Posted by Dee Norris
Teach children the path to follow, and even when they are old, they will not stray from it. (Proverbs 22:6)
Childhood indoctrination. It’s a dirty word. Hitler did it. Stalin did it. It can never happen here in the free world, now can it? Of course not.
In the past few days, I have had a couple of disturbing conversations about AGW with the younger generation, including my own daughter. Particularly striking is the one I had with the 12-year old daughter of a friend.
(Warning: The following transcript may incite anger in libertarians and parents).
Dee: So, do you believe in Global Warming?
Melissa: Oh, yes!
Dee: Oh? Do you think that people are responsible?
Melissa: Uh huh. They put all that junk in the air and it has to be causing the world to get warmer.
Dee: Is that so? That junk is called carbon dioxide and of all the carbon dioxide that is going into the air, how much of it do you think that people are adding?
Melissa: I dunno… Maybe 75 percent?
Dee: 75%? What if I told you it was less than 5% and the rest was all natural?
Melissa: Well how about all the polar bears that are drowning? The ice cap is melting.
Dee: Ummmm… How many polar bears have drowned?
Melissa: I dunno, but they’re going extinct.
Dee: Oh, really? Polar bear population had doubled in the last few of decades.
Melissa: You are making me mad.
Dee: Why is that?
Melissa: Cause you are.
Dee: OK, so where did you learn that the polar bears are dying?
Melissa: A movie they showed at the school.
Well, gentle readers, I knew to which movie she was referring: Al Gore’s Oscar winning documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. In fact, I was there that day when the school’s earth science class sponsored a public showing and did my best to correct some of the more glaring errors made by Mr. Gore, but it seems that I failed in my task.
To this day, the indoctrination continues to warp the opinions of children too young to understand the science or politics behind AGW and who only care about the cute, cuddly polar bears having to swim 50 or more miles between melting ice flows just to stay alive.
Recently, the American Institute for Public Service, a national foundation that honors community service, recognized Cool the Earth for the efforts to educate the youth of the San Francisco Bay Area about the dangers of Global Warming. The founder of Cool the Earth, Carleen Cullen had this to say:
“What I love about working with young people is their absolute optimism,” said Cullen. “You tell them, ‘Hey, we’ve got this little problem over here with our friend, the polar bear, and with humans as well,’ and they’re not overwhelmed by it; they’re not skeptical or cynical. They just ask, ‘What can I do to fix it?’ “
Read the entire article at the SF Chronicle here: Carleen Cullen fights global warming or see it for yourself at Cool the Earth.
P.S. I haven’t given up hope for Melissa – she is a bright kid. I am planning on making a special middle school-level presentation to help her understand both sides of the debate so she can make up her own mind. Who knows, perhaps I can shame the school into letting a skeptic have equal time.
Update: I spoke with Melissa tonight (Sept 10) and she is quite excited that an essay about her is so popular that Google ranked it in the top 10 out of 1.2 million hits for ‘Inconvenient Youth’. This seems to have spurred her into digging into the facts behind AGW to see the truth for herself.
On the other hand, in that same search, I found a video posted just this week which was also entitled “An Inconvenient Youth” and is of an 8-year old boy with a message for politicians to stop global warming. I am very sure he didn’t just come up with this on his own. Judge for yourself:
An Inconvenient Youth from Colin McCullough on Vimeo.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I am surprised at how many times I have been accused of misrepresenting the human CO2 contribution even though the figures and explanations have been cited several times in this very thread.
Perhaps surprised is not the correct word. More like saddened. It shows that the indoctrination of which I wrote extends beyond just children.
I suspect some of the accusers don’t have any specific value in mind when they challenge the fact that human CO2 contribution is less than 5%. It would seem that their only concept is that the human contribution has to be a LOT of CO2 because how would it otherwise make the planet warmer and less than 5% is certainly not a lot. So, like Melissa, they get mad to protect themselves from the cognitive dissonance created when the correct values intersect the fuzzy notions which have become their absolutes.
@Evan: The ~5% does not ‘add up over time’ as the 95% also continues to accumulate over time as well. The net result is that while the mass of the anthropogenic CO2 increases, so does the mass of the natural CO2 while the ratio remains the same at 5 to 95 (or 1 to 19). Actually, it is bit more complex as the annual anthropogenic contribution varies as does the effectiveness of the discovered and undiscovered carbon sinks (which sequester about 50% of that 5%) and would require a more detailed explanation (perhaps a future post).
For anyone interested, here is the IPCC’s own chart for the carbon cycle. If you have your calculator handy, you too can use their figures to determine that annual human contribution is less than 5%!
Not with a bang but a wimper about CO2.
“I am surprised at how many times I have been accused of misrepresenting the human CO2 contribution even though the figures and explanations have been cited several times in this very thread.”
For each year, the ratio of human to natural CO2 is, in fact 1 to 19. However, what you fail to understand is that before the anthropogenic perturbation of the atmosphere, CO2 levels were relatively constant–in other words there was an equilibrium. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere does add up each year (minus what is taken up by the oceans).
The entire rise in atmospheric CO2–a rise of about 30%–is attributable to the burning of fossil fuels. This is confirmed by many independent lines of evidence, including isotope ratios, the decline of oxygen in the atmosphere and the fact that the CO2 cannot come from geologic (too slow) or oceanic (currently increasing in carbon) sources.
I suggest consulting the literature before accusing people of cognitive dissonance. The fact that humans have contributed 30% of atmospheric CO2 is undisputed in the scientific community.
Reply – The IPCC doesn’t agree that “The entire rise in atmospheric CO2–a rise of about 30%–is attributable to the burning of fossil fuels” and nor do I. Please share your sources so that your position can be discussed. – Dee Norris
REPLY: And I’ll add that Boris’ statement “what you fail to understand is that before the anthropogenic perturbation of the atmosphere, CO2 levels were relatively constant–in other words there was an equilibrium.’ is not true. – Anthony
Ice core data says otherwise. CO2 in equlibrium? Not seen: http://www.chemistryland.com/CHM107/GlobalWarming/iceCoreCO2deepest.jpg
Source data: ftp://cdiac.ornl.gov/pub/trends/co2/vostok.icecore.co2
You need to get your priority’s right, first stop childrens heads being filled up with religion, which is harmful, then start worrying about their misconceptions about AGW, which isn’t.
Regards
Andy
Reply: Religion bashing is also discouraged. We wish to avoid the heated discussion of religious believes at this site ~ charles the moderator.
Dee: The IPCC data is a couple of years behind. The DoE has the updated numbers.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html
(I’ve posted often on the carbon cycle.)
Man adds a little under half a percent per year to the atmospheric sink. (The rest of anthropogenic CO2 winds up in the ocean or soils.) If man were not adding that extra little bit (under 5%) per year, the atmospheric sink (now up to 760 BMTC) would not be gaining CO2.
As much as I hate to be seen to be agreeing (in essence) with the dreaded Boris . . . #B^1
What the Rev posts is true. But that’s an up-and-down 100 ppm cycle that ebbs and flows with each ice age (ocean temps affect CO2 solubility). Nonetheless, man does seem to have added a fair chunk over recent years all by his lonesome.
But I repeat that I do NOT consider CO2 to be a threat. So far, if anything, the CO2 bump has been a benefit (and has increased planetary biomass considerably).
Andy:
I am a longtime atheist who got a good dose of religion as a kid. So far as I can see, exposure to religion did me great and lasting good and improved my life and my morals in every way. As an unbeliever, I owe a very great debt to religion.
However, I do NOT credit any benefit whatever to the false environmentalism I was also subjected to as a kid. All it did was poison my mind, fill me with misdirected fear, rage, and sanctimony, and erode my morals. Fortunately, I “got better”. Can’t say the same for some of my contemporaries.
I’m just speaking for myself; YMMV.
(Religion is like the i in the equation. It doesn’t have to be real to have an extraordinarily beneficial effect and to open the way to far greater goodness, kindness, knowledge, and understanding.)
Reply: Evan please, don’t get into religious discussions or entice others to do so ~ charles the moderator
CO2 variation during Holocene:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/flueckiger2002/fig2.gif
Some equilibrium 🙂
Dee: “My two examples were the impressions of a 12 year old from a public showing of AIT by the earth science class (the students suggested showing it based on Gore’s call to action, BTW) and the actions of an organization whose founder watched AIT.”
If you are arguing that children are sponges, I agree. I haven’t watched AIT so I can’t make any comment about its suitability for children, but I think you are drawing a very long bow if you are arguing that exposing children to AGW is akin to Stalinist indoctrination. To believe that, you would have to believe that you live in a totalitarian society.
Reply – My first suggestion is that you watch AIT so that we all are on the same ground. I believe that children are being indoctrinated into believe in AGW based on emotional arguments, not sound science and I put forward two examples (now updated to three). That being said, this is like a Rorschach Test – one person sees butterfly and another sees two bats tugging. Neither is right, neither is wrong. – Dee Norris
More Reply – Your comparison to living in an existing totalitarian society kicked my hind-brain into gear (for which I thank you) and I got the vague notion that the Hitler Youth preceded the rise to power of Hilter. A quick fact check confirmed this impression.
The Hitler Youth was founded in 1922, only one year after Hitler took control of the NAZI party and founded the Sturmabteilung (aka the SA or stormtroopers). It was created to prepare boys 14 or older for future enrollment in the SA and indoctrinated them in the NAZI rhetoric that Jews and other degenerates were a threat to the Fatherland. It taught them that they were the future ‘Aryan supermen’ needed by the German nation. This was a year before Hitler attempted the Beer Hall Putsch (1923) and was imprisoned at Landsberg am Lech where he (and Rudoph Hess) wrote the first draft of Mein Kampf. In 1930, the German Youth for boys from 10 to 14 was created as a subdivison of the Hitler Youth. Three years later, the Reichstag (1933) burned and Hitler was able to seize total power in Germany. By December 1936, Hitler Youth membership (which now stood at 5 million boys) was made mandatory for all boys. And I think we should all know how it ends from there. (Source: Wikipedia Hitler Youth)
From the example of Hitler and NAZI Germany, it would seem that childhood indoctrination precedes the rise of the totalitarian state. So perhaps you are correct and my hind-brain was indeed equating the rise of Hitler with the practice of seemingly innocent indoctrination of children to emotionally believe that AGW, Big Oil and skeptics pose a threat to our homeland.
I think I have now scared myself. ‘Nuff said – Dee Norris
Leif: “What the writer clearly implied was that Hitler and Stalin [and I may add, the Church] showed us how effective indoctrination of children is.”
An argument is a series of connected steps leading to a conclusion. Keeping that in mind, let’s look at the article again. Here are the first two paras:
“Childhood indoctrination. It’s a dirty word. Hitler did it. Stalin did it. It can never happen here in the free world, now can it? Of course not.
“In the past few days, I have had a couple of disturbing conversations about AGW with the younger generation…”
Note the connected steps in the argument: childhood indoctrination-Hitler-Stalin-the free world-AGW-younger generation. The argument that is being made is that the childhood indoctrination practised by Hitler and Stalin is being replicated in today’s “free world” under the guise of teaching AGW.
The other day I was riding in a car with my niece and nephew who decided to play with the new propane tanks in the car (camping). I didn’t like this, so my quick response was “Careful, that’s a greenhouse gas. You don’t want to let it out.” They immediately put the cans down. And I laughed my ass off.
Brendan H (04:09:20) :
An argument is a series of connected steps leading to a conclusion.
Only if the connection is such that each following step depends logically on the previous steps. Just that the steps follow each other does not make them into an argument [it’s called a pile].
Note the connected steps in the argument: childhood indoctrination-Hitler-Stalin-the free world-AGW-younger generation. The argument that is being made is that the childhood indoctrination practised by Hitler and Stalin is being replicated in today’s “free world” under the guise of teaching AGW.
The steps are not connected at all. All the article said was that Hitler & Stalin showed us how effective childhood indoctrination is. H & S were not the first, of course. The Jesuits have always said “give me a child and I’ll give you the man”. The Church [Jesuits, Sunday School, Madrassas, what have you] practice the very same thing, without one being able to conclude that religion or Jihad is taught under the guise of AGW. Neither is Nazism or Communism.
The other day I was riding in a car with my niece and nephew who decided to play with the new propane tanks in the car (camping). I didn’t like this, so my quick response was “Careful, that’s a greenhouse gas. You don’t want to let it out.” They immediately put the cans down. And I laughed my ass off. That is funny. I’ll bet that mad them mad, though. Careful, aaron, payback can be a b***ch.
Fine, I’ll say it. Envirowhackos and many AGW proponents are Stalinist.
[snip]
While I deal with anonymity and occaional gaffes, I don’t allow people to switch identities on postings. For example, the Taminite known as “Lee” has now had no less than five different identities that he has tried to post under, and I don’t allow his posts anymore.
Either stick with one identity i.e. “statepoet” or don’t post please. Thank you for your consideration. – Anthony
The real truth is- the earth has never been and never will be a stable environment. It is an absolutely violent planet.
Our orbit changes, the crust we live on is really a raft floating on an ocean of lava.
We cannot change the Earth as much as we think we can. Cows and termites give off far more CO2 than our industrial activity ever will.
That being said- this does not mean we should not be good stewards of our home.
We have such an enormous tendancy to appy knee jerk solutions to problems that are out of our control- thereby creating a string of unintended consequences that require additional undoing. But hey- a good capitalist can create a fortune off of this new GW industry.
I don’t beleive that Al Gore invented the internet- I do however beleive he invented the Global Warming Industry. He has raked in millions. Yet he things throwing money at the problem will make it go away- at least make you think it will help. Perhaps he should look in the mirror
“The IPCC doesn’t agree that “The entire rise in atmospheric CO2–a rise of about 30%–is attributable to the burning of fossil fuels” and nor do I. Please share your sources so that your position can be discussed.”
The IPCC does say that human activity is responsible for the increase in CO2. Look at FAQ 2.1, figure 1 on page 135 of AR4.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch02.pdf
“FAQ 2.1, Figure 1. Atmospheric concentrations of important long-lived greenhouse gases over the last 2,000 years. Increases since about 1750 are attributed to
human activities in the industrial era.”
CO2 is shown in red.
Further, on the same page:
“Human activities result in emissions of four principal greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and the halocarbons (a group of gases containing fluorine, chlorine and bromine). These gases accumulate in the atmosphere, causing concentrations to increase with time. Significant increases in all of these gases have occurred in the industrial era (see Figure 1). All of these increases are attributable to human activities.”
As I said, the fact that humans are responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2 is supported by many independent lines of evidence and is undisputed in the scientific community.
Sorry, jeez. I held off, but eventually succumbed to temptation. No, wait. There I go again . . .
I hate to agree with Boris, but I think he is right. But it would be better to explain how the CO2 accumulation happens during the exchange mechanism (as I did above) rather than simply resorting to the IPCC and leaving it at that.
Of course I don’t agree with B. about the effects of said accumulation.
It’s also true that hardly anyone seems to mention the nitrous, and it’s the #3 GH gas after H20 and C02, but they skip right to methane. Is there a “carbon bias” going on here?
Water is anywhere from 70% to 95% of the GH effect. My prejudices cause me to lean toward the higher number. I suspect that the lower number lumps positive feedback into the CO2 number (and I am a positive feedback flat-out denier).
EXCLUDING WATER VAPOR, C02 is c. 75% of the GH effect and N2O around 19%.
Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from about 315 ppm in 1958 to 378 ppm at the end of 2004, which means human activities have increased the concentration of atmospheric CO2 by 100 ppm or 36 percent.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2412.htm
Polar bears drown as ice shelf melts.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article767459.ece
Leif; “Only if the connection is such that each following step depends logically on the previous steps. Just that the steps follow each other does not make them into an argument [it’s called a pile].”
So this article is just a “pile”? A blog post will not usually consist of a set of syllogisms, but nevertheless some sort of argument is often being made, as is the case here. Otherwise, there is no point to the article. The writer is attempting to connect the actions of Hitler and Stalin with those of supporters of AGW.
“All the article said was that Hitler & Stalin showed us how effective childhood indoctrination is.”
No. All it says is they practised it. Nothing about its effectiveness.
The irony of the anecdote presented in this article is that rather than appealing to a reliable source, the writer attempts her own form of counter-indoctrination, but only exacerbates the situation by providing a child with a half-truth about the human contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere.
@Boris, Evan and Anon
There are several ways to arrive at the anthropogenic CO2 load in the atmosphere. One is to assume that at some point, there was a dynamic equilibrium between natural CO2 emissions and natural sinks, then assume that any increase in CO2 concentration after that date is attributed to humanity.
The second involves adding up historic estimates of anthropogenic sources and subtracting anthropogenic and natural sinks to compute a total anthropogenic CO2 load.
Third involves analyzing the ration of C radio-isotopes to determine the ratio of natural C in the atmosphere to the anthropogenic C.
All three methods are their proponents as well as detractors. All are have assumptions that can be falsifiable as sound science uncovers additional information and all three appear logically sound on the surface
Of course, many of the various adherents to one of these approaches have picked their favorite method to support their desired outcomes & belief structures and then have rationalized why their choice it the best and the others are invalid.
In a nod to Leif and his oft-repeated mantra, this is also true of the various adherents to one solar forcing theory or another and I respect his desire to stay agnostic to the results despite his desire to see a particular outcome.
“All three methods are their proponents as well as detractors.”
Maybe. But all three methods also come to the same conclusion, which is why the evidence for human contribution of CO2 is so strong.
Reply – All three methods conclude that humans have contributed to the total atmospheric CO2 load, but they differ in the amount of the contribution.
Anyhow, the real debate is not over the contribution but if the contribution has any meaningful effect. All the studies show that CO2 effect on temperature decreases log rhythmically as concentration increases and that at this point any increases in CO2 concentration, natural or otherwise, have only a small impact of global temperature.
I refer you to Even doubling or tripling the amount of CO2′ will have ‘little impact’ on temps if you wish to further discuss this topic. – Dee Norris
@Brendan:
The purpose of my essay was to get people to think. And judging from the reaction and comments here as well as the fact that it hit the number two spot on top posts here at WordPress (BTW, the number one spot is always occupied by the WordPress announcement of the moment) , I am please with it.
However, you are projecting an awful lot into my two-minute conversation with Melissa when you state that I provided “a child with a half-truth about the human contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere.” What I was doing was challenging her received notions about CO2 (that a lot ‘maybe 75%’ of the atmospheric CO2 concentration is anthropogenic). She clearly didn’t want to continue to discuss CO2 after that and switched the conversation to Polar Bears where I again challenged her received notions at which point her language clearly indicated that she wanted me to stop challenging her convictions.
Now, had I forced her to listen to me pedantically drone on and on about how wrong she was or about the necessity of taking action to prevent a cooling world, you might have a point.
The antiquity of the practice of childhood indoctrination was established by the quote from Proverbs. Hitler and Stalin were then linked to draw attention to the danger of childhood indoctrination. It was left open to the reader to decide if AGW childhood indoctrination is comparable to to the above examples. If the reader believes in the goodness of the Jewish, Christian or Islamic faiths, then the quote from Proverbs says supports that the childhood indoctrination is permissible under the right circumstances. Certainly in the hindsight of the 21st century majority, under Hitler or Stalin, the practice of childhood indoctrination is now considered a bad thing.
Once again you are projecting when you claim to understand my reasons for writing as I did. It was not until after you triggered the long forgotten fact about the creation of the Hitler Youth that remembered that Hitler began his youth indoctrination programs before the creation of the NAZI state and I realized the parallels to the rise of AGW indoctrination and the grab for control of the population through carbon restrictions. Certainly the parents of the 5 million boys in the Hitler Youth prior to the mandatory membership didn’t consider the indoctrination a bad thing.
Before I am accused of seeing the next Hitler lurking in some Earth First cell, let me say this: There are a lot of wannabes, people who think they know what is right for everyone else on the planet. Do we as a society take the risk that if some extreme green demagogue begins a rise to power that he (or she) will find a ready-made pool of indoctrinated eco-warriors and climate cops ready to give life and limb to defend Gaia from unbelievers who are destroying her?
The researchers returned to the vicinity a few days later after a fierce storm and found four dead bears floating in the water.
Boris, I believe all three methods also assume that man made CO2 is equally likely to be exchanged with sinks.
Brendan H (01:30:56) :
“Only if the connection is such that each following step depends logically on the previous steps. Just that the steps follow each other does not make them into an argument [it’s called a pile].”
So this article is just a “pile”?
No, but your contribution seems to be as your ‘conclusion’ does not follow from the ‘connections’ you cite.
Dee,
Unfortunately your link discussing climate sensitivity to doubled CO2 is equally wrong. (Example: WV does not contribute 95% of the greenhouse effect. This number is never mentioned in the scientific literature and has been thrown around only on internet sites.) Once again, stick with the peer reviewed literature and you can learn a thing or two.
Reply – My recommendation of the other discussion was not to prove anything to you, but to suggest a more fitting thread for the continuation of this discussion. Since you seem to have run out of arguments based on facts and are are now resorting to personal jabs, I forced to say adieu. Best of luck to you in all your endeavors and all that. – Dee Norris