what it’s followers had to say, how they backed it. I’m disappointed. You didn’t last more than 2 posts before using the argument of faith to base your points (through Hartnett). As I said, you were not able to back anyting with scientific data.

I won’t comment anymore, since you couldn’t engage in a serious debate. Your logic is flawed as I wrote (you never answered to that by the way). I understand that this website is about conservative views, but please stop talking about science. There is no such thing as creation “science”.

Nonetheless I understand and respect your views about other topics, and I believe you’re only mistaken about this “science”, not blatantly lying to the face of your fellows.

Greetings,
Clément.

Rayonna

Pin my tail and call me a donkey, that raelly helped.

[…] Global warming indoctrination […]

Trending

12
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x