CA Academy of Science AGW display apparently not very popular

What are we teaching our children?

Guest post by Russ Steele, NCwatch

Ellen and I spent the day at the new California Academy of Science building yesterday and really enjoyed the experience, except for the crowds. I break out in crowds. With spring break in full force, there were hordes of children, the lines to the tropical rain forest sphere, the aquarium, bugs in 3D, and the planetarium were long. One display that did not receive much attention was the global warming, save the planet from global warming display. Or, as it was properly labeled the Ocean Warming display.

Academy of Science04

The interactive display to save the polar bear cub, by creating more ice by reducing greenhouse gases was empty the three times I passed by the booth. [A carbon] “hockey stick” was is full view.

Academy of Science01

There was a clever device to demonstrate the value of carbon credits to off set the family carbon foot print stood unused except for one young man and his dad. There was no pushing and shoving to observe these displays or use the interactive tools.

Academy of Science03

Academy of Science02

For the most part these displays were ignored, except for a few casual observers seeking refuge from the long lines at the real science displays.  This lack of interest and participation seems to reflect the recent Gallup Polls indicating people are not really concerned about global warming, or ocean warming either. It could be our children have caught on to the scam, or they have reached global warming overload for the school lessons,  and want some real science for change of pace.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
March 28, 2009 10:14 am

This section of the museum looked empty because all the visitors had become unpersons for mocking the display. Deniers must be vaporized! Praise be the Glorious Revolution of Oceania.

March 28, 2009 10:14 am

That wasn’t The Hockey Stick
Reply: True, it is not Mann’s, though a hockey stick shaped graph nonetheless, complete with Gore elevator requirements. A small edit has been made to make it clear it is not The most famous one.

March 28, 2009 10:15 am

Please consider a salute to all of those people who work hard on real science and real achievement. Coincidentally, it takes place this evening at the same time as “Earth Hour.” Is is called the Human Achievement Hour and is the brain child of the folks at CEI. Please give the website a read and consider joining me as I fail to darken my life in honor of bad science and politicized energy policy.

Richard deSousa
March 28, 2009 10:19 am

The displays at the CA Academy of Science really ticks me off. They’re using out dated material to scare the kids and uninformed public. The oceans are no longer warming and the Hockey Stick has been discredited. Gross mis-representation of climate “science.”

March 28, 2009 10:22 am

The interactive display to save the polar bear cub, by creating more ice by reducing greenhouse gases was empty the three times I passed by the booth. The AGW “hockey stick” was is full view.

They say it is education. I say it is indoctrinaction.
They say it is science. I say it is a video game.

Kirk W. Hanneman
March 28, 2009 10:27 am

In the OP: hordes of children, not hoards.
REPLY: I fixed Steele’s word use, thanks for pointing it out – Anthony

March 28, 2009 10:34 am

It seems that the general public and more importantly our young folk are not as gullible as the propagandists would wish.

March 28, 2009 10:41 am

I think the lack of interest is definitely a sign of school indoctrination overload. In my school district the indoctrination into the beliefs of environmentalism start in kindergarten. Last summer, after my son had finished his first year of school, we had the following exchange:
“Ok, if you’ve finished your lunch, clean up. Fork and plate in the sink, water bottle in the trash.”
“Aren’t we going to recycle this?” (plastic water bottle)
“We don’t want to end up with a big pile of trash somewhere.”
“Son, our trash is burned to make electricity so you can play on the computer and watch TV”
I don’t fight his indoctrination by the educrats at his age. I’m waiting until he’s ready to rebel as a teenager and then I’ll turn him on to science. Hopefully he’ll drive his highschool teachers crazy with talk about free markets, scientific method, and fusion energy.

Layman Lurker
March 28, 2009 10:41 am

A few trade show gimmicks might work. Say, maybe a draw for free carbon credits….

March 28, 2009 10:49 am

That hockey stick is a CO2 version, and crafted in such a manner to look very scary.
They should instead have a 20,000 year time line with CO2 starting off at 180ppm at around the time the Neanderthals disappeared up to the present day 385ppm.
It’s a gradual increase over 100ppm before the Industrial Revolution and another 100ppm after that. Spectators will see that higher carbon concentrations are not an avoidable industrial pollutant. It is a byproduct of productivity and development, without which we would never be able to develop cleaner sources of energy.
The museum display should also make it clear that modern cities experience CO2 concentrations of almost 600ppm and that it used to be more or less the same concentration in urban areas a century or more ago when smoke from coal and woodfires clogged the air with all sorts of nasty chemicals on top of not-so-nasty carbon dioxide.

March 28, 2009 10:57 am

Global Warming and Green House Gas Emissions are all about the politics of wealth redistribution(US left and UN). There supposed science is a smoke screen.
As with all political advertisements they are off limits to non-profit organizations and government entities.
All non-profits who have advertised as such should lose their non-profit status retroactively and pay all back taxes. Any government employee pushing the political agenda in any way should be fired.

March 28, 2009 11:07 am

I attended this revamped academy of science just a few months ago. I was disappointed to say the least. As a child I took field trips to the old planetarium, aquarium, etc. It was broad and extensive with each wing dedicated to a different science. It did for science what the nearby musem does for art.
This new “sustainable” building seemed small, crowded, and didn’t elicit any strong understanding of the sciences. It appears more dedicated to showing how smart their building design is. The lines were long, and the payoff was small. The capstone (literally) of this project is the living roof. True to form, it is nice to look at but all of the humans had to be crowded onto a walkway and kept well away from the “nature”. The global warming concern expressed via the threatened polar bear cub was over-the-top, but no more disappointing than the rest of the experience.
The Exploratorium on the other hand is still a great place to take kids to see scientific and engineering principles in action. While there we watched a cow eye get dissected. Pretty neat. And gross. Perfect for an 8 year old.

Don E
March 28, 2009 11:30 am

I am a member of the California Academy of Politically Correct Science. This is San Francisco after all. The Galapagos display also has some questionable science related to climate. Go to the blog of their “Climate Expert.” He seems devoted to RealClimate. I spent much of my childhood at the Academy (and the deYoung) almost 60 years ago. I am saddened by this display. But I have confidence that as children grow older and can think for themselves, they will see through this nonsense. I recall “refer madness” propaganda. It became a joke. So will this climate display.

March 28, 2009 11:32 am

Phil (10:14)
It is a hockey stick. That is the most important religious icon in the fundamentalist faith based AGW cult. It is used to rally the unthinking zombies that follow Pope Gore and Archbishop Hansen’s holy edicts.

March 28, 2009 11:34 am

Sounds to me exactly as it should be. Since AGW alarmism has nothing to do with science, its propagandizing should be ignored in a science environment.
Their gigantic “hockey stick”, complete with the ridiculously exaggerated scale and zero line at 280, looks more like a particularly steep mountain than any kind of realistic graph. Hopefully they outsmart themselves with that one.
And the giant interactive balance thingy… reminds me of fundraisers where they show the amount “needed” and the donations to date. Really original. Not.
I do, however, wonder just how much CO2 was emitted creating this ugly, horrifically ugly, and muddled display. Obviously the wood needed to be harvested and transported, it’s coated with varnish, the plastics and metals don’t just appear naturally, and no doubt many people spent many days driving in to work creating it.
Your key phrases for extracting money from the gullible: “tackling”, “offset”, “footprint”, and “taking action”. Check, check, check and check.

March 28, 2009 12:04 pm

Heh, my daughter’s teacher tried to pull a “fast one”. She sent home a note that said students would, from time to time, be allowed to watch a movie a few times a year. She gave a list of movies that they might watch and asked parents to note any objections. Most of the movies were just normal kid/family movies but buried in the list about 2/3 of the way down was “An Inconvenient Truth” I checked the “NO” box with the note that my daughter could only see it if the movie is balanced with “Swindle” and “Swindle” is shown in its entirety after “AIT”.

Mike McMillan
March 28, 2009 12:15 pm

Judging by the latest SOHO image, we’re in for some serious global cooling.
Never seen a sunspot covering 90% of the surface.
Perhaps they shut the sun down for earth day.
Wonder if anyone noticed they have a problem?

March 28, 2009 12:20 pm

MartinGAtkins (10:34:07) :
I think the main reason why the top elite of warmists will not debate is here.
‘Global Warming Is Not a Crisis’
YouTube – Global Warming Debate – Introduction, part 1 of 10
Part 1,

Mike Ryan
March 28, 2009 12:23 pm

Peter (11:32:24) :
“It is a hockey stick. That is the most important religious icon in the fundamentalist faith based AGW cult. It is used to rally the unthinking zombies that follow Pope Gore and Archbishop Hansen’s holy edicts.”
Peter: Say what you like about climate science but please avoid being unnecesarily offensive to people who follow a particular religion.

March 28, 2009 12:40 pm

The best children’s science museum / exhibition is the science museum on the outskirts of Toronto. It’s well worth a visit if you’re in the area. I forget what it’s called.

March 28, 2009 12:45 pm

Lon (11:07:23) :
I attended this revamped academy of science just a few months ago.
This new “sustainable” building seemed small, crowded, and didn’t elicit any strong understanding of the sciences. It appears more dedicated to showing how smart their building design is.

During the Medieval Warm Period the great cathedrals, temples and mosques of the old world were built with very very heigh ceilings because worshippers needed to keep cool.
Temperatures are supposedly lower now and we don’t need such spacious rooms do we? If this new California Academy of Science building was smartly designed with efficiency in mind the ceilings shouldn’t be more than 7.5-8 feet high. They’ve chosen very high ceilings which make the building harder to keep warmth.
Another example of “Do as I say not as I do.”

March 28, 2009 1:16 pm

LOL, why does that poster look like a ransom note?

March 28, 2009 1:21 pm

Did they have polar bear wrestling? You know, where you try to put the polar bear in a life jacket…. 😉

Alan Wilkinson
March 28, 2009 1:35 pm

Aron, I don’t know where you live but low ceiling rooms are diabolical for large groups of people and rely entirely on costly and polluting air-conditioning to maintain even half-decent air to breathe.
High ceiling rooms purpose built are both practical and efficient. All they need is good insulation to be warm in cold weather.

March 28, 2009 1:45 pm

That CO2 chart is absolutely a hockey stick chart. It is intended to alarm the viewers, nothing more or less. It is an alarming chart, made by a climate alarmist. Just look at it! [click]
If they wanted to be honest, they would use a zero base line chart like this: click
Also, UN Sec-Gen Ban Ki Moon made a statement I heard on the radio just now: “Our planet is getting hotter.” This guy must be one of the original Moonies.
Mr. Moon is telling a fib. Our planet has been cooling for the past decade.
When someone lies to get your money, it’s called “fraud.”

Ken Hall
March 28, 2009 1:47 pm

Notice on the CO2 hockey stick how they have the horizontal axis starting at 280ppm?
It is the usual trick to make the uptick appear much MUCH larger than it really is. If they used an accurate and honest scale, starting from zero, then the true scale of the increase would be demonstrated. Ah, but, that would not look as scary would it?

March 28, 2009 1:57 pm

OT – Snow and Blizzard Conditions Predicted for Washington DC April 27 – 28

March 28, 2009 2:01 pm

Aron, I don’t know where you live but low ceiling rooms are diabolical for large groups of people and rely entirely on costly and polluting air-conditioning to maintain even half-decent air to breathe.
It was sarcasm! I was referring to environmentalists who have said homes in eco-towns should be built with low ceilings to make them cheaper to heat. It’s another example of their lack of foresight.
I lived in Mumbai for over a year, spent most of time in a low ceiling room. It was very hot, needed air-conditioning and a ceiling fan switched on 24 hours a day. Even then I lost 30 pounds of weight, developed breathing problems and lost cardiovascular fitness.
I won’t talk about the black hole of Calcutta. That’s an extreme example!

March 28, 2009 2:22 pm

I just had a thought today. In the past million years there has been plenty of Ice Ages and periods of Global warming. We all know that. We all do also agree that when temps warmed up, CO2 when up. We all can agree on that. When temps went down, CO2 levels went down. And we all still can agree to that. But, what cause the change from one cold period to a warm period. The change in temp causes a change in CO2. Should scientist addressed what cause the change not relationship between the two.
What made the earth warm up in the past, heck if there was a good reason and that some how aliens dumped ton’s of CO2 in our enviroment and that cause our warm up then heck, we should stop burning oil. I would like to know is the relationship of the planet warming and the amount of CO2 increased over the same time. CO2 does not get created out of thin air, something in the past cause the planet to warm, and if it was more CO2, where the heck that came from!!!
I hope that you guys follow me, they say that in the past more CO2 made the planet warmer. If human pump more CO2 in the air it would make thinks warmer. This is their arguement. We need at that point ask, well was dinosaurs creating the CO2.
From now on, I going to listen to their theories and try to lead it to arguement of previous global warming on earth and the increase CO2 levels relationship and then ask, where did that increase in CO2 come from?

March 28, 2009 2:38 pm

Mike Ryan (12:23:05) :
Mike Ryan, I suspect I follow the same religion as you, and am routinely mocked for it, by the secular humanist crowd which interestingly constitute the majority of the AGW true believers, I merely enjoy pointing out that they have become that which they despise, yet are so caught up in their righteous indignation that they cannot grasp even that simple truth.
As far as being offensive, well, sorry. I find the concept of offense at the written opinion of another to be a little thin skinned. Disagree, out argue, subdue with superior reasoning and logic, but some guy said something eminently reasonable about defending to the death the right to say potentially offensive things.

March 28, 2009 2:47 pm

I wonder if deficit dollars were spent on this project so that the very children that were being propagandized will be paying for this political tripe in the future. The terminator’s new tax hike will take place in a few days insuring that most large purchases will now occur were the tax bite is less. More jobs will leave the state.
Meanwhile the oceans continue to cool, the sea ice is at the 30 year average and the sun is still in a funk. I hope we will not be looking like Dr. Soon’s book on a prior funk in the sun.

March 28, 2009 2:53 pm

The new museum is a fiasco
The old museum needed to be rebuilt to meet Earthquake standards. Before the “upgrade” the exhibits were the focus and the building was just a container. The rebuild process was taken over by Enviros and now the building is the focus, with exhibits secondary. The upgrade cost ~$500M and thus tickets are now $25 per adult, $15/$20 per child up from $10/$5. A family membership used to cost $60/year, now it $160. We used to be members and visit all the time, but we have not been since it reopened and even if we do go, it will be a onetime event.
I watched a TV show on building the new museum and one thing that clearly came through is that the green roof is HEAVY and requires a LOT of structural steel to support. All the spending on the building meant less was available for exhibits. What a mess…

March 28, 2009 3:46 pm

We can all help out with the “lights off hour”.
Refuse to play or watch AIT. The TV, DVD player and surround sound can all be turned off, saving us a ton of electricty.
I feel cooler already…

March 28, 2009 3:50 pm

IRELAND’S BIRDS have fared well over the past decade, with many species showing population increases, according to a major new study.
It appears they like it warm.

Domingo Tavella
March 28, 2009 3:51 pm

The Academy of Sciences is in the pockets of big environmentalism. Gore and his cronies make millions thanks to their connections with that organization.
So-called “scientists” don’t understand that true knowledge can be found in sites like this, where people with real understanding of earth science, mathematics, physics, and economics are truly free to express their highly informed opinions, without fear of their research budgets being cut off for not following the official line.

March 28, 2009 3:54 pm

I read about the exhibit somewhere and, my wife has asked me a couple of times to take the kids. I’ve resisted because I don’t like getting angry in public. I may, however, go and check it out, maybe print out a copy of the ocean cooling graph that was posted on here this week, and see if I can find someone to give it to strategically.
I used to live right by the place when I was at UCSF, right on Lincoln Way. It was great then – the late night planetarium shows set to Pink Floyd music were very “entertaining”.

William R
March 28, 2009 4:08 pm

I had a feeling that it would be full of global warming propaganda, and I unfortunately I was right. I can’t believe that I was talked into going to it! It’s sad that a few aquariums, some stuffed animals and enviro-fascist brain washing passes as science these days. My favorite part was that garbage cans were labeled “landfill”. I felt so dirty after giving $25×2 to these looters that I spent the rest of the day in the shower trying to wash off the shame…to no avail.

March 28, 2009 4:17 pm

I’m not concerned by the lack of interest in Global Warming Propaganda, as evidenced in the post.
I am concerned that children will associate science with scaremongering, environmentalist propaganda and visions of inevitable future apocalypse, rather than as a tool to understand the Universe and better themselves. I worry that children will be turned off the wonders of science because of the irresponsibility and dubious ethics of a relatively small number of academics.
I worry that children will see science as just another faith position, as another form of (extreme left-wing) political stance, as a dated fashion statement, as an empty philosophy.

March 28, 2009 4:18 pm

Hansen 2005:
“This energy imbalance is the ‘smoking gun’ that we have been looking for”
Hansen 2009:
Climate models, using typical presumed scenarios of climate forcings for the
past century, suggest that the planet should be out of energy balance by +0.75 ± 0.25 W/m2, but observations of ocean heat content change (averaged over the 11-year solar cycle) suggest an imbalance of only +0.5 ± 0.25 W/m2 (absorbed solar energy exceeding heat radiation to space).
“We do not have measurements of aerosols going back to the 1800s – we don’t even have global measurements today.
Any measurements that exist incorporate both forcing and feedback.
Aerosol effects on clouds are very uncertain.”
“Even if we accept the IPCC aerosol estimate, which was pretty much pulled out of a hat, it leaves the net forcing almost anywhere between zero and 3 watts.”
So now if only Hansen had the right numbers for aerosols, we could then know what knobs to turn to control climate. How long can this charade go on?

March 28, 2009 4:27 pm

Sounds to me like someone should pull the fire alarm in that part of the building.
Some CO2, some halon–yeah that should frost their onions a bit.

March 28, 2009 4:36 pm

Thanks for the edits. I have to agree with some of the comments about the building being the focus rather than the science. Even the planetarium show starts with the building and the roof and it’s environmental advantages, and the need to save the frail earth. Through out the discussion of the plants and galaxies, was a CO2 sub-context. We live in the green zone, and too much CO2 and we will soon be like Venus, out side the green zone.

March 28, 2009 4:50 pm

OT Obama is hosting climate change meetings in April. See

March 28, 2009 5:34 pm

Well, Human Achievement Hour seems to be taking off well in my neighborhood! While downtown Nashville looks a bit dark, my neighborhood is lit up like New Years Eve!

Tim L
March 28, 2009 6:50 pm

LATE SEASON WINTER STORM???? Does NOAA know something and are not telling the MSM????? Late season or late winter? late spring? anyone?

Tim Channon
March 28, 2009 7:02 pm

Two sunspots or something like that? Watch ye SOHO.

March 28, 2009 7:02 pm

This fits a pattern of slightly abated enthusiasm in the AGW camp. I’ll admit that the extremists continue unabated. But, they are compelled to do so, because they have no road back. They either see the disaster happen or their reputations and livelyhoods evaporate.
But, there are regular folks in the alarmist sector who have seen the grafitti and are now adopting CYA* positions.
You will see more and more abstracts, papers and powerpoint presentations that question “the answer”.
*Cover Your (donkey)”

Robert Wood
March 28, 2009 7:11 pm

O/T But I see this paper, presented by a certain Mr. Hansen at the recent Copenhagen propaganda-fest, is getting a lot of web time
It is surprising for two reasons. 1) It’s candour 2) Its vacuity.
Aerosol Forcing Not Measured .. Based in good part on presumptions … Aerosol forcing practically unknown
Even if we accept the IPCC aerosol estimate, which was pretty much pulled out of a hat, it leaves the net forcing almost anywhere between zero and 3 watts.

Robert Wood
March 28, 2009 7:23 pm

Dan @ 14:22:45
Have you watched the Great Global Warming Swindle video, available on google video??
Also, you are asking an innocent and obvious question, which does not get answered. All those “climate scientists” need to keep their jobs and won’t actually do any, you know, like, climate science.

March 28, 2009 7:25 pm

However the AGW propaganda juggernaut trundles on….. The Australian press were reporting that a, “Billion people and over eighty cities world wide turned their lights out for Earth hour.”…..
That is a down right fib…. But the journalists just don’t seem to care about truth and impartiality anymore…. The Australian ones, anyway.
Shades of Orwell.

Henry Phipps
March 28, 2009 7:52 pm

My clever nephew taught me something about recycling which I suspect isn’t well understood. Most “recyclables” can only be recycled two or three times, before they are useless. Even glass winds up as part of asphalt after about four recycles. Since we all believe science will be better in the future, we should stop recycling and do all the mining now, so that the earth will have longer to recover from the mining process. All the stuff to be recycled by much more efficient processes in the future should be stored in clearly marked and maintained places where we can monitor their natural degradation, and utilize the otherwise wasted outgases they produce, like methane. Future recycling engineers will be able to find these resources without searching or disrupting the fragile environment, because we have clearly marked them. My nephew, the mining engineer, said we should call these places (Wait for it, wait for it!) “Municipal Landfills”.

Alan Wilkinson
March 28, 2009 8:05 pm

J Hansford – journalists don’t do science, they do newspaper sales.

March 28, 2009 9:15 pm

DR (16:18:55) :
“Climate models, using typical presumed scenarios of climate forcings for the
past century, suggest that the planet should be out of energy balance by +0.75 ± 0.25 W/m2, but observations of ocean heat content change (averaged over the 11-year solar cycle) suggest an imbalance of only +0.5 ± 0.25 W/m2 (absorbed solar energy exceeding heat radiation to space).”
Anyone else notice the ‘suggested’ imbalance is exactly the margin of error? Wattsupwiththat?

March 28, 2009 9:35 pm

Mr. Watts,
I don’t know about anyone else here, but if you sold a device that could measure CO2, I would buy it. Of course, I have no idea how expensive they are, but you probably do. Are they absurdly expensive?
REPLY: Cheapest ones are about $500, but they only have a +/- 50PPM accuracy. Useful for monitoring industrial environs, not so useful scientifically.

March 28, 2009 9:43 pm

REPLY: Cheapest ones are about $500, but they only have a +/- 50PPM accuracy. Useful for monitoring industrial environs, not so useful scientifically.
That’s too bad. Ever since this whole thing started I have wanted to check the air here in Ohio out. You know, a measure in my neighborhood, one in an urban area, one in Hocking Hills. Guess I’ll have to keep saving, or hope for a government grant… 🙂

March 28, 2009 11:26 pm

Slightly OT, but on the points about science being used for indoctrination, can I commend the following site to your readers:
It lists past question papers for various science GCSE papers (British High School leaving exams)
Further can I refer the good readers to the March 2008 Unit 1a Physics (Energy and Electricity) question paper. This is what my son, and thousands of other British high school children like him, is being taught. Frightens the proverbial out of me.

Lindsay H
March 28, 2009 11:28 pm

One expects the media to be sceptical and challenge the status quo, yet for some reason world wide climate and science reporters for all the major newspapers have bought in to the IPCC world view, we need to know why.
Its been reported that 70% of journalists (even on Fox News) have a socialist inclination, does this have a bearing on the lack of media scepticism about the claims of the Hansen Gore IPCC ideology. Probably
Or does it reflect the relative young age of most science /climate reporters, who are low on the pecking order, and the shallow science Education they have received.
Does it reflect a political agenda from the owners and editors who perceive that alarmism sells papers better than trying to explain real science, and the huge uncertainties in the climate debate.

March 28, 2009 11:53 pm

We went through this exercise a few months ago here. The cheapest that would have any sort of meaningful accuracy was about 2000$ The ones Ernst Beck uses are more like 4000$
I dont know if such a thing would find its way on to ebay?

Adam Gallon
March 29, 2009 4:56 am

Christopher Booker’s just kicked a big hole in the sea level story.
He’s quoting Nils-Axel Mörner.
“One of his most shocking discoveries was why the IPCC has been able to show sea levels rising by 2.3mm a year. Until 2003, even its own satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend. But suddenly the graph tilted upwards because the IPCC’s favoured experts had drawn on the finding of a single tide-gauge in Hong Kong harbour showing a 2.3mm rise. The entire global sea-level projection was then adjusted upwards by a “corrective factor” of 2.3mm, because, as the IPCC scientists admitted, they “needed to show a trend”.
If this is true, then it’s a real smoking gun.
I think I’ll drop it into the maw of “Unreal Climate”. Any bets on it being a) censored or b) heavily denied with a big ad-hom on the good Danish Dr?

Mr Lynn
March 29, 2009 4:57 am

JaneHM (13:57:49) :
OT – Snow and Blizzard Conditions Predicted for Washington DC April 27 – 28

From the article. . .

Obama plans climate change summit
US President Barack Obama has invited figures from the world’s 16 major economies to Washington for a meeting on climate change at the end of April.

The event will be the first meeting of what the White House styles “the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate”.
It will focus on increasing the supply of clean energy and cutting greenhouse gas emissions, the White House said.
It was announced as millions worldwide observed Earth Hour, turning off lights in a protest against climate change.
The Washington meeting is scheduled to take place on 27-28 April and the sessions will culminate in a July meeting in Italy.
International agreement
The forum – which will bring together representatives of the 16 major economies and the UN secretary general – is designed to help broker a UN agreement on global warming, the White House said in a statement.
It aims to create dialogue between nations and “help generate the political leadership necessary to achieve a successful outcome at the UN climate change negotiations that will convene this December in Copenhagen”, the statement said. . .

This would be an ideal time for some Realist origanizations to demand “equal time” at this conference. Perhaps Senator Inhofe could be enlisted. They should say something like,
“We do not believe there is a crisis. We do not believe CO2 emissions present a problem. CO2 is good for plants, good for the Earth, and good for us! We have good scientific evidence that no man-made ‘global warming’ is occurring. And we know that all so-called ‘mitigation’ measures will be disasterous for the US and world economies. We demand that our side of this debate be heard at this conference!”
For some election cycles now the political parties have sent ‘Truth Squads’ to follow opponents around and create ‘corrective’ media events. How about organizing Climate Truth Squads to show up wherever the Alarmists are spouting forth?
As for propaganda exhibits like the one in California, have any of the commentators here sent official complaints to the museum authorities? Have they sent letters to the newspapers? This kind of outrageous distortion of science deserves resounding condemnation. It would be a good opportunity for a local Climate Truth Squad to create a steady stream of complaints, hold public meetings denouncing the exhibit, even demonstrate before it.
I’m as reluctant as anyone to get off my duff and engage in public protest, or any kind of confrontation. But I’d be willing to join an organization whose aim was to stand up for science in the face of its perversion by a political orthodoxy. There is strength in numbers, and the clock is ticking.
/Mr Lynn

March 29, 2009 5:03 am

In response to Rob’s earlier post about small birds in Ireland a recent radio item mentioned an increase in long tail tits due to warmer winters.
Strangely the survey was carried out this January, one of the coldest for years.
Mostly blue tits around here although, while trying to spot the thrush in the bush, I saw a pair of great tits hanging out by the pond.
Sadly I haven’t seen any coal tits this year. Perhaps they need a more politically correct name?

March 29, 2009 5:49 am

OT but very interesting! Looks like Earth Hour was really Mirth Hour in our part of the world as it was a complete bust. Power usage actually went up at 8:30! Thanks to all who actively particpated in Human Achievement Hour.
Anyone else check what actually happened at their power authority?

in denial
March 29, 2009 7:36 am

Mr. Lynn
I like your idea of some kind of “Truth Squad” to combat AGW mania. Like you, getting of my duff requires more and more effort but it would be well worth it. I am currently emailing my elected ‘representatives’ a couple of times a week and would encourage all to do the same. I would love to see some sort of pro-active response to the insanity of AGW. I mean, I enjoy the postings here but…what effect are we having on the potentially catastrophic policies being dreamed up in ‘smoke filled rooms’ by ignorant pols egged on by the AGW cult? Can we do more? I think so…
At least the war on prosperity is going well…

Pamela Gray
March 29, 2009 8:07 am

The building and display concept went the wrong way in examining ideas of pollution. Kids are attracted to grossology. If you want them to learn about something that is bad for you, they have to see it (preferably close up and with a microscope and it should look really hairy and monster like), smell it (it should smell really bad), touch it (it should have the consistency of throw-up), and dissect it (it should be like opening up a fresh chicken gizzard). Otherwise you end up with a display with too many words. Children learn, not through words, but through playing with gross stuff, like the debris from their own nose.
I have a book on experiments for 3rd through 5th graders that examines anything that can be made to explode, smoke, or look/smell really bad. These experiments are designed to discover basic biology and physics and how to apply these theories. Whenever we get to the regular science chapter on physics I throw the text out and get out my handy dandy grossology experiments book. Then after we are done making really gross things happen, I throw the text back at them. They read it with new enthusiasm.
There are ways to explore gross pollution that should lead children to understand these emissions should not be a part of our productivity. Soot comes to mind. And yes, the book of experiments covers the stuff you get out of your nose. That one is always popular with the boys.

Ron de Haan
March 29, 2009 8:16 am

Today, Obama announced an International Forum on Energy and Climate to be held in Washington in April.
His objective is to turn the December UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen into a success.
This step also allows him to concentrate on the establishment of a new Economic World Order during the upcoming G20 meeting.
How much slag are we going to give this crackpot of a President who is prepared to drop an atomic bomb on the economy.
Thousands of Americans having lost their houses already live in tents.
Are we risking the revival of the Civil War?
There is NO climate problem and there is no reason to shut down our economies.
This is “Change” nobody asked for.

Kum Dollison
March 29, 2009 8:44 am

[snip – off color]

P Folkens
March 29, 2009 9:49 am

Part of the CAS display on AGW includes a bit about a mass extinction, drawing parallels of the present state to catastrophic worldwide extinction events such as “the big five” — K-T, Late Devonian, Triassic/Jurassic transition, Permian-Triassic transition, and Ordovician-Silurian.
I have colleagues in CAS. I pointed out to some of them that Cenozic climate variation such as the Eocene/Oligocene transition caused abrupt extinctions much more serious than now, but not as severe as the “big five.” It was hyperbolic and disingenuous to assert that the present condition is at all like the K-T event or other catastrophes.
The present extinctions (where documented) are on the species or genus level. I know of only one recent family level extinction and that was a relict dolphin (Baiji, Family Lipotidae) and that as caused by habitat loss, not climate change. I added that the worst-case scenarios postulated by the AGW crowd still fell well within Late Holocene normal climate fluctuations. A one meter rise in sea level over the next 100 years is insignificant when compared to the 100 meter drop in the Early Oligocene.
But, as per usual in this debate, even to learned scientists in the tank, the empirical data really doesn’t matter anymore.

March 29, 2009 12:50 pm

Maybe the local “Truth Squad” can enhance the display. I wonder how much metal stands for truth panels would cost. I wonder how long such things would be left standing next to the official display.

March 29, 2009 12:53 pm

Welcome to “spring” in frozen Kanada!
I did my part for “stupid hour.”
Here is what I did. (I have both solar and wind power to augment my grid power but I turned them off for the “stupid hour.”)
Last night at 8:30pm I started all my farm vehicles, turned on all my appliances, turned on all my lights, turned up the thermostat and opened a window, even though it was -15 C and there is still over four feet of snow in my fields and no sign of melting 8 days into “spring!!” SOMEONE had to make up for any loss of CO2 by “stupid hour!”
This is probably the most serious threat to humanity in our time. The study done on the “environmental” effect of a Prius vs. a Hummer is indicative of the farce being brainwashed into our children. Can you imagine the amount of coal and natural gas required to produce and distribute (along with the huge loss in transmission) enough electricity to charge up the inefficient “electric” and “hybrid” vehicles if everyone was forced to drive one? (Not to mention the vast costs to produce, and the environmental disaster that would be caused by the spent poisonous batteries!) We would need more than the 650 “dirty” coal fired power plants that China is currently constructing with NO outcry from the hypocritical and destructive “environmentalists!!”
A chart of CO2 for the past 500 million years shows that it is now at almost the lowest point in the studied geological history of the Earth. CO2 was vastly more concentrated during the last ICE AGE! What does that tell you?
I recently saw a show on Geographic channel where a huge icebreaker and a crew of “scientists” were hired by National Geographic to crash through extremely thick ice in the Arctic, TO “STUDY” HOW GLOBAL WARMING WAS CAUSING THE ICE TO THICKEN!! Even Geographic has bought into “junk science!”

March 29, 2009 4:31 pm

Ohioholic (21:35:27) :

I don’t know about anyone else here, but if you sold a device that could measure CO2, I would buy it. Of course, I have no idea how expensive they are, but you probably do. Are they absurdly expensive?

Probably what you’d like is an IR spectrometer. Ebay has three listed between $1,000 and $10,000. You’re a student, right? How old? You might try looking around your community for a hospital, business, or college that has one in their lab and might be willing to let you use it for a community-interest project or hire you as a lab tech for the summer (lab tech == testtube washer and petri dish cleaner). If you contact some vendors, they might tell who has their machines. If you’re really lucky, they might slip you in to a demo program and lend you one for a month.
If you’re really crazed, make one. Seriously. It can’t be that hard to make one that is good only for a single wavelength, and that’s all you need. You need an infrared source (light bulb), diffraction grating, CO2 sample containers (possibly a tube with IR-transparent – glass? plastic? germanium? – caps), an IR sensor (TV remote?), and power supplies and meters (Radio Shack). Any local Ham (Amateur radio operator) should be glad to help out or give you most of the electronics.
Someone made an Atomic Force Microscope using Legos for the structures, a single wavelength spectroscope ought to be doable and blow away any media types who get wind of it.

Robert Bateman
March 29, 2009 4:36 pm

Actually, Ron, there is a climate problem. It’s the Sun.
And the attendant lack of activity.
Instead of preparing for upcoming consequences of colder climate, they are instead chasing a mirage, and playing silly games with energy economics.
They should be finding ways to conserve energy usage, as in addressing superfluous lighting, inefficient forms of transport, etc.
Globalized trade is the biggest energy hog ever invented.

March 29, 2009 6:17 pm

“enough (10:57:08) :
Global Warming and Green House Gas Emissions are all about the politics of wealth redistribution(US left and UN). There supposed science is a smoke screen.”
What it really reminds me of is the Monty Python Robin Hood parody sketch…
“Steals from the poor, give to the rich”

Mike Lallatin
March 29, 2009 6:19 pm

My family and I were there 3/21, and spent about a half-hour at a table next to the AGW displays. We did not see a single person who appeared to give anything but a cursory, while-heading-elsewhere, look at any part of the displays in view from our seats. We heard no one comment on the displays while we stood in lines for the cafe closest to the AGW area. We did not look at any of it, but were predisposed to ignore it. Our family group spanned 3 generations of life-sciences enthusiasts.

March 29, 2009 6:51 pm

You state the cheapest CO2 monitors have an accuracy of +/-50ppm.
What is their precision?
ie are they consistently out by that + or – 50ppm?
If they are consistent, they are still useful.

March 30, 2009 8:43 am

Somewhat OT: A PBS Nova episode, Extreme Ice” was broadcast last night in the Puget Sound area. It was an outrageous misrepresentation of what is happening in Alaska and Greenland. Some of the filming and data from 2008 was incorporated.
All contradictory research was ignored. There was no mention that Alaskan glaciers, the Juneau Ice Field, and Greenland Ice sheet gained mass in 2008.
I changed stations after 30 minutes rather than break my TV.

March 30, 2009 1:43 pm

PASPORT Carbon Dioxide Gas Sensor $259
Typical Applications
Measure CO2 uptake during photosynthesis in a terrarium
Compare indoor vs. outdoor CO2 levels
Study cellular respiration of yeast
Conduct chemical reaction studies
Conduct qualitative comparisons of carbon dioxide concentrations up to 300,000 ppm.

March 30, 2009 6:56 pm

walshamatic (13:43:12) :
> PASPORT Carbon Dioxide Gas Sensor $259
* 0 ppm to 10,000 ppm: 100 ppm or 10% of value, whichever is greater
* 10,000 ppm to 50,000 ppm: 20% of value
* Over 50,000 ppm: qualitative only.

March 30, 2009 6:58 pm

DaveE (18:51:53) :
> You state the cheapest CO2 monitors have an accuracy of +/-50ppm.
> What is their precision?
> ie are they consistently out by that + or – 50ppm?
> If they are consistent, they are still useful.
If the display increment is 100 ppm, they aren’t very useful.

%d bloggers like this: