From the Chicago Field Museum Climate Exhibit: CO2 makes Poison Ivy grow. Yes, but what about the millions of other plants in the biosphere that is booming? What about agriculture? I really resent this sort of one sided presentation foisted on children that won’t know any better.
Watch this YouTube video showing how a Cowpea plant responds to increased CO2 levels. Most any plant will react in much the same way:
And it gets worse.
Kids can now buy Carbon Credits at the museum from the flatlining Chicago Climate Exchange, which Gore and Pachauri are advisers for.
They may as well just throw their money down the toilet as CCX is now in EPIC FAIL mode. Sure, take money from the kids, why not?
The months of flatlining at the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) should be a hint to the rest of the world that carbon trading is dead. Time to take it off life support. Even at 10 cents a ton, nobody wants it. At it’s peak in July 2008, it traded for $7.50 per ton of CO2.
Chicago Climate Exchange close on June 30th, 2010 – click for source
See who is on the CCX advisory board here
And there is lot’s more. How ’bout that Malaria Myth?
The Field exhibit promotes the theory that global warming will cause increased
incidence of malaria. Thatʼs a powerful scare story – global warming, then malaria in
Chicago. In the early days of settlement there was a lot of malaria in the Midwest.
According to the Mackinac Center for Public Policy:
Willis F. Dunbar in “Michigan: A History of the Wolverine State,” writes that the disease “was so prevalent that it was rather unusual to escape it.”
According the Paul Reiter, a malaria expert, malaria was a serious problem in Britain during the very cold period in the 1600ʼs known as the little ice age. Malaria, called ague, was mentioned 13 times in Shakespeareʼs plays.
Experts on malaria and other mosquito borne diseases have been fighting a losing battle with global warming believers. The idea that global warming will promote malaria is too good a scare story to let the facts get in the way. Nine malaria experts published a letter in the June, 2004 Lancet with the title: “Global warming and malaria: a call for accuracy.”
Above: Malaria endemicity in 1900 (a, top) and 2007 (b, middle) by increasing severity category. The difference in endemicity (c, bottom) from 1900 to 2007 indicates worsening malaria in red areas and improvements in blue (Gething et al., 2010).
If you give this issue a moment of thought, this result should be obvious. Of course malaria is not as bad now as it was 100 years ago. Global health interventions have reduced the problem significantly.
We covered it here on WUWT.
Gore, like the Field Museum, still pushes the factual errors associated with this. See here.
You can read all about the Chicago Field Museum Climate Exhibit in a July 5th walk through report (PDF) by Norman Rogers of www.climateviews.com who has now earned a place in my blogroll. Some of the other exhibit photos are similarly stunningly stupid.
h/t to Tom Nelson
Has anyone bothered to call the Chicago Field Museum on the lie they’ve posted? CO2 doesn’t make poison ivy’s poison more poisonous because poison ivy doesn’t produce poison. Poison ivy’s sap contains urushiol — and most people are allergic to it.
But saying “allergen” doesn’t produce the chill factor that saying “poison” does…
“He ain’t sick. He’s only got the ague.”
Don’t go to Michigan, that land of ills;
The word means ague, fever, and chills.
Can’t sell your carbon credits in the CCX market so you peddle them to kids.
How disgraceful !!! Be a man and just accept your loses !!!
I think Obama and company has something to do with this obamanation.
“Know the crooks and their roles:
George Soros, Joyce Foundation and connection to CCX.
What is CCX, the Chicago Climate Exchange, projected to gross 10 Trillion a year is Cap-N-Tax passes. Obama played a pivotal role in the formation of the CCX. (Click here for expose)
Barrack Hussein Obama, Board Member of the Joyce Foundation, funded the formation of the CCX. (
Valerie Jarrett is still on the board, Obama’s top adviser.) Obama sat on board and funneled money to Ayer’s brother (wild huh, just a guy in his neighborhood) and to form the CCX.”
http://www.examiner.com/x-14143-Orange-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2010m4d27-Scandal-Obama-Gore-Goldman-Joyce-Foundation-CCX-partners-to-fleece-USA?cid=channel-rss-Politics
This is more than sad:
I’ve been to the Field Museum several times over the last 20 years; while in Chicago for HP user group meetings. A good friend of mine from NM with a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology (among others) was on the visiting faculty at the Field; once I got a ”behind the scenes” tour of the upstairs lab area that was fascinating.
Overall the exhibits at the Field are a true national treasure.
AND THEN:
To have them stoop to this.
As per above: More than sad.
As a kid, I used to spend summers on an island that is mainly glued together with poison ivy, so I learned early on how to recognize it. Poison ivy is easy to avoid. You just have to remember that it is arranged in 3-leaf clusters. That will steer you clear.
And all science takes it off the chin for climate science.
As I’ve said previously, climate science is to science what kazoo players are to classical musicians.
So..
Carbon credits are selling at 0.10, and the Museum is charging $1? Add that to their irresponsibility…
This is the same way Hitler-Jugend was fostered.
How long are they going to keep up with this fake science? Anyone with a bit of education can see right through those carbon criminals.
Nor do the gods appear in warrior’s armour clad
To strike them down with sword and spear
Those whom they would destroy
They first make mad.
Bhartṛhari, 7th c. AD; as quoted in John Brough,Poems from the Sanskrit, (1968), p, 67
and a thousand variants on this theme – but a proverb from ancient times.
But modern man is, of course, immune now, isn’t he. (*evil grin*)
Look,I represent the Bio Diversity and Equal Opportunities for the Scarlet Pumpernckle Society and on behalf of our membership must protest the emphasis placed by the Chicago Field Museum on the growth of Poison Ivy habitat attributed to co2 . Have they nothing to say about the recent growth spurt of the Scarlet Pumpernickle ,which two decades ago was on the threatened plants register? We have protested their selective bias ro the Museum authorities but to date have received no response to our emails.
That particular map of malaria needs to start a bit earlier. From:
http://www.smcmad.org/malaria.htm
So back in the 1849 era California ought to have been shown with fairly rampant malaria. It was good public health systems that controlled it (and control it today… at “110 in the shade, and their ain’t no shade” in the Central Valley of California, there is plenty of heat for mosquitoes…
BTW, the native California vector (mosquito) happily lives at elevations up to 6000+ feet in the mountains. Think “Base Camp” of Squaw Valley Ski Resort… It’s not the temperature, it’s the public health system and bug sprays…
Oh, by the way, here is an interesting little story about a Malaria outbreak about the time I was an infant in Nevada County (in the mountains above the Central Valley):
http://www.ajtmh.org/cgi/content/abstract/3/5/789
at Lake Vera. Yeah, it’s “only” about 2500 feet elevation…
The whole notion that warmth is what matters is just soooo broken.
Oh, and from a google of “Alaska malaria history”
we have the google timeline:
“1878 – Yellow fever had claimed 19000 lives in Memphis alone in 1878. Malaria outbreaks in states as far apart as Alaska , Louisiana , Virginia and Wisconsin had claimed thousands of lives in recurrent epidemics over our history. ”
Yes, that pesky old Alaska and it’s terrible tropical heat strikes again /sarcoff>
and toward the end of the Little Ice Age at that…
Yes sir-eee that 1878 global warming in Alaska must have been mighty bad…
Too quick…read ‘Pumpernickle’ and “to’ the Museum’.
Michael says:
July 18, 2010 at 12:32 am
fluoridated parents
fluoridated, chlorinated, vaccinated, indoctrinated– ex: I always thought The Jungle by Upton Sinclair was some great novel we were supposed to respect. Then I learned what it really was. Ewwwwww! It took me until I was 47 to actually think about it for myself.
Kids are getting indoctrinated with global warming now. Some will learn later in life that is was political propaganda.
Is this unprecedent cooling at these high latitudes? See pools of cold areas (0C) off northern Chile 25North and Argentina (north), Uruguay
http://wxmaps.org/pix/sa.00hr.html
re previous refers to 700mb vertical velocity map
http://wxmaps.org/pix/sa.00hr.html
Full PDF for the maleria call to accuracy. http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/221.pdf
That plant growth video is very cool. It doesn’t just grow taller and bigger. It grows insanely fast. Maybe NASA should look into growing plants using higher concentrations of CO2? Oh wait. No one’s going into space anymore.
Anyhow, I’ve never seen or heard of this before until recently. Nice to see the comparison.
At WCR some wrote on GW something to the tune of:
“Everyting that’s good will be less, and everything that’s bad will be more.”
Do you ever wake up at night and wonder if the future of the country will get past all this? We’re talking some serious organised, widespread North Korean-style brainwashing here.
It’s always interesting of course that WUWT always seems to never give the full story.
(1) never report the results of Free Air Carbon Dioxide Experiments (FACE) which show much less response than the beloved cowpea in a luxurious environment showing none of Liebig’s minima.
(2) CO2 isn’t Jack’s beanstalk – not enough water – doesn’t matter
(3) CO2 fertilisation will reduce protein yields in wheat – is that what CO2 lovers want?
(4) increased CO2 in the atmosphere means more cold injury from frost
(5) and CO2 will preference natural woody species – trees and shrubs in savanna woodlands choking out C4 grasses – is that what CO2 lovers want
Perhaps it might be more complex than you think. Why doesn’t Anthony give us the full story? How simple it is to give is a picture of a plant in a growth chamber.
REPLY: The experiment was done with identical nutrients, identical soil, identical water, identical light. CO2 was the only variable. To see the “full story” (covered previously) on Liebigs law and plant growth see here.
Oh and frost formation is a function of available water vapor, temperature, cloud cover, and wind, Co2 hasn’t anything to do with it. Why didn’t you give the “full story” about that?- Anthony
Hmmmm. You get side-tracked by that Malaria-stuff. We should concentrate on that Museum…… I checked their web-site. No mail-adresses.
I was recently in the Chicago Field Museum. The do-gooders that run the place have installed motion detectors that operate the lights inside of the display cases. When nobody is around the motion detectors turn off the lights and save electricity, right? If you’ve been to the Field Museum you know that some of the display cases are huge and have hundreds of exhibits, so you’re standing there looking at the exhibits when suddenly the lights go out. You end up looking like an idiot jerking and waving at the display cases trying to keep the lights on so that you can read the dialogs that are in the display cases. A clear example of what happens when over-educated half-wits who have been shielded from reality for the balance of their lives end up in a position of responsibility.
Yes but,
You can nitpick and cherry-pick a few minor examples, but on balance CO2 is a harmless and beneficial minor trace gas, essential to all life on Earth. More is better.
Trying to demonize “carbon” is self-hatred; you are made from carbon.
Here, get educated:
click1
click2
click3
click4
click5
The thing about the photosynthesis bit is that how confused will children be? They are being shown that co2 is a toxin while in biology class some of them are being told that for photosynthesis and food crop production to take place CO2 is an essential ingredient. I can’t see how you spin this story to teenagers.
As for the malaria issue here are the counter points I made in May:
Eg: From Shakespeare to Defoe: Malaria in England in the Little Ice Age
In 1946-1948 there were 1500-2000 cases of malaria per 10,000 of the population in the territories of the former USSR
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/22/manns-1-8-million-malaria-grant-who-do-we-ask-for-a-refund/#comment-395182
Beth Cooper says:
July 18, 2010 at 1:05 am
If you have an email address, why not present it here?
I want to see some comments on this from the regular AGW believers who come to WUWT. I wait for your response to this post. Bear in mind that the biosphere is greening at the moment in response to increased human induced co2 and bearing in mind all the things you ate for breakfast lunch and dinner. :o(
CO2 makes poison ivy grow, and Roundup makes it stop growing.
I see a good idea brewing. If we could just eliminate all CO2 then we’d have no more poison ivy, no more warm weather, lots more ice and glaciers, more polar bears, and maybe even the wooly mammoth will come back?
What about poison oak and poison sumac? Do they grow a lot with more CO2? I think I’m going to write a research proposal and find out.
I haven’t checked yet…but isn’t there a public comment section on their website?…should be a way to provide feedback to them regarding the “scientific accuracy” of their exhibit.
I’d love to see them have to retract some of this garbage…
JimB
I must have missed this. Have you got an exact source for this wonderful piece of misinformation.
No… I thought not. There isn’t one, because no-one is actually saying that all CO2 is bad.
Just like most CO2 lovers – when the facts don’t match, just make up some new ones!
Here is a paper about the photosynthetic process. The words “carbon dioxide” or “co2” appear at least 48 times. Yet Gore et al are prepared to openly LIE and call it a toxin at its current atmospheric levels which it is not. Breath in and out of a plastic bag and it will be toxic. Drink too much water too fast and water will be toxic.
http://www.life.illinois.edu/govindjee/paper/gov.html
The poison ivy story above will produce a new generation of AGW sceptics.
Carbon credit for a dollar is correct as admistration fees kick in.
You honestly think every penny for carbon credits will not have some tax or admistration fee attached?
Pretty expensive air they are selling when sold by the molecule!
Look at the CO2 you own under the microscope! Put a name to you pet CO2.
IF IT LOOKS LIKE A SCAM, SMELLS LIKE A SCAM, IT IS A SCAM!!!
Hmmm…I wonder if I can sell O2 the same way….hmmm…(The Oxygen Exchange)?
Yes but says:
It’s all propaganda you fool. Check the science your friends are spouting. Go look and educate yourself.
David L says:
Nice idea but I don’t know how even to master race could stop the seas outgassing, the land, the volcanos etc etc etc. 😉
Yes but says:
July 18, 2010 at 2:14 am
It’s always interesting of course that WUWT always seems to never give the full story.
(1) never report the results of Free Air Carbon Dioxide Experiments (FACE) which show much less response than the beloved cowpea in a luxurious environment showing none of Liebig’s minima.
(2) CO2 isn’t Jack’s beanstalk – not enough water – doesn’t matter
(3) CO2 fertilisation will reduce protein yields in wheat – is that what CO2 lovers want?
(4) increased CO2 in the atmosphere means more cold injury from frost
(5) and CO2 will preference natural woody species – trees and shrubs in savanna woodlands choking out C4 grasses – is that what CO2 lovers want
Yes but you don’t give us the full story either.
Your point (3) Actually WUWT has covered this – see here. What research by the UC Davis group also says here is that nitrate was a less effective fertiliser than ammonium at elevated CO2 (700ppm). Since ammonium is the form of nitrogen found in natural fertilisers such as animal manures and is abundant the organic lobby should be happy! No protein reduction with ammonium as fertiliser either. Full paper here
(4) I assume you are extrapolating more CO2=warming=earlier bud burst, but with no reduction in the risk of early frosts? That is too many ifs for me. We don’t know what will happen.
(5) Averaged over all the FACE experiments the greatest benefits of elevated CO2 were accrued by trees. Sorgum was one C4 crop that showed the least benefit. May I remind you that C4 metabolism in plants evolved providing competitive advantage in elevated temperatures and drier conditions. Yes C4 plants are less able to take advantage of high CO2 but without irrigation – in natural grasslands, water often limits tree growth. As you said in (2) – not enough water – doesn’t matter.
Say, YES BUT, Where are your references?? You got real evidence? (snide comment deleted)
Yesbut @ 2:14 AM
It is clear that CO2 fertilizes plants. What this will do in our biosphere is not well characterized at present, but I’m here to tell you that there is a 4,000 to 1 imbalance of funding between alarmist and skeptic camps, and your research is from the heavy end of the Teeter-Totter.
It seems that CO2 is such a weak greenhouse gas that it won’t even keep us warm during the coming cooling. Thank Gaia that CO2’s powerful effect on crop fertility will keep millions from starving to death.
================
I hear CO2 makes food grow. But that’s just a rumor I am sure.
The regime wants a smart grid.
Now we have smart carbon that feeds noxious weeds more than beneficial plants.
I suppose this carbon makes snake meaner and piranhas hungrier.
Blantant bias really does make the carbon crisis movement look more ignorant.
The $1 carbon offset is likely the cheapest souvenir you can buy at the museum. And, just think, if the kids put it in a safety deposit box it will have a “antiques roadshow” value. That is, if they live to be, say, age 600.
“See who is on the CCX advisory board here”
Apart from Pachauri & his OIL interests as an advisor to Glorioil I see:
“Ed Begley Jr. has been considered an environmental leader in the Hollywood community for many years. ”
“Lucien Bronicki is the chairman of Ormat International, an Israeli company in the field of innovative technology solutions to geothermal power plants, power generation from industrial waste heat, and solar energy projects. ”
“Elizabeth Dowdeswell is internationally recognized for her global and highly diverse experience in building consensus and managing change……..a former Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).”
“Michael Polsky is the founder, President and CEO of Invenergy. Invenergy specializes in developing, acquiring and owning various power generations with an emphasis on renewable resources.”
“Michael Zammit Cutajar is a former Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. “
David L: July 18, 2010 at 3:43 am
What about poison oak and poison sumac? Do they grow a lot with more CO2? I think I’m going to write a research proposal and find out.
Add deadly nightshade and wolfbane to the proposal, too — might as well make it real scare-fest…
Why not exchange forests of poison ivey on CCX as an offset since it is a more efficient consumer of CO2 and stays green year round. The “green” organizations are banking on the offsets being made into law.
Just because CO2 makes a plant grow faster doesn’t mean that makes it better…
I have kids that are national merit scholars. The country still cranks out some awesome students. This garbage helps kids to distrust the system. My kids have been to the Smithsonian and countless museums and displays of nature and history. I have devoted time to telling how some of these statements come about and the psychology behind the propogandists. This actually improves their curiosity and suspicion makes for better science.
What do you tell a kid when he finds out that his science book was involved in dubious messaging and not scientific at all?
Now kids are being told that with warming, Santa is having a meltdown and this melt will hamper Christmas. Can anyone unpack this? Is Santa involved in environmental, social and economic justice stunts?
It’s Lie-swatting Time again.
First Lie:
Carbon dioxide is “pollution”.
The liars describe carbon dioxide as “global warming pollution.” It is not.
It is food for plants and trees. Tests have shown that even at concentrations 30 times those of the present day even the most delicate plants flourish. For example, well-managed forests, such as those of the United States, are growing at record rates because the extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is feeding the trees. Carbon dioxide, in geological timescale, is at a very low concentration at present. 500,000,000 years ago it was at 7,000 parts per million by volume, about 18 times today’s concentration.
Next Lie:
Mosquitoes are “climbing to higher altitudes”.
The liars say that, because of “global warming”, mosquitoes are climbing to higher altitudes. They are not.
Most recent outbreaks have been at lower levels than those of a century and more ago. The liars also say that Nairobi was founded 1,000m above sea level so as to be above the mosquito line. It was not.
In the period before man-made global warming could have had any significant effect, there were ten malaria outbreaks in Nairobi, one of which reached as far up as Eldoret, almost 3,000m above sea level.
Let’s make this perfectly clear; Malaria is not a tropical disease.
Mosquitoes do not need tropical temperatures: they need no more than 15°C to breed. The largest malaria outbreak of modern times was in Siberia in the 1920s and 1930s, when 13 million were infected, 600,000 died and 30,000 died as far north as Arkhangelsk, on the Arctic Circle.
And there’s no reason to suppose that malaria will spread even if the climate continues to become warmer (which it won’t).
Next Lie:
Many tropical diseases are being “spread through global warming”.
The liars say that, as well as malaria, “global warming” is spreading dengue fever, Lyme disease, West Nile virus, arena virus, avian flu, Ebola virus, E. Coli 0157:H7, Hanta virus, legionella, leptospirosis, multi-drug-resistant TB, Nipah virus, SARS and Vibrio Cholerae 0139. It is doing no such thing.
Only malaria, dengue fever, Lyme disease, and West Nile virus are insect-borne, but NONE are tropical.
Of the other diseases named by the global warming liars, not one is sensitive to increasing temperature. They are spread not by warmer weather but by rats, chickens, primates, pigs, poor hygiene, ill-maintained air conditioning, or cold weather.
Next Lie:
West Nile virus in the US is being “spread through global warming”.
The liars say that West Nile virus spread throughout the US in just two years, implicitly because of “global warming.” It did not.
The climate in the US ranges from some of the world’s hottest deserts to some of its iciest tundra. West Nile virus flourishes in any climate. Warming of the climate does not affect its incidence or prevalence (and it’s getting cooler, anyway).
The music sounds like it came from the movie 2012.
It’s a museum. They have an exposition about the excesses of climate alarmism of the early 21st century. You just gotta provide the context for your kids yourself.
@David L: You lack imagination.
If you are going to apply for a research grant into the effects of higher CO_2 on plant growth then I suggests you look into something like the effect of high CO_2 on grape sugars and the taste of wine. Or on the growth of hops and its effect on the taste of beer. It is obviously crucial that the wine and beverage industries have this information as soon as possible.
You could then have a fine old time sampling … sampling … mmmm …. sampling …. and pub … er … pubrishering papersh on … um … shhhh … um … on … aaa … the resultsh! … … … Hic!
And all on the public dollar!
Yes but says:
July 18, 2010 at 2:14 am
“[…]Perhaps it might be more complex than you think. Why doesn’t Anthony give us the full story? How simple it is to give is a picture of a plant in a growth chamber.”
“Yes but” forgets to mention the greening of the Sahel and the 30% increase in plant productivity as mentioned by the IPCC AR4. How simple, “yes but”, to give an incomplete picture of things and omitting the facts that disturb your biased worldview.
They missed a good spin. It makes the grass and weeds grow more also, which means having to mow, etc. more often with one of those nasty old co2 belching, gas guzzling, riding mowers, which add even more co2 and increase our dependence on foreign oil and hasten the arrival of peak oil, which will send us all back to the dark ages of plague and constant warfare. It’s a death spiral that must be stopped before it’s too late!!! As Lucy would say: “Aauuuughhh! We’re all gonna die!”
Yes but says:
July 18, 2010 at 2:14 am
Way to miss the point entirely. Anthony put the video up to show that not only will CO2 cause Poison Ivy to grow, but also other plants. He didn’t go into the discussion of protein yields because it wasn’t pertinent to the discussion of making poison ivy and other plants grow. He also referenced malaria. Do you want a detail dissertation on mosquito mating habits in reference to a story on a museum?
That being said, I’m glad to see you believe the “full story” should be told. So, I can expect you’ll be firing a letter or an e-mail to the museum and demand the museum tell the full story in that it won’t just be poison ivy that grows if we have more CO2? When you do, please stay on topic and relevant.
On the available evidence Malaria, like Aids/Hiv, originated in Africa. The similarity does not end there. Both seem to have been acquired by man from Chimps. Neither are restriced to Africa due to temperature. Public health measures essentially eradicated it from the Arctic Circle, Russia, Scandinavia, UK etc.
Jimbo says:
July 18, 2010 at 3:10 am
“The thing about the photosynthesis bit is that how confused will children be? They are being shown that co2 is a toxin while in biology class some of them are being told that for photosynthesis and food crop production to take place CO2 is an essential ingredient. I can’t see how you spin this story to teenagers. […]”
Exposing teenagers to contradictory information makes them less gullible to the point that even severe deltoid exposure can’t harm them.
This allergy connection has been running for quite a while.
For instance,
http://www.webmd.com/allergies/news/20080805/global-warming-may-up-allergies-asthma
I’m not sure why they bother with this … after all, since we’re all
going to burn up and melt and freeze and dehydrate and flood
sometime before tomorrow night, why worry about a little itch?
JimB says:
July 18, 2010 at 3:46 am
“I haven’t checked yet…but isn’t there a public comment section on their website?…”
I haven’t found it yet. There’s a place to e-mail the webmaster, but it seems they don’t want input. But I did find the address and phone number.
1400 S. Lake Shore Dr, Chicago, IL 60605-2496
312.922.9410
Smokey – hardly peer reviewed references. I’m not “demonising” CO2 – simply the first part of this post is not telling the full story. And then it goes on to suggesting how a plant reacts in a luxury consumption growth chamber is the same as in the field.
Savanna ecosystems are hardly a “small” part of the planet. And protein yield in wheat is hardly a trifling matter.
In terms of balance – I will give you a possible positive – improved transpiration efficiency will likely increase water runoff.
However – the treatment of Co2 fertilisation by sceptics is immature and incomplete. So let’s not have grand standing about the museums lack of disclosure eh?
Indeed Smokey I suggest you yourself get educated to the wider range of material on the subject.
lol, not one….media@fieldmuseum.org, but rather just media@fieldmuseum.org
CO2 addles museum curators.
So, the Malaria parasite is not specific to the tropics and neither is the vector.
University of East London
Distribution of the genus Anopheles in Europe
http://www.uel.ac.uk/mosquito/Anopheles.htm
European Mosquito Bulletin
http://www.uel.ac.uk/mosquito/
http://www.uel.ac.uk/mosquito/winged.htm
Every warmist knows that CO2 only helps bad plants, while strangling good plants.
As for the carbon credits – well the ad might just was well say “your $1 purchase of a carbon offset helps fund Al Gore’s swimming pool and George Soros’s hedge fund.” What more could you ask for?
webmaster@fieldmuseum.org
Your questions and feedback are very important to us and we strive to
address your emails as quickly as possible. Online inquiries are
answered Monday – Friday, from 8:30 am to 4:30 pm. Due to the high
volume of emails that we receive, we may not be able to answer your
question the same day.
—
Field Museum Webmaster
This was the only email I could find on the website, and the response I got back.
From their website: “Through interactive stations and videos, as well as dioramas conveying the latest research, Climate Change presents evidence that human activity over the past 300 years has dramatically altered the natural world.”
Yes, we evil humans have certainly done things like build cities, invented things to increase productivity, and generally make our lives easier and more enjoyable. Of course that has had some effect on the “natural world” (meaning we’re part of the “unnatural world”, I guess), but saying we have dramatically altered it is quite a stretch. Nothing there about climate, though, so let’s read on:
“You’ll see how the resulting changes affect our planet, causing sea levels to rise, increasing drought and storms, damaging habitats for wildlife, and stressing human societies around the globe.”
Ah, so the supposed changes resulting from our evil activities, resulting in our being able to live longer, healthier, happier and more productive lives, has supposedly caused sea levels to rise, increased drought and storms, and oh, by the way, also damaged wildlife habitats and stressed human societies. They conveniently neglect to mention that sea levels were rising already, and have been since the end of the last ice age some 11,500 years ago. The “increased droughts and storms” is just a flat-out lie, of course. One only needs to look back at history to realize that. Then they pull another Alarmist trick, that of conflating (supposed) damage to wildlife habitats, and, amazingly, “stressed human societies” with climate change. But, “humans are bad”, aren’t they? Oh, wait, it is the developed, more affluent countries which are bad, and which are causing “stressed human societies”, i.e. poor countries.
Affluence is bad, poor is good is the guilt-causing ideology they are pushing. They then, purportedly, show how to assuage that guilt, and also invite the children to becoming little brown-shirted enviro warriors. It just warms the cockles of one’s heart to see.
Not the worst embarrassment to come from Chicago recently, not by a long shot.
@Vorlath
Well, apparently every punk who runs a drug grow-up in Canada has heard that CO2 makes plants grow faster and bigger. A CO2 generator is one of the basic pieces of equipment they have in the houses they buy (and wreck with the moisture etc.), using propane cylinders.
Are there any studies or papers showing an increase in nitrogen deposited in soy-bean fields do to increases in CO2? I’m searching.
Child and small pet munching Venus Flytraps coming soon…. if we continue to give in to our fossil fuel addiction.
[Please re-post to Tips & Notes so Anthony will be sure to see it. ~dbs, mod.]
evanmjones says:
July 18, 2010 at 12:46 am
As a kid, I used to spend summers on an island that is mainly glued together with poison ivy, so I learned early on how to recognize it. Poison ivy is easy to avoid. You just have to remember that it is arranged in 3-leaf clusters. That will steer you clear.
__________________________________
If you are allergic it is easy to spot. I can even recognize it in winter without leaves. lots of root hairs connecting it to the trees and kind of a corkscrew at the tip of the vine.
If you are allergic and have to deal with it, as I do, a very good product to remove it from the skin is Tecnu. I know of nothing else that works as well. If you are mildly allergic you can take Ivy Drops from a doctor to develop immunity…. It never worked for me even when we diluted the product 100 to 1.
And what ever you do DO NOT BURN IT. Do not chop a large vine either especially in spring when the sap is rising. I friend got sprayed with sap when he copped a vine in early spring while doing some clearing. (vines get 3 to 4 inches in diameter around here)
Maurice Strong is a director of the CCX:
http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/content.jsf?id=67
He’s got a ‘distinguished’ past…
TheGoodProfessor: July 18, 2010 at 4:00 am
“They are being shown that co2 is a toxin”
I must have missed this. Have you got an exact source for this wonderful piece of misinformation [?].
Ummmmm — the EPA, maybe? “EPA’s final findings respond to the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision that GHGs fit within the Clean Air Act definition of air pollutants. ” My emphasis.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/08D11A451131BCA585257685005BF252
No… I thought not. There isn’t one, because no-one is actually saying that all CO2 is bad.
Oh, but they *are*. “EPA’s endangerment finding covers emissions of six key greenhouse gases – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride.” Same source (the EPA announcement) , my emphasis.
Just like most CO2 lovers – when the facts don’t match, just make up some new ones!
Sorry, chum — your side is the one that’s been inventing facts.
BTW, how’d your kiddies do on their “detect the logical fallacy” test? Or did you invent that “fact,” too?
Did anyone else catch Yes But’s inadvertent argument AGAINST CO2 causing poison ivy to grow faster? Dear fellow. If you want to play the game, remember to not add points to the other side. Your basket is down court. But we’ll take your two points.
*must…restrain..”Post Comment Thumb”…until…code…is…closed…*
Pamela Gray: July 18, 2010 at 7:15 am
Did anyone else catch Yes But’s inadvertent argument AGAINST CO2 causing poison ivy to grow faster?
Yup. And fortunately, I refreshed before I became your echo chamber.
The good professor states: ” They are being shown that co2 is a toxin
I must have missed this. Have you got an exact source for this wonderful piece of misinformation.
No… I thought not. There isn’t one, because no-one is actually saying that all CO2 is bad.
Just like most CO2 lovers – when the facts don’t match, just make up some new ones!”
As you well know there has been a concerted and determined campaign by alarmists to paint human produced atmospheric carbon dioxide as a pollutant and by extention all CO2.
For years now the fanatical jihad against a harmless trace gas has been a central plank of the AGW industry, the US government are even classifying it as a pollutant. The fact is that the alarmist media campaign has pimped falsehoods as facts and lies as reality.
If you are going to make a critical comment about another posters views it might help if you checked your facts beforehand. I have never seen any pro AGW media output that has put a positive case for CO2, all the benefits are hidden and the fabricated dangers have been flogged to death.
I know in fact that you know that the only reason that CO2 is being pimped as a pollutant because it is a convenient mechanism to ration fossil fuels, it is a cold hard fact that the supposed dangers of CO2 are simply an excuse by carpet bagger crooks to cash in on the CT fraud coupled with a hysterical political movement determined to de industrialise the west. In fact your assertion that some CO2 is bad and other CO2 is not so bad is clearly a ludicrous anti scientific nonsense, atmospheric carbon dioxide is classified as one gas alone, not two. Otherwise it might be called CO2E(evil) or
CO2W(wonderful).
When I see a fair representation of the critical benefits of CO2 to all of humanity and animal life then I will accept your point.
Pamela Gray says:
July 18, 2010 at 7:15 am
“Did anyone else catch Yes But’s inadvertent argument AGAINST CO2 causing poison ivy to grow faster?”
You’re right. LOL. He should take that to the museum and tell’em they got it wrong.
What next? Is the IRS going to audit kids allowances and make them pay taxes?
____________________________
pgosselin says:
…Do you ever wake up at night and wonder if the future of the country will get past all this? We’re talking some serious organised, widespread North Korean-style brainwashing here.
___________________________________________________________
YES, and it has been giving me nightmares.
If you want to see just how organized and for how long check out the very well documented History, HACCP and the Food Safety Con Job
“…the Committee for Economic Development, was officially established in 1942 as a sister organization to the Council on Foreign Relations…. In its 1945 report Agriculture in an Expanding Economy, CED complained that “the excess of human resources engaged in agriculture is probably the most important single factor in the˜farm problem’ and describes how agricultural production can be better organized to fit to business needs”…
That statement got me to thinking. The Grace Report to President Reagan states “…100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government….” (Translated: the Federal Reserve Banks get all our tax dollars)
In the fifties I remember the local doctor in my rural town telling my Mom how he got paid for his services with eggs, veggies, a slab of home cured bacon… None of this “trade” would be taxed and the bankers would not get their levy on the serfs (farmers) labor. Therefore they would want as few untaxable farmers as possible. Factory wages on the other hand are taxed BEFORE the worker sees them. Also since the worker does not have the pain of handing over his wages to the government as a small business person does, he will not be as opposed to further tax hikes. Therefore the more peole who become wage slaves, the more revenue is generated for the banks. Bankers DO NOT want small businesses.
Corporations, the other half of the Committee for Economic Development, want a large labor pool to chose from. The more workers, the more competition, the lower the wage they have to pay. The CEOs also want a ready market for their products. Farm folk are notorious for making their own and being self sufficient. the “Green Revolution” and the re-educating of farmers by the USDA extension programs was necessary to convince the farmers to mortgage their land to buy “modern farm equipment” and get rid of their self-sufficiency. It also lead to bankruptcy and consolidation of farms into corporate farms.
“..Over the next five years, the political and economic establishment ensured the reduction of excess human resources engaged in agriculture by two million, or by 1/3 of their previous number.
Their plan was so effective and so faithfully executed by its operatives in the US government that by 1974 the CED couldn’t help but congratulate itself…
The human cost of CED’s plans were exacting and enormous.
CED’s plans resulted in widespread social upheaval throughout rural America, ripping apart the fabric of its society destroying its local economies. They also resulted in a massive migration to larger cities. The loss of a farm also means the loss of identity, and many farmers’ lives ended in suicide [6], not unlike farmers in India today who have been tricked into debt and desperation and can see no other way out…”
This is why CAGW has to be looked at not only scientifically but in the context of history. The CED’s plans which have become government policy since WWII have already been proven to put money into the pockets of the wealthy at the cost of human lives and well being. I am a capitalist, but this type of manipulation is not capitalism it is Corporatism
Where is the honor of this museum board and curator to spin lies like this?
It really is ironic that a banker or a real estate broker or anybody else in the public trust can be disciplined and even go to jail for fraud and even misrepresentation, but yet this is allowed.
Where is their honor?
Are they too stupid to realize they are breaching their honor, or is it something more sinister?
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
“Mike McMillan says:
July 18, 2010 at 6:22 am
Not the worst embarrassment to come from Chicago recently, not by a long shot.”
Ain’t that the truth…are we seeing a theme here?
JimB
Where is their honor?
Taking their cues from the lead “scientists” in the cause, I guess….from Mann, Hansen, et al…and their henchmen like Gore And Pauchuri…who say, in effect:
[With wringing hands and loosening sweating collars.]
“It doesn’t matter if what we say is true or not. We just have to save the planet.”
So you will “save the planet”, at the expense of your own honor?
And at the expense of truth and the public goodwill when it comes to matters of science?
For shame Field Museum, and others like you.
The bright side is…once the misinformation is thought through…it goes to the dust bin where it belongs.
[Or the recycle container, LOL].
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Yes but…
…wants peer reviewed papers. He doesn’t understand that most peer reviewed papers in every discipline eventually turn out to be wrong. In climate peer review no doubt the ratio is even higher, given the corruption of the process.
But if peer reviewed papers make ‘Yes but’ happy, who am I to deny him? This page has plenty of peer reviewed papers.
In the final analysis ‘Yes but’ is giving himself an unnecessary wedgie; CO2’s effect on temperature is so small that it is inconsequential. There are many other factors that are much more important than a minor trace gas, whose only measurable effect is to raise agricultural productivity. The planet needs more CO2, not less.
OT – scathing piece on the Mann ‘exoneration’:
http://tribune-democrat.com/editorials/x536265709/Penn-State-s-integrity-crisis
Nice post. Very informative. Hence why I currently am not too focused on the side effects of AGW, but maintain my focus on looking at the evidence for it being a real phenomenon. The long term reduction of Arctic Sea ice, ocean acidification are direct effects and can be readily observed, but predicting the outbreaks or spread of malaria or even the downfall of any specific species because of AGW is to much of a stretch in IMO. Not that those things might not happen, but predicting them with so many other factors involved leaves the world of science and crosses over into politics.
It is standard industry practice to enrich greenhouses with CO2, for it has been well established that doing so significantly boosts plant production. No health problems to date, no nutritional deficiencies, no adverse reactions, and no outbreaks of poisoning have been associated with the resulting produce.
“Enriching greenhouses with supplemental CO2 has enabled tomato growers in British Columbia, Canada to exceed annual fruit yields of 70 kg (per square metre)”
http://www.cababstractsplus.org/abstracts/Abstract.aspx?AcNo=20043153549
“..the biggest propagator of tomato, cucumber and pepper plants in the U.K….uses pure CO2 enrichment…for optimal growth.”
http://www.plantraisers.co.uk/
#
#
Yes but says:
July 18, 2010 at 2:14 am
It’s always interesting of course that WUWT always seems to never give the full story.
(1) never report the results of Free Air Carbon Dioxide Experiments (FACE) which show much less response than the beloved cowpea in a luxurious environment showing none of Liebig’s minima.
(2) CO2 isn’t Jack’s beanstalk – not enough water – doesn’t matter….
______________________________________
You can nitpick and cherry-pick a few minor examples, but on balance CO2 is a harmless and beneficial minor trace gas, essential to all life on Earth. More is better.
Trying to demonize “carbon” is self-hatred; you are made from carbon.
Here, get educated:….
_______________________________________
You throw out the statement” WUWT always seems to never give the full story.” without even bothering to do your homework. This is the type of selective blindness that characterizes the “consensus” side of the debate. WUWT is not just the title story, actually the title story is the least part of WUWT, it is the open debate that follows that is the most important part yet that is the part detractors always ignore.
All the points you have brought up are old news at this site. Try reading a few older posts and comments before commenting next time. You can start here there are lots more where CO2 and plants are mentioned in the comment section:
Now it’s more CO2 that will threaten crops: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/14/now-its-more-co2-that-will-threaten-crops/
New ground truth: soil microbe negative feedback: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/28/new-ground-truth-microbiotic-negative-feedback/
High CO2 boosts plant respiration, potentially affecting climate and crops: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/09/high-co2-boosts-plant-respiration-potentially-affecting-climate-and-crops/
CO2, Temperatures, and Ice Ages: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/
Just like that bad cartoon that Andy Revkin found “cool” ( http://www.frankejames.com/debate/?p=1138 ) artists should definitively stay away from science.
REPLY: I used to think that Andy Revkin was a reasonable guy with a relatively open mind, now I see that he was just being professionally courteous. – Anthony
R. Gates says:
July 18, 2010 at 8:06 am
“The long term reduction of Arctic Sea ice, ocean acidification are direct effects and can be readily observed….”
=============================
Ocean Acidification? Hahahahaha
Yeah we are all familiar with your sea ice scare…..but
You can not “readily” produce any observations/cause and effect….for either.
As usual, your posts are laced with unscientific [and very political]….assumptions.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Doesn’t *everything* grow better with more CO2? I swear that has been proven again and again.
Coming from a state where poison ivy is so prevalent, it should be our “state plant”, I’ve gotten quite good at identifying it and immediately ending its pitiful existence in that location on the planet, with RoundUp.
[Although I no longer use RoundUp as it is made by Monsanto].
There are three flora and fauna on this earth which I HATE like none other, and I will do everything in my power to exterminate: Pigeons, Poison Ivy…..and English Ivy.
You can see great areas in the forest where English Ivy has taken over and created an “ivy desert.” And, hiding in the midst of the English Ivy you will see big, nasty vines of the Poison variety.
Some more progressive states like Oregon have declared English Ivy an illegal “noxious weed.”
And in my own “Old World”, sometimes backwards “Commonwealth” of Virginia, it is up to each county to decide.
Fairfax County, next to Washington DC, has banned the scourge, but in my area you can still buy the damn plant at Home Depot!
Besides setting RGates straight on this blog [Hey R, we like you, your’e a good sport lol], I have two other major satisfactions in this world:
Watching a Peregrine Falcon swoop down in an urban setting and snatching a stupid pigeon for dinner,
…..and watching English Ivy and Poison Ivy turn yellow and die.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
They should have lighted the exhibit with those…
http://i31.tinypic.com/n3amp5.jpg
R. Gates says:
July 18, 2010 at 8:06 am
Nice post. Very informative. Hence why I currently am not too focused on the side effects of AGW, but maintain my focus on looking at the evidence for it being a real phenomenon. The long term reduction of Arctic Sea ice, ocean acidification are direct effects and can be readily observed…
It’s good that 25% of your thinking is objective, at least. If only the rest of it could be so. Oh well. Remember, correlation is not causation.
Does the museum play the Soviet National Anthem, whenever its doors open?
Yes but (July 18, 2010 at 2:14am)
Are you aware that no life is possible without Co2? Every bit of food you eat comes from Co2. Without it no life is possible including yours. Carbohydrates and proteins are impossible without carbon, so is cellulose. The carbon atom makes these molecules possible. As a matter of fact the element carbon has a special place in the chemistry of life in its ability to form complex compounds. This allows for an almost infinite number of possibilities. Plants through photosynthesis “fixate” (fertilize is wrong) the carbon atom into the cellulose molecule. More carbon available allows for a higher rate of fixation thereby increasing the production of cellulose and hence an overall larger mass or “volume” of the plant. Orange Trees(Co2 science) in a cold frame environment show a 180% increase in volume(stems, leaves and FRUIT) under a doubling of Co2. I’ll take the LARGE orange thanks! ALL plants that photosynthesize will respond to higher levels of Co2 from current concentration. These are the simple facts JACK! Oh, and the good(?) professor, did I make this up? Don’t believe me, check for yourself! What I find most stunning about the video is the amazing increase in root size (its extent and range).
1. The face experiments are flawed. Coldframes and greenhouses are the best for these types of experiments. They allow for a much more controllable and consistent concentration of Co2 over the entire surface of the plants involved. An outdoor experiment cannot do this.
2. A larger plant can store more water thereby increasing its “hardiness” by allowing it to survive longer under drought like conditions. This is what is observed and your point is meaningless since all plants die without water.
3. The same overall protein level with an increased biomass changes the ratio giving the impression of a reduced level. There will still be more of a crop and this in turn will feed MORE PEOPLE.
4. Pony up your references.
5. Co2 does not preference anything. Plants respond according to their physiologies some will grow faster than others but all plants will grow OVERALL. Your “preference” is a red herring.
You like all warmers like to make things more “complex” in order to create a grey area that can be argued. I see it all the time. The warmers ability to bend, stretch and pervert science to their own needs is simply astonishing.
TheGoodProfessor says:
July 18, 2010 at 4:00 am
They are being shown that co2 is a toxin
I must have missed this. Have you got an exact source for this wonderful piece of misinformation.
No… I thought not. There isn’t one, because no-one is actually saying that all CO2 is bad.
Just like most CO2 lovers – when the facts don’t match, just make up some new ones!
_________________________________________________________
That is a very tiny nitpick Professor, because it is taken out of context. Kids today are awash in the “CO2 is evil” propaganda and the museum is just adding another drop to the bucket.
Children are taught how evil CO2 (and mankind) is in school. Here is a WUWT about one of the books that was just pulled by a school system click Parents complain about the propaganda their kids get in school such as Al Gore’s film and :The Story of Stuff” e over 7,000 American schools or churches have ordered the DVD. I do children’s entertainment so I hear the complaints first hand and actually SEE the propaganda at the schools I go to.
Google shows “About 2,680,000 results” under the automatic title fun facts about global warming for kids
The EPA finding: The greenhouse gases that are responsible for it (climate change) endanger public health and welfare within the meaning of the Clean Air Act.”
Check Wikipedia for Exelon’s political and pollution activity.
http://www.artdaily.org/index.asp?int_sec=2&int_new=38869
Climate Change at The Field Museum is sponsored by Exelon Corporation, Motorola Foundation, HSBC – North America, Jones Lang LaSalle, and Whole Foods Market. Exelon Corporation is contributing $1 for every visitor to the Climate Change exhibition, up to $200,000.
@ Gail Combs says:
July 18, 2010 at 7:45 am
Interesting comment, Gail: YES, and it has been giving me nightmares.
If you want to see just how organized and for how long check out the very well documented History, HACCP and the Food Safety Con Job……………..etc.
I’m pretty sure a large percentage of the population recognizes that “SOMETHING AIN’T RIGHT” , and this is one of those “somethings”. The trouble is that very few have any idea how to fix those often ill-defined and not well understood somethings, especially in the face of powerful forces who have a vested interest in NOT fixing those somethings. We are hog-tied by tens of thousands of laws, regulations, taxes, and various control mechanisms that effectively preclude any meaningful resistance, and there are many more on the way.
Anyway, what would you propose be done to remedy the situation(s)? And if I can borrow a phrase: “All options are on the table.”
R. Gates,
And yes, when and if ocean acidification actually occurs, I am sure it will be detected.
As of now, it is pure pie in the sky.
As for Arctic ice, how far back can you prove there have been no fluctuations like the current cycle of summer ice?
Curiousgeorge says:
July 18, 2010 at 5:52 am
They missed a good spin. It makes the grass and weeds grow more also, which means having to mow, etc. more often with one of those nasty old co2 belching, gas guzzling, riding mowers, which add even more co2 and increase our dependence on foreign oil and hasten the arrival of peak oil, which will send us all back to the dark ages of plague and constant warfare. It’s a death spiral that must be stopped before it’s too late!!! As Lucy would say: “Aauuuughhh! We’re all gonna die!”
_________________________________________________________
Do I get CO2 credits for using goats and sheep to mow my lawn…. OOPS I forgot the “climate scientists” at East Anglia have labeled them as “fart machines” and therefore not “natural” Livestock cut urged to tackle carbon emissions
C02 may make for healthier poison ivy, but 02 makes for healthier serial killers and paedophiles, so I really think we should look at getting rid of that particular toxin, too.
At last – some sanity…………..
(from the “Sunday Times”, 18 July 2010)
“The American government has suspended its funding of the University of East Anglia’s climate research unit (CRU), citing the scientific doubts raised by last November’s leak of hundreds of stolen emails.
The US Department of Energy (DoE) was one of the unit’s main sources of funding for its work assembling a database of global temperatures.
It has supported the CRU financially since 1990 and gives the unit about £131,000 a year on a rolling three-year contract.
This should have been renewed automatically in April, but the department has suspended all payments since May pending a scientific peer review of the unit’s work.
The leaked emails caused a global furore. They appeared to suggest that CRU scientists were using “tricks” to strengthen the case for man-made climate change and suppressing dissent.”
Half of my backyard is poison ivy. It makes a wonderful fence. Must be a lot of CO2 there, huh? I wonder why increased CO2 would increase the concentration of urushiol?
Mr. Tuttle, doesn’t “allergen” effectively equal “poison” when ingested? What would be the difference?
savethesharks says:
July 18, 2010 at 7:46 am
Where is the honor of this museum board and curator to spin lies like this?
….Are they too stupid to realize they are breaching their honor, or is it something more sinister?
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
____________________________________________________________-
Chris, Follow the Money. Museums are as bad as Universities, they want grant and other government money.
Remember my comments about the Council on Economic Development who is behind the eradication of the independent American farmer. They are the same group who are behind CAGW and they are the ones giving money to museums, Universities, NGOs and advertising dollars to the media.
For example notice the Ged Davis, Climategate e-mail Shell Oil, IPCC, UN sustainability, Agenda 21 connection click
Ged Davis [says]
“Ged Davis is the global energy assessment co-president at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), an international research organization conducting inter-disciplinary scientific studies on environmental, economic, technological, and social issues in the context of human dimensions of global change. Until March 2007 he was managing director of the World Economic Forum, responsible for global research, scenario projects, and the design of the annual Forum meeting at Davos, which brings together 2,400 corporate, government, and non-profit leaders to shape the global agenda. Before joining the Forum, Ged spent 30 years with Royal Dutch/Shell, which he joined in 1972. Most recently, he was the vice-president of global business environment for Shell International in London, and head of Shell’s scenario planning team. Ged is a member of the InterAcademy Council Panel on “Transitions to Sustainable Energy”, a director of Low Carbon Accelerator Limited, a governor of the International Development Research Centre in Ottawa and a member of the INDEX Design Awards Jury. He has led a large number of scenario projects during his career, including the multi-year, multi-stakeholder scenarios on the future of sustainability for the World Business Council for Sustainable Development and was facilitator of the last IPCC emissions scenarios.”
The Maurice Strong, Oil, World Bank, UN, Global Governance, Club of Rome…. of course is a classic example.
Now we know how to feed the hungry of the world: By fighting against those who want decrease the amount of atmospheric CO2, which is beneficial for crops and it is the greenest gas ever, as the above video clip shows conclusively.
Some estimates of young seafloor volcanoes exceed a million…
http://www.volcano.si.edu/faq/index.cfm?faq=03
Just an fyi for our buddy, Gates
Periodic climate cooling enhanced natural disasters and wars in China during AD 10–1900
Abstract
Recent studies have linked climatic and social instabilities in ancient China; the underlying causal mechanisms have, however, often not been quantitatively assessed. Here, using historical records and palaeoclimatic reconstructions during AD 10–1900, we demonstrate that war frequency, price of rice, locust plague, drought frequency, flood frequency and temperature in China show two predominant periodic bands around 160 and 320 years
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2010/07/13/rspb.2010.0890.full
1. AbstractFree
2. » Full TextFree
3. Full Text (PDF)Free
4. Data Supplement
It would be fun to see the scam of charging children 10 times the actual price of carbon offsets on Fox or Wall Street Journal. If they’re paying a buck, they should get 10 credits. Taking advantage of kids who don’t know the market price is evil.
savethesharks says:
July 18, 2010 at 8:38 am
“… where English Ivy has taken over…”
Try not to be so hard on ‘English Ivy’ – alas, I knew her well…..
Seriously, I find the stuff gorgeous, especially when seen in this form:
http://mpm22bprocess.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/ivywall.jpg
Well, did you take the ‘I’-test?
:-]
HAH! Welcome to my sweet home, Chicago, ladies and gents! Field Museum has long had a very liberal bent, as do all Chicago museums, so this doesn’t surprise me in the least.
Pity, as the place does have some outstanding exhibits including Egyptian mummies (to be perfectly PC, the museum should repatriate these stolen remains to their rightful owners in Egypt!), great dinosaur skeletons etc.
Bad science – CO2 helps all plants grow, and this has been used by greenhouses to increase yields for ages. Please see: http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/hort/greenhouse_veg/topics/gtp_pages/co2.html
I don’t go there much, so I haven’t seen all the climate change BS, but I bet this is mentioned at the Museum of Science & Industry, Shedd Aquarium, Adler Planetarium etc. AGW is like a fungus that you cannot get rid of….
R. Gates: July 18, 2010 at 8:06 am
Not that those things might not happen, but predicting them with so many other factors involved leaves the world of science and crosses over into politics.
Congratulations. That’s CAGW in a nutshell.
DAV: July 18, 2010 at 9:26 am
I wonder why increased CO2 would increase the concentration of urushiol?
It wouldn’t, but the overall amount would increase as the plant got larger.
Mr. Tuttle, doesn’t “allergen” effectively equal “poison” when ingested? What would be the difference?
Not much to the person who was allergic. So let me pose this: Lactose is a *food* component for most of us, but there are a lot of people who are lactose intolerant — lactose is an allergen to them. Does that mean we should call lactose a poison?
How about those folks who are *not* allergic to urushiol in childhood, but become sensitized to it in later years? “Allergen” is more appropriate — and when you get right down to it, *anything* we ingest can be poisonous if it’s in sufficient quantity.
Ya gotta love semantics…
hunter says:
July 18, 2010 at 9:08 am
R. Gates,
And yes, when and if ocean acidification actually occurs, I am sure it will be detected.
As of now, it is pure pie in the sky.
As for Arctic ice, how far back can you prove there have been no fluctuations like the current cycle of summer ice?
__________________________
Now I realize that the downward trend in Arctic Sea ice and the increased ocean acidity are the two things that skeptics must rail against because they are pretty much in your face measurable events (both predicted by AGW models) and of course we can add to that the general rise in global temperatures and a cooling stratosphere as the two other events long predicted by AGW. So right now, AGW has a pretty good track record to my only 25% skeptical way of thinking. I would love to hear other explanations for these events, and if you say “some other natural variability” then great…what is that mechanism exactly? The 40% rise in CO2 since the 1700’s is the most simple and elegant explanation…with a mechanism and the physics well understood.
But if the above 4 events are indeed happening (and I obviously believe they are) and the cause is indeed increased CO2, it is a big leap (and one that I’m not willing to take) to say all these changes are catastrophic. CO2 remains the simplest explanation and Occam’s Razor would demand that I stay with this explanation until something else even more simple comes along to displace it.
BTW, here’s a great article on the general increase in ocean pH, and some other little nuggets of information. Ocean acidity discussion is on page 9.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/indicators/pdfs/CI-oceans.pdf
Ed Murphy says:
July 18, 2010 at 9:45 am
Some estimates of young seafloor volcanoes exceed a million…
http://www.volcano.si.edu/faq/index.cfm?faq=03
Just an fyi for our buddy, Gates
_________________
Thanks Ed, I’m glad you think of me as your “buddy”, for I have a complete positive regard for everyone on WUWT. There’s no better place for me to get in touch with the very best of true scientific skeptical thinking, and even the occasional political ranting doesn’t bother me that much. As we all know, Anthony’s service to the world of true scientific discourse and debate is unparalleled. The very fact that we get PhD’s on both sides of the AGW issue to post here is testimony to that.
I know my 75% “warmist” slant bothers a few here, but that’s where my 25+ years of studying this issue has led me. Thanks for the info on volcanoes. I’ve longed been fascinated by them and certainly we know that periods of increased volcanic activity has altered the climate in the past, and probably will in the future. If there was some evidence that natural volcanoes had become more active during the past 3 centuries during which the “human volcano” of fossil fuel burning had become so active, that would be interesting to note.
How to bring down kids at a museum by bringing up the subject of poison ivy. How dreary.
Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago is more fun for kids than the Field Museum.
The picture of the children being tasked to contribute their ideas as to how to “Tackle Climate Change” was particularly disturbing. This is a pretty standard brain washing technique. It is used by cults. It is a form of inductive learning where praise and acceptance comes from how well the victim internalises the veracity of what has just been presented. Just think about the steps these children are going through to complete their task. First they have to accept that the whole narrative is valid, at least for a while, then they need to integrate that belief into their world view so that they can think about it, then they need to personalize it n order to concoct a “solution”. This is how true believers are made.
Even museums have understood how things work today. Any alternative exhibition pertaining to real science was not to be funded. Only official government approved science can be funded with your hard earned money.
Brian W says:
July 18, 2010 at 8:57 am
Yes but (July 18, 2010 at 2:14am)
Are you aware that no life is possible without Co2? Every bit of food you eat comes from Co2. Without it no life is possible including yours….
2. A larger plant can store more water thereby increasing its “hardiness” by allowing it to survive longer under drought like conditions. This is what is observed and your point is meaningless since all plants die without water.
_____________________________________________________
Nice comment but CO2 allows plants to be more drought tolerant because the plants do not lose as much water through the stomata. Stomata close in response to higher concentrations of CO2. Stomata form a crucial interface between the plant and the atmosphere and are essential to the control of water balance in plants.
Cannabis responds avidly to increased CO2.
(This would explain a few things.)
The Dutch high-intensity hydroponic growers of weed will push in as much as 1500ppm. At which level one can reportedly stand in the greenhouse, shut down the exhaust fans for a minute, and quite literally hear the plants creaking with growth.
Please note that I’m not proposing to enlist the stoner community as political allies. Their reliability in getting to the polls isn’t very high, for some reason. Wait, what?
Curiousgeorge says:
July 18, 2010 at 9:07 am
…..We are hog-tied by tens of thousands of laws, regulations, taxes, and various control mechanisms that effectively preclude any meaningful resistance, and there are many more on the way.
Anyway, what would you propose be done to remedy the situation(s)? And if I can borrow a phrase: “All options are on the table.”
EDUCATION!
I use the food safety/independent farmer information and the information about Fractional Reserve Banking and the Central Bankers control of our economies to open peoples eyes. I do not care if the person is Conservative or Progressive, neither likes the “banksters” or “corporatism” once they see what it is. Once a person is thinking they can then see CAGW is just more of the same. Heck that is how I ended up here. I started with farming regulation then moved to the Federal Reserve and finally to this blog.
In the words of Henry Kissenger: “Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people; control money and you control the world.”
Does it work? Actually yes. A bunch of farmers here in the USA managed to kill the National Animal Id program and the food safety bill HR 875. Information passed to one of the cosponsors of the bill HR 875 had her withdraw support. Unfortunately you kill one and half a dozen more spring up. Sighhhh
“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” — Wendell Phillips, (1811-1884)
Carbon Dioxide makes all plants grow bigger, better, cheaper. For example, marijuana. Using CO2 and grow lights is a cottage industry in parts of Colorado (and elsewhere). I just Googled “marijuana carbon dioxide” and got 380,000 “hits”.
cheers,
Dr. Richard Keen
So how will our children turn out as adults when they realise they have been so systematically lied to, deceived and not to mention, terrorised by the very people they thought they could trust?
R. Gates says:
July 18, 2010 at 8:06 am
Nice post. Very informative. Hence why I currently am not too focused on the side effects of AGW, but maintain my focus on looking at the evidence for it being a real phenomenon.
Your quest may be along the lines of Dark Warming/Dark Cooling, as a climatological version of the Great Cosmological Argument.
The latter has been going on for about 2000 years.
Neither subject is going to ever have it’s cake and eat it too.
@ Gail Combs says:
July 18, 2010 at 12:25 pm
Gail, I don’t disagree that education is important – it is. But it’s only effective if properly applied.
Oxygon, water and food make childrapers, drugdealers, murderers, dictators, cannibals and all other criminals grow up. So let’s spoil all potable water, destroy all farmland and absorb all oxygen in volcanic rock to make the world safer!
PS to Gail:
Btw, we tried the goat thing here a few years ago. Didn’t work out too well. They kept eating the wife’s decorative plantings. 🙂
R. Gates: July 18, 2010 at 11:19 am
Now I realize that the downward trend in Arctic Sea ice and the increased ocean acidity are the two things that skeptics must rail against because they are pretty much in your face measurable events (both predicted by AGW models)
Ummmm — *what* downward trend in Arctic sea ice?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/18/sea-ice-news-14/
The *lowest* melt rate in JAXA record is a downward trend?
Katabasis: July 18, 2010 at 12:51 pm
So how will our children turn out as adults when they realise they have been so systematically lied to, deceived and not to mention, terrorised by the very people they thought they could trust?
At the very least, they’ll be skeptics…
R. Gates says @11:19 am:
“CO2 remains the simplest explanation and Occam’s Razor would demand that I stay with this explanation until something else even more simple comes along to displace it.”
Mr Gates completely misunderstands Occam’s Razor. He has it backward. Adding an entity such as CO2 to his explanation makes the explanation more complex, not less.
William of Ockham stated that “entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity.” This is formalized as: “Never increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.”
CO2 is an unnecessary entity that was tacked on to the long-accepted theory of natural climate variability, which has been the accepted theory of observed climate events going back well before the industrial revolution. Everything observed today has occurred many times in the past, and the geologic record clearly shows that the current climate is almost perfect for humans. About one more degree of warmth would be perfect.
Occam’s Razor says: take out the CO2! It is not necessary to explain anything in the current climate; Arctic/Antarctic ice cover, heat waves, cold snaps, droughts, typhoons, or two-headed frogs. Natural variability completely explains everything that is being observed. Adding another extraneous variable violates Occam’s Razor.
Occam’s Razor is related to the scientific term “parsimony”: the principle that states that the simplest explanation that explains the greatest number of observations is preferred to more complex explanations. Adding CO2 makes the explanation more complex, and thus more scientifically questionable.
The climate has always varied, and to a much greater extent than today. That is the simplest explanation of what is being observed. Adding another unnecessary entity like CO2 only confuses the issue. It is a deliberate smoke screen intended to hide the rape of the taxpayer by the corrupt climate establishment. Throw out the CO2 argument, and nothing changes. Natural variability still completely explains the observed climate.
Gail Coombs (July 18, 2010 at 12:08pm)
Thanks for the info and the reference! Stomatal closure can be observed using a remote controlled light microscope system.
It almost drives me insane every time I see such appeals for cash to offset ones “carbon footprint” as in one of the pictures above. It’s almost Python-esque, such is the absurdity. But when those appeals are aimed at vulnerable and impressionable children then it is not just absurd – it’s evil. The people doing this must believe that “the ends justify the means” – they clearly see it as a nice easy way to guilt people into redistributing their wealth. And that in turn gives them a nice fuzzy feeling inside that they’re supposedly helping a disadvantaged child somewhere in some backward undeveloped country. Socialists.
Cool, Smokey just “smoked” R. Gates. Glad you did it. I don’t even want to start.
Katabasis
July 18, 2010 at 12:51 pm
We have been lied to also. I’m 50. The first time I remember noticing that a teacher was deliberately lying to me was when I was in the 5th grade. Lefties have been targeting children for a very very long time with their insidious propaganda. I had wanted to become a wildlife biologist, but I could not stomach the insistent Marxist indoctrination. I ended up becoming a software engineer because I was able to teach myself.
If only Jonathon Swift was still alive and writing today….
The protein content thing is a great example of desperately searching for a bad side for something almost completely good and then determinedly only talking about that to the exclusion of all else. The effects of CO_2 on crops are well understood because many commercial greenhouses use CO_2 to enhance production. Take note of that – commercial greenhouses uses it, and it enhances production! Overall yields including protein yields are up considerably in a CO_2 rich environment. But when the plants grow faster protein DENSITY in the plants can in some cases be slightly lower. It is a very small marginal difference – hard to measure. It is basically a dilution effect due to the rest of the plant growing faster and being slightly more robust.
The thing is that commercial greenhouses use CO_2 concentrations massively higher than anything we are ever likely to see in the atmosphere. And the effect being talked about even in that case is almost unmeasurable and has no impact on the use of the plants as food. The bottom line is that you just get a little more fibre with your protein, which some people think is actually a good thing.
Smokey says:
July 18, 2010 at 2:00 pm
Well said! By the same token, some people put God in the equation, and this really complicates things up!
It’s all happening at the Chicago Failed Museum!
Gore’s children’s version of “An inconvenient Truth”, and this museum are obvious in their desire to overtake your child’s mind and spirit, and get them to believe in things which aren’t true.
The British court made the ruling that British schools couldn’t show Gore’s movie without providing the mandated list of caveats about the movie.
There should be a court mandated caveat printout for kids and parents before entering that brainwash location known otherwise as a museum, a supposed place of fact not fiction.
>> Smokey says:
July 18, 2010 at 2:00 pm
R. Gates says @11:19 am:
“CO2 remains the simplest explanation and Occam’s Razor would demand that I stay with this explanation until something else even more simple comes along to displace it.”
Mr Gates completely misunderstands Occam’s Razor. He has it backward. Adding an entity such as CO2 to his explanation makes the explanation more complex, not less. <<
In fairness to R Gates, the absorption of IR by CO2 is well-understood physics, so including it into the climate is not 'adding' something. What is adding something is proposing a positive feedback mechanism to make CO2 much more powerful than basic theory states.
In any case, the effect of anthropogenic CO2 on the pH of the ocean is insignificant, and the opening of the Arctic to sea travel is only a negative if Russia decided to invade Canada (or vice-versa). The whole CAGW religion is based on insignificant changes within the error in measurement (does anyone actually believe we REALLY know within 2 degrees what temperature of the entire planet was in 1880)?
I first realized that people are sheeple and it didn’t matter whether they were scientists or not, they would believe “authority” before they believed their ‘lying eyes.’ I was at Camp Hancock, science camp for youngsters in the late 70’s and early 80’s and we were split into four groups, archeologists, paleontologists, biologists and naturalists. I was the only kid from the area and the rest were mostly Portland kids. So when I was told that a particular plant was “endangered,” I was naturally curious how such a thing could be when I happened to have hiked vast areas of that country and saw clearly THAT plant on EVERY hillside in infinite profusion. And I knew the plants of the country very well, having memorized genus and species of hundreds of the common ones encountered in eastern Oregon, so I wasn’t confusing that plant with another. So I asked the scientist ‘teaching’ us how such an extremely common, though lovely, plant could ever, in any way shape of form be considered “endangered.” The answer he gave was ludicrous. He said that scientists had studied it and their complex and deep understanding of current and future ‘pressures’ on the plant’s ecosystem had lead them to label this plant as “endangered” and he trusted them because they were the experts, not I. So I replied back, “So the scientists don’t care about how common a plant is before they label it “endangered,” do I have that correct? Instead, they somehow think they have the ability to predict the future of the environment that sustains that plant? Is that right? Wow. So even though this plant is thriving over millions and millions of acres, that doesn’t matter if a scientist thinks, for whatever reason, those millions of acres will change in some dramatic fashion and so therefore this extremely common plant is now “endangered?” Ha ha ha ha ha!”
On that day I became a skeptic.
@ Yes but (July 18, 2010 at 2:14 am) lists 5 reasons why CO2 is bad news. Why no mention of catastrophic global warming, Yes but? Forgotten the mad fundamentalist AGW meme, Yes but? You know, the reason – the only reason – why economies are supposed to stump up with trillions so we don’t fry? Enough of your garbage already.
How odd. This WUWT story is sticking at result no 97 when I Google for
“Chicago Field Museum” (including the quotes). Usually I would expect it to move rapidly to the first page. Perhaps nobody is doing that search!
Bank loans enforced via contracts … futures contracts via bids and sales on the open commodities markets; are you conflating more than usual NWO/Big-Bankster connections? This gets old Gail, and works to discredit actual, meaningful material you sometimes do post …
.
Its a similar story in Perth – we have SciTech, the science museum here in WA – they’re advertising on TV all the time about ‘finding out about climate change’ (featuring a ‘yoof’ standing on one leg on a rapidly melting iceberg, telling a penguin there’s no room) and ‘how you can help’ – blah blah.
They’re peddling this crap to kids and school tours and even have a feature on their website http://www.scitech.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=729&Itemid=26
Maybe we should go there and ask them to show us something concrete, like evidence, rather than just the results of model and supposition.
FTM: “When nobody is around the motion detectors turn off the lights and save electricity, right? If you’ve been to the Field Museum you know that some of the display cases are huge and have hundreds of exhibits, so you’re standing there looking at the exhibits when suddenly the lights go out.”
Getting OT, but personal experience compels comment. You should see how well this works when the bean counters put motion detectors in the classroom. You just get the kids to settle down and read, and the lights go out….
Replaced with … the “Framework for Animal Disease Traceability” (1). Same goal, slightly different means and some other minor changes …
Killed, no. Alive, in a different form achieving the same result (traceability of foodstuff/animal stock in the foodchain) … no?
(1) Framework for Animal Disease Traceability
.
???
Where do you come with these conclusions, or, maybe more importantly, how do you draw these (sometimes) outlandish inferences?
And, WHAT “Council on Economic Development” would you be referring to; EVERYBODY has a ‘council on economic development’ … Google returns 43,600,000 hits on that term (in 0.53 seconds I might add) …
.
Absolutely disgraceful !
They obviously know that CO2 increases plant growth. This is blatantly and fraudulently misleading children.
Gail Combs says:
July 18, 2010 at 12:25 pm
===================================
Ironically, the producers that brought us “An Inconvenient Truth” [ugh] actually did some good and produced “Food Inc.”
I follow everything you say–and agree 100%–about the assault on the independent farmer.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Smokey says:
July 18, 2010 at 2:00 pm
@R. Gates 11:19 am:
===========================================
Excellent post, Smokey….and as usual, R slips away like an eel through the fishnet when he is outmatched, out of his league, and “out-logic’d”.
No response to his half-truths, because he knows in a formal debate, with such “tricks”…he would never win.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Well what an amazingly ecophysiologically ignorant set of comments. Increased atmospheric CO2 will have unpredictable impacts on many species – what we have here is primary school level sceptic trivialisation.
Savanna woodlands are incredibly important biomes across the world for beef cattle production and native animals. Woodland thickening or shrub encroachment is well demonstrated across southern Africa, the southern USA and Australia at least. To date from changes in fire regime and grazing but being added to each day by CO2 fertilisation of C3 natural woody species of trees and shrubs. So CO2 lovers want to choke out productive savannas with native woody weeds? http://theland.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/general/woody-weeds-love-co2/1729857.aspx?storypage=0
FACE experiments in the real world show nothing like our test tubes experiments listed here – and please note the CO2 amounts shown above in the picture. Vastly in excess of current levels. 450 ppm as a control !!! versus 1270 ppm – Come on guys – wise up !
Indeed CO2 will reduce protein yields in wheat – needing more fertiliser. Great new as agricultural inputs hyperinflate (not!).
And there is a great deal of work on increased risk frost injury from increased CO2 as well. At least get yourself up to date with a robust discussion of the issues on an evidence-based science site.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-is-Good-for-Plants-Another-Red-Herring-in-the-Climate-Change-Debate.html The comments are most informative with references for those who can’t google.
As for Graham Dick – who said anything about stuffing economies. Is this the old sceptic meme of “I don’t like a possible policy response so ergo the science must be wrong”. That’s logical (not!).
CO2 does make plants grow better – however there is substantial subtlety in the effects. C3 will respond differently to C4 species. And CO2 is not Jack’s Beanstalk – there is a thing called Liebig’s Law of the Minimum. Not enough water and you’re nowhere.
So a warmer Canadian border with more CO2 – yep probably means more wheat for northern US/Canadian wheat belt. A drier Australia with more CO2 = less wheat. Who wins who loses !? But then again God probably favours WASP American wheat farmers eh? Maybe there’s a conspiracy and the CIA already know that – which is really why CO2 is being allowed to increase uncontrollably. (I read it on the internet! 🙂 ).
Folks just to let you know “Yes Butt” who is supposedly green, and liberal-minded, labels hard-working American wheat farmers as “WASPS.”
Prejudice…is prejudice….in any form.
Take your paranoid schizt elsewhere.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
I just stopped by one of the many local growops.
The CO2 system is set at 1200 ppm.
Can’t hear any growth creaking, though. Ventilation system is a bit loud.
Water makes poison ivy grow.
Sun makes poison ivy grow.
Dirt makes poison ivy grow.
Evil water.
Evil sun.
Evil Dirt.
Must be regulated by Lisa Jackson. Justice must be done. Money must be redistributed to deserving inner-city poor…..or something like that.
Yes but: July 18, 2010 at 8:15 pm
Well what an amazingly ecophysiologically ignorant set of comments. Increased atmospheric CO2 will have unpredictable impacts on many species – what we have here is primary school level sceptic trivialisation.
Well, what an amazingly supercilious and ecohubristically ignorant comment. An appeal to higher intelligence fallacy, with you self-assigning as the higher intelligence, then blowing your credibility with talking points and buzzwords.
Higher CO2 may increase plant biomass, but many plant species (including many that are essential for human food production) will increase toxin (chiefly cyanide) producion while reducing protein content. Not a very good trade-off.
REPLY: and your citations for that increased cyanide production are…? And while you are at it, explain why greenhouses used for commercial production use CO2 enhancement at 1200ppm – Anthony
Yes but: July 18, 2010 at 8:15 pm
Savanna woodlands are incredibly important biomes across the world for beef cattle production and native animals. Woodland thickening or shrub encroachment is well demonstrated across southern Africa, the southern USA and Australia at least. To date from changes in fire regime and grazing but being added to each day by CO2 fertilisation of C3 natural woody species of trees and shrubs.
Your ecophysiological ignorance is showing. Shrub encroachment results when cattle *don’t* browse in the woodland margins, and shrub encroachment gives native animals *additional* feeding areas and cover. Woodland margins are just about the optimal habitat for browsing herbivores.
So CO2 lovers want to choke out productive savannas with native woody weeds?
Nope. But that doesn’t happen when wildfires burn back shrub encroachment. But then, you folks don’t *like* wildfires, because they cause *ahem* increased CO2.
And there is a great deal of work on increased risk frost injury from increased CO2 as well. At least get yourself up to date with a robust discussion of the issues on an evidence-based science site.
Got any links? And kindly don’t mention skepticalscience-dot-com and “evidence-based” in the same sentence.
CO2 does make plants grow better – however there is substantial subtlety in the effects. C3 will respond differently to C4 species.
A substantial subtlety is an oxymoron. And kindly explain how a carbon molecule responds to a *plant*, and what’s earth-shattering about it?
The London Science Museum at one stage held an AGW exhibition which was also giving a gross alarmist picture, but then made the mistake of holding an internet poll entitled “Prove It”, and were embarrassed by a strongly negative public reaction. (and I leave out how they tried to modify the results!)
Subsequently, they changed their public attitude, such as reported here;
London Science Museum goes climate science neutral
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE62N0ZH20100324
Here is more general commentary that also includes a brief reference to the Science Museum’s reluctant change in attitude
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/science/earth/25climate.html?_r=1
How can similar pressures be brought on to the Chicago museum?
Perhaps these cyanide citations like these ginckgo may have alluded to ?
Gleadow RM, Evans JR, McCaffrey S, and Cavagnaro TR, (2009). Growth and nutritive value of cassava (Manihot esculenta Cranz.) are reduced when grown at elevated CO2. Plant Biology Published Online: Aug 6 2009 doi:10.1111/j.1438-8677.2009.00238.x
Gleadow RM, Edwards E. and Evans JR (2009) Changes in nutritional value of cyanogenic Trifolium repens at elevated CO2. Journal Chemical Ecology 35, 476–47.
All depends on the plant – by now it should start to dawn on those who are observant that CO2 fertilisation is not a simple matter. And speaking of matter – like cassava tubers being less?
Frost injury under extra CO2
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119116276/abstract
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080303072651.htm
The aiming of misinformation at children has been going on for as long as Man has included ‘formal’ education in his agenda. There have always been sceptics, too, including teachers and parents who used the ‘official’ line as a starting point to get kids to research whatever topic they are studying and examine the ‘authorities’ on any topic for veracity by applying properly sceptical thinking.
As an example, most kids in the developed western world are taught that Wilbur and Orville Wright were the first to invent and fly a heavier-than-air flying machine. When kids do the research on this topic, they are always amazed to find that this is factually incorrect and that a number of heavier-than-air flying machines flew publicly in America and in other parts of the world before the Wright brothers flew in front of actual witnesses.
Wise teachers and parents know that their kids will be targeted by all kinds of snake-oil salesmen as they go through life; those same wise teachers and parents use blatant bad science, such as the current examples, and other malign misinformation as an oportunity to enrich the understanding of kids and to ensure they become free thinkers who are able able to use research and reason to come to sound conclusions for themselves. Some parents and teachers also drink Koolade of various flavours, which can be a problem.
I dislike conspiracy theories, but the ‘dumbing down’ of science and other curricula in schools and colleges over the last couple of decades seems to be aimed at making it easy for kids (and adults) to believe the unbelievable.
Yes but: July 19, 2010 at 2:05 am
Perhaps these cyanide citations like these ginckgo may have alluded to ?
Quite possibly, but it’s a non-issue. Cooking breaks down the HCN in the tubers and leaves, and *nobody* eats raw manioc. And it’s a lousy source of protein to begin with — it’s all starch, although it’s got a load of vitamin C.
As for plant susceptibility to frost under increased CO2 conditions, the author in your first link says:
“Growth under elevated [CO2] promoted spring frost damage in field grown seedlings of snow gum (Eucalyptus pauciflora Sieb. ex Spreng.), one of the most frost tolerant of eucalypts. Freezing began in the leaf midvein, consistent with it being a major site of frost damage under field conditions.”
If the seedlings were “field grown” they were, by definition, grown in the open and exposed to the atmosphere. However, in order to grow them under elevated CO2, they would have had to have been grown in greenhouse-type enclosures. Which means they couldn’t have been field grown. Which means they either did not raise them under conditions of elevated CO2 or they took plants raised in a greenhouse and exposed them to the elements — and it’s a big surprise that they got frostbite?
This statement in your second link has nothing to do with an increase in CO2 affecting plant susceptibility to frost:
“Widespread damage to plants from a sudden freeze that occurred across the Eastern United States from 5 April to 9 April 2007 was made worse because it had been preceded by two weeks of unusual warmth…”
A warm spell followed by a cold snap killed off new growth. It’s happened in the past, it’ll happen again in the future, and increased CO2 had nothing to do with it.
I remember that 5-9 April 2007 “sudden freeze,” incidentally — it dumped four inches of sleet and freezing rain on my house. But I’m sure *that* had no effect on the plants…
If one really wanted to go to the bottom with the Malaria question one could research the large Malaria archives of the League of Nations (which are largely forgotten these days). The organization made massive investigations of the Malaria situation of the world and have collected records dating back to the mid 18th century.
http://www.who.int/library/collections/historical/en/index4.html
I went to the Biosphere 2 site near Tuscon a few years ago and was treated to a big dose of the same sort of nonsense pretending to be science. At least they weren’t selling carbon offsets.
Here’s an idea: Sell offsets by having people hold their breath.
Ref – Alexander K says:
July 19, 2010 at 2:14 am
_____________
Ditto!
Down here we got a place called Ditto Landing. It was named after a NASA rocket scientist, one of the first, he ferried folks back and forth across the Tennessee River. That was back in the days when NASA used barges; about 200 years ago. Anyway, things weren’t too much different than, except that there were a lot less folks around, and a dollar was worth a heck of a lot of money.
Oh! Nearly forgot. And people who played tricks on other people (especially children), and lied, and cheated, were treated to a new suit of tar and feathers and a ride out of town on a special conveyance called a rail. If it was really serious, they usually ended up in an unmarked grave or found themselves face down in the Tennessee and going to New Orleans by way of Cairo (pronounced Kay-ro).
What’s the point of all this? Some people haven’t changed a bit. But most people have. The modern, hippie, do your own thing, don’t rock the boat culture is a real bummer. When folks have no rules of common decency and ethics, there’s only chaos. I guess that’s why many, today, say ‘Life’s a riot!’ and Ph.D’s are a dime a dozen.
Who knew we’d run out of tar and feathers? Or forget how to use them?
Bill Tuttle – However, in order to grow them under elevated CO2, they would have had to have been grown in greenhouse-type enclosures.
– what utter tosh. Look up FACE and open top chambers !
Yes of course one cooks cassava – but if you like more HCN great ! And the extra HCN is at the expense of less tuber weight ! Great result for the 3rd world.
And this is merely “a” result. Many species, but not all, respond similarly.
As for the last citation – yes indeed indicating the interaction between AGW and atmospheric CO2 “Rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide are believed to reduce the ability of some plants to withstand freezing, and the authors of the BioScience study suggest that global warming could lead to more freeze and thaw fluctuations in future winters.”
You can easily Google cold or frost injury and increased CO2 effects in a number of plant species.
But Wattsup continues with its simplistic view of a cow pea seedling in 1200 ppm CO2 !! Come on – is this science?
REPLY: And you continue with your simplistic view that CO2 has a linear heating effect on the atmosphere, and is the only forcing, this is science?
Yes but says:
July 18, 2010 at 8:15 pm
So a warmer Canadian border with more CO2 – yep probably means more wheat for northern US/Canadian wheat belt. A drier Australia with more CO2 = less wheat. Who wins who loses !?
What you conveniently neglect to mention is that with greater C02 levels, plants’
water-use efficiency rises, greatly increasing their ability to withstand drought. So, it’s definitely a win-win for mankind. You also assume Canada will become warmer and Australia drier. Sorry, but Alarmists’ predictions have a poor track record, and are not based on reality, but on their precious GCMs.
But then again God probably favours WASP American wheat farmers eh? Maybe there’s a conspiracy and the CIA already know that – which is really why CO2 is being allowed to increase uncontrollably. (I read it on the internet! 🙂 ).
When your arguments become idiotic straw men such as the above, your entire credibility is damaged, and it exposes you as nothing more than a CAGW/CC troll.
“Rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide are believed to reduce the ability of some plants to withstand freezing, and the authors of the BioScience study suggest that global warming could lead to more freeze and thaw fluctuations in future winters. ”
>> Yes but says:
July 19, 2010 at 2:05 am
Frost injury under extra CO2
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119116276/abstract
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080303072651.htm <<
From your reference, there are those words 'believe', 'suggest', and 'could.' I love how the CAGW true believer quotes a basically religious treatise as proof.
"Rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide are *** believed *** to reduce the ability of some plants to withstand freezing, and the authors of the BioScience study *** suggest *** that global warming *** could *** lead to more freeze and thaw fluctuations in future winters. "
Bruce Cobb says:
July 19, 2010 at 8:03 am
“[…]When your arguments become idiotic straw men such as the above, your entire credibility is damaged, and it exposes you as nothing more than a CAGW/CC troll.”
If this is the same Yes But that posts on JoNova, he’s got little to lose.
I was going to address R. Gates’ claim of ocean acidification being tied to AGW initially…
My response would have been that ocean acidification is one (potential) result of CO2 increase, whereas global warming is another (potential) result with only limited interaction between the two. Showing one does not prove the other.
However, he went on to say this in a later post:
R. Gates says:
July 18, 2010 at 11:19 am
So I guess the oceans are getting less acidic by his statement? I’m confused as to what he’s arguing now.
-Scott
>> R. Gates says:
July 18, 2010 at 11:19 am
BTW, here’s a great article on the general increase in ocean pH, and some other little nuggets of information. Ocean acidity discussion is on page 9. <<
You seem to be a reasonable person. Do you really buy their graph which shows the change in pH of the oceans to within +/- 0.02 between 1700 and 1990? Do you really believe the pH of the oceans was known to that accuracy in 1700? To me it just proves that the whole slide show is full of baloney.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/indicators/pdfs/CI-oceans.pdf
What a novel idea! I could tell the kids to be careful not to spill their drinks because they contain H2O, which has been shown to benefit the growth of poison ivy!
Yes but: July 19, 2010 at 7:02 am
Bill Tuttle – However, in order to grow them under elevated CO2, they would have had to have been grown in greenhouse-type enclosures.
– what utter tosh. Look up FACE and open top chambers !
Geez, calm down, before you hurt yourself. An open-top enclosure *is* a greenhouse-type enclosure. It’s designed to limit air circulation around the plants *and* prevent excess heat from building up.
Yes of course one cooks cassava – but if you like more HCN great ! And the extra HCN is at the expense of less tuber weight ! Great result for the 3rd world.
As I said, cooking *detoxifies* the cassava, and the amount of excess weight of HCN you’re screaming about is in parts per *million*. Do you have any idea how *small* 40 – 60 ppm is? And drop your phony internationalist concern for the Third World — you’re not fooling anyone here.
And this is merely “a” result. Many species, but not all, respond similarly.
Name some.
As for the last citation – yes indeed indicating the interaction between AGW and atmospheric CO2 “Rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide are believed to reduce the ability of some plants to withstand freezing, and the authors of the BioScience study suggest that global warming could lead to more freeze and thaw fluctuations in future winters.”
Bogus. “…are believed…suggest…could…” You claimed it was a study *showing* an increase in plant susceptibility to frost damage with an increase in CO2.
You can easily Google cold or frost injury and increased CO2 effects in a number of plant species.
I can easily Google “megalodon survives in the Marianas Trench” and get the same number of hits with the same level of credibility.
But Wattsup continues with its simplistic view of a cow pea seedling in 1200 ppm CO2 !! Come on – is this science?
We’ve gone way past that. You’re the only one stuck on cowpeas here, but since you ask the question, yes, it is science. And better science than a paper full of “…are believed…suggest…could…may…”
Bill – that would be the Google facility sceptics never use – it’s called “Google Scholar” – it brings up information on what we call “peer reviewed papers”. It’s in that little arrow tag above the search space called “more”.
The cassava issue is the lower weight. So sceptics would like lower yields of cassava as valuable energy is spent making HCN ?
And sceptics will be advocating poisoning livestock too with clover producing more HCN and less protein under high CO2.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19352773
We’ll add that to lower protein yields in wheat.
A nice brave new world with more cyanic plants, less protein, less tubers. Sound great.
“An open-top enclosure *is* a greenhouse-type enclosure. It’s designed to limit air circulation around the plants *and* prevent excess heat from building up.’ SO ?? There’s this thing in what we call “science” where one compares a control with a “treatment”. i.e. ambient CO2 vs increased CO2
How utterly hilarious that sceptics all line up for a 1200ppm CO2 cow pea. Pullease guys ! I prefer 2000ppm. You can never have enough.
REPLY: and just what evidence do you have that sceptics “never use Google Scholar” I use it daily, trying to find papers that aren’t including with the breathless press releases. Stop making up things for which you have zero evidence – Anthony
<b.Yes but : July 19, 2010 at 1:12 pm
The cassava issue is the lower weight. So sceptics would like lower yields of cassava as valuable energy is spent making HCN ?
Again, we’re talking parts per million.
And sceptics will be advocating poisoning livestock too with clover producing more HCN and less protein under high CO2.
I’ll see your evil AGW CO2 and raise you — surprise! — natural variation.
Studies on Variability in White Clover: Growth Habits and Cyanogenic Glucosides
JOANNA FRASER and JERZY NOWAK
Plant Science Department, Nova Scotia Agricultural College Truro, Nova Scotia, Canada B2N 5E3
[Extract from the introduction] Growth habits and cyanogenesis were studied in a field experiment with white clover (Trifolium repens L.) cv. Huia. Eighty control plants propagated by seeds, and 80 clones of an in vivo selected variant were examined in mid-late August and late September.
[Extract from the conclusion] The response to the environmental changes, regarding cyanogenesis, appear to be genetically determined. My emphasis.
http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/61/3/311
Also available from the Oxford University Press.
Didn’t need Google Scholar to find it, either — just a matter of scanning for institutions with a reputation for scholarly work and integrity.
Did anybody else notice, behind the big leaf, that big red sun, on the display? As a big notice of the underlying cause of global climate and life on earth?
Anthony asks ” just what evidence do you have that sceptics “never use Google Scholar” ” – well Anthony – two points (1) from your 20 stop tour of Australia (which I endured two of) you should know by now that Aussies like to pull your leg (2) every time one posts on these forums – you are immediately greeted with “where’s the evidence of xyz” which anyone will Google Scholar could find in minutes (so ergo scpetics mustn’t use it !) and then when evidence is presented – well that’s all rubbish.
But tell us Anthony why do not post this picture of CO2 effects? Figure 2 here http://www.biolsci.monash.edu.au/staff/gleadow/docs/gleadow-2009-cassava-online.pdf
Bill Tuttle – touche sir – and well Googled – but of course genetics will only get you somewhere in domesticated agricultural systems. Natural systems??
And as you can see the cassava root loss isn’t ppm….
However – I did say CO2 is evil – how can an essential building block of life and also a radiation absorbing gas be evil. But like water and like salt – also essential you can have too much !
CO2 fertilisation isn’t one way – and is this is an evidence based blog – not a political activist blog you would openly review all the issues.
And as for the WASP US wheat farmer – the Pacific entering a mean El Nino like state would reward US grain farmers handsomely and diminish Australian production. Call it leg pulling but also personally indulgent conspiracy fears.
OK, I have to point out something. I don’t know the reason why and I’m sure there aren’t many people who do, but I’m hardly the only person downstate who’s noticed that poison ivy, which used to grow out on woods, now grows nicely out in bright sun. They’ve been blaming it on increased CO2, of course. I don’t know how much truth there is to it, but yes, anyone with two functioning eyes down on the other end of Illinois can see that there’s more poison ivy these days, and it’s darned healthy.
Fear the threat of agw frost brought on by yesbut C02.
“non-stupid people constantly forget that at all times and places and under any circumstances to deal and/or associate with stupid people always turns out to be a costly mistake.”
N.B.
‘constantly forget’ is a euphemism for stupid.
Yes but: July 19, 2010 at 6:42 pm
Bill Tuttle – touche sir – and well Googled – but of course genetics will only get you somewhere in domesticated agricultural systems. Natural systems??
Merçi — mais, au contraire, mon vieux — genetics is the *study* of DNA, and natural variation — natural systems, if you wish — is a huge part of it. Domestication involves genetic *manipulation*, either through selective breeding or gene splicing.
A wolf’s DNA varies from a hyena’s DNA through natural variation (evolution) — a cocker spaniel’s DNA varies from a wolf’s DNA through selective breeding.
CO2 fertilisation isn’t one way – and is this is an ev.idence based blog – not a political activist blog you would openly review all the issues.
Among the issues up for review [from your linked paper] is that the people who eat a lot of cassava *like* the taste of the high cyanide varieties —
“The preference for high cyanide varieties by the predominantly female subsistence farmers in parts of Africa also raises doubts about the acceptance of completely non-cyanide producing cultivars (Chiwona-Karltun et al. 2002).”
Yes but says:
July 19, 2010 at 1:12 pm
“[…]The cassava issue is the lower weight. So sceptics would like lower yields of cassava as valuable energy is spent making HCN ?[…]”
Worldwide cassava production in 2002: 184 million metric tonnes.
Wheat in 2002: 574 million metric tonnes. (2007: 607 million)
So we can overcompensate for a lower harvest in cassava with a higher harvest in wheat in a CO2 rich world, as long as Yes But doesn’t show that wheat harvest is diminished by higher CO2.
Cassava seems to be thriving for now:
http://news.mongabay.com/bioenergy/2008/11/fao-reports-major-success-healthy.html
(in the real world, that is)
Here’s a link to an interview with Dr Ros Gleadow, the author of the Cassava study, and Emeritus Prof. Howard Bradbury who has developed a method to detoxify cassava before consumption; the method has been okayed by the Mozambique health department.
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/2891924.htm
Oh, and Dr. Ros Gleadow says
“Dr Ros Gleadow
Leaves of plants grown at elevated carbon dioxide have a lot less protein wheat, barley, rice, all of those in probably only 50 to 60 years time will have 15 to 20% less protein in them than they do now. ”
Ok, that gives us a time horizon of half a century to develop countermeasures. How about cultivating higher-protein varieties? Is half a century enough for that?
Oh, looks like Dr Nagib Nassar has already fixed that for Cassava:
http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-5615-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html
Amazing how some people (including in this comment thread) can take something as straightforward as the long-known and well-documented CO2 plant enhancement and attempt to twist it around to something bad.
beng: July 20, 2010 at 7:00 am
Amazing how some people (including in this comment thread) can take something as straightforward as the long-known and well-documented CO2 plant enhancement and attempt to twist it around to something bad.
On the plus side, now I know that Oxford puts papers online.
_Jim says:
July 18, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Gail Combs July 18, 2010 at 7:45 am says:
In the fifties I remember the local doctor in my rural town telling my Mom how he got paid for his services with eggs, veggies, a slab of home cured bacon… None of this “trade” would be taxed and the bankers would not get their levy on the serfs (farmers) labor.
Bank loans enforced via contracts … futures contracts via bids and sales on the open commodities markets; are you conflating more than usual NWO/Big-Bankster connections? This gets old Gail, and works to discredit actual, meaningful material you sometimes do post …
________________________________________________________________________
You keep defending the banks so I will go over this from the beginning in detail.
First you mention “contracts” well my Business Law book states that a contract that is grossly unequal can be considered invalid especially if the party cheated was not aware of the facts. Also there must be an exchange of things of real value or there is no contract.
So lets look at the current situation with banks. It used to be banks had to have a 10% reserve. In other words 10% of the money came from Joe Sixpack’s labor (real wealth) and 90% was an accounting entry (fairy dust) but now ****US Banks Operating Without Reserve Requirements*****/a>
Therefore technically contracts with banks are actually null and void on two different counts per the Commercial Code. A friend of mine used this logic in court in New York state and won his case so I am not spouting untruths.
Money Is Created by Banks according to Evidence given by Graham F. Towers, Governor of the Central Bank of Canada (from 1934 to 1955), before the Canadian Government’s Committee on Banking and Commerce, in 1939. It is short so just read it yourself.
Next lets look at the US Federal Reserve.
”The writer [Wright Patman] has had a couple of personal experiences which ‘have provided some amusing confirmation of the fact that the source of bank reserves is not deposits of cash by the member banks with the Federal Reserve banks… I went on one occasion to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York where these securities are supposed to be housed, and asked if I might be allowed to see them. The officials of this bank said, yes, they would be glad to show them to me; whereupon they opened the vaults and let me look at, and even hold in my hand, the large mound of Government securities which they claimed to have and which, in fact, they did have.
Since I had also seen reports that the member banks of the Federal Reserve System had a certain number of millions of dollars in “cash reserves” on deposit with the Federal Reserve bank, I then asked if I might be allowed to see these cash reserves. This time my question was met with some looks of surprise; the bank officials then patiently explained to me that there were no cash reserves. The cash, in truth, does not exist and never has existed. [pg 38]
Of the 19 Federal Reserve officials 12 are elected by bankers so HOW the money supply is increase and WHO gets the interest on the US treasury bonds can get very interesting.
The Federal Reserve officials can always decide to create a large portion of any increase in the money supply themselves, though, of course, a larger portion of the supply will always be provided by the private banks under present law. Still the larger portion of Reserve-created money, the more the U.S. Treasury benefits-because all income of the Federal Reserve after expenses reverts to the Treasury. Thus the Treasury receives a good share of the income earned from the Government securities purchased in Reserve money-creating operations.
On the other hand, if the Federal Reserve officials decide that the increase in the money supply they want is all, or substantially all, to be made by the private banks, the private banks acquire and hold more Government securities than in the first case, and the interest payments on these securities go into bank profits. So, whether the Federal Reserve officials decide to favor the U.S. Treasury or the private banks does make a difference-millions of dollars of difference-in the amount of taxes you, I, and all other taxpayers must pay. After all, one of the biggest items of expense of the Federal Government is the interest it must pay on its debt. [pg 36]
The truth is, however, that the Private banks, collectively, have deposited not a penny of their own funds, or their depositors funds, with the Federal Reserve banks. The impression that they do so arises from the fact that reserves, once created, can be, and are, transferred back and forth from one bank to another, as one bank gains deposits and another loses deposits. [pg 37]
You can read the rest of the rest of the report here A PRIMER ON MONEY: COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY: HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WRIGHT PATMAN Chairman, 1964
Next: Although the money in the Federal Reserve is not in anyway “owned” by private banks they get paid interest on it…. “In its latest power play, on October 3, 2008, the Fed acquired the ability to pay interest to its member banks on the reserves the banks maintain at the Fed… Remember these are the “cash reserves” that do not in actual fact exist according to Congressman Patman!
Next lets look at my statement about taxes and banks.
The Grace Commission Report: PRESIDENT’S PRIVATE SECTOR SURVEY ON COST CONTROL: MEETING ON JANUARY 15, 1984 states in their report:
”….Resistance to additional income taxes would be even more widespread if people were aware that:
One-third of all their taxes is consumed by waste and inefficiency in the Federal Government as we identified in our survey.
Another one-third of all their taxes escapes collection from others as the underground economy blossoms in direct proportion to tax increases and places even more pressure on law abiding taxpayers, promoting still more underground economy-a vicious cycle that must be broken.
With two-thirds of everyone’s personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government…
The tax load on the average American family is already at counterproductive levels with the underground economy having now grown to an estimated $500 billion per year, costing about $100 billion in lost Federal tax revenues per year.
The size of the underground economy is understandable when one considers that median family income taxes have increased from $9 in 1948 to $2,218 in 1983, or by 246 times. This is runaway taxation at its worst”
I have independent confirmation that the underground economy is still alive and well and a concern of officials. You can call Al at the .919-563-9420 at the Buckhorn Jockey Lot and Farmers Market (wkends) and ask how many times in the last five years he has been raided by tax collectors. I gave up and now carry with me documentation showing my business tax number because of those blasted raids.
CONCLUSION:
1. Yes banks create money out of thin air.
2. Yes our taxes go to the banks to pay interest on the Federal debt
3. Yes there is a problem with an growing underground economy.
Is it really, really hard to believe that banks would be FOR more and more social programs that the Federal Government needs to borrow money for?
Is it hard to believe the banks are FOR more and more tax revenue to pay the interest they are charging the federal government?
Is it hard to believe the banks want to kill the underground economy that is not taxed?
Is it hard to believe the best way to kill the underground economy is to kill it by strangling it in red tape and thereby kill small businesses?
Please explain why the facts from good sources do not support those conclusions. (if you want the Business law book direct quote, I can probably dig it out of the piles and piles of books in the house)
Curiousgeorge says:
July 18, 2010 at 1:33 pm
@ Gail Combs says:
July 18, 2010 at 12:25 pm
Gail, I don’t disagree that education is important – it is. But it’s only effective if properly applied.
_________________________________________________
DesertYote says:
July 18, 2010 at 2:28 pm
We have been lied to also. I’m 50. The first time I remember noticing that a teacher was deliberately lying to me was when I was in the 5th grade. Lefties have been targeting children for a very very long time with their insidious propaganda.
___________________________________________________________
John Dewey over a hundred years ago realized that education was the key to the difference between a society of serfs and a society of free people. Therefore it is education that is necessary to counteract the pervasive brainwashing.
The Dumbing Down of America
”Dewey’s philosophy had evolved from Hegelian idealism to socialist materialism, and the purpose of the school was to show how education could be changed to produce little socialists and collectivists instead of little capitalists and individualists. It was expected that these little socialists, when they became voting adults, would dutifully change the American economic system into a socialist one.
In order to do so he analyzed the traditional curriculum that sustained the capitalist, individualistic system and found what he believed was the sustaining linchpin — that is, the key element that held the entire system together: high literacy. To Dewey, the greatest obstacle to socialism was the private mind that seeks knowledge in order to exercise its own private judgment and intellectual authority. High literacy gave the individual the means to seek knowledge independently. It gave individuals the means to stand on their own two feet and think for themselves. This was detrimental to the “social spirit” needed to bring about a collectivist society.”
Now the government intervention into child raising extends to infants thanks to day care legislation. So how did we go from grandma type baby sitters to professional government “accredited” (read brainwashed) day care providers?
The recent regulations trace back to the “ever growing hysteria over pedophilia” I was appalled at the injustice when it turned out innocent people died in jail and the government would not revisit the Fells Acre Case despite the witnesses recanting of their testimony. After reading the above article I now know why there was an unjustified “attack” on day cares. People had to be accused and go to jail for crimes they did not commit so new laws regulating day care and the increased cost were justified in the eyes of parents.
Here is the travesty of justice involved:
All of the convictions were eventually overturned on appeal. It was later found that the child witnesses had been subjected to suggestive interrogation techniques in the gathering of evidence at trial. Many of the children recanted their testimony in adolescence or adulthood, and the cases stand as egregious examples of injustice in American history.
Tthe Fells Acre Case was revisited a number of times but the persecuting attorneys was running for public office… you can guess the rest
”Middlesex County District Attorney Scott Harshbarger (later Attorney General) and Middlesex First Assistant District Attorney Tom Reilly (later Middlesex County District Attorney), brought the case. Both have had plenty of opportunity to correct this travesty of justice, both then and later. Instead both have continued to maintain the correctness of the verdict….” click
Here is part of a transcript of the court case:
Judge Borenstein’s decision– Part III-C
C. The Child Witnesses
”The investigations and interviews in this case exemplify the merger of two tragedies: on one hand preventing anyone from ever really knowing whether these child witnesses were sexually abused, and on the other, jeopardizing the liberty of innocent people.
When the newly discovered evidence is applied to the facts of this case, the Court is led to two inescapable conclusions: first, the interviewing techniques used with these children were highly suggestive; and second, these techniques rendered their testimony unreliable.
As the facts demonstrate, from the outset the investigators were biased against the defendant, her brother and her mother. This was exemplified by the way investigators, interviewers and even parents ignored incredible claims of abuse by these child witnesses including talking robots, being tied naked to a tree in front of a school, the torture of animals in public. Through suggestive interviewing and other heavy handed influences they funneled these incredible claims down to allegations against the Amiraults.
The investigations into each child’s allegations of abuse culminated in the merger of two tragedies: no one will ever know for certain if these children were sexually abused, jeopardizing the liberty interest of innocent people.
[3] [Lack of Physical Evidence and Corroboration], p. 23
“….Behavioral symptoms in the children alleged by the parents emerged only as a result of the coercive and suggestive interviewing that took place, other behavioral disorders, discord or changes in the family. Therefore, there is no credible, independent behavioral or physical evidence corroborating the children’s testimony. None of these symptoms were disclosed until later in the fall of 1984….”
Here is the tPublic Broadcasting Network take on the issue. A real interesting perspective.
Here is another case: THE “LITTLE RASCALS” RITUAL ABUSE CASE, IN EDENTON, NC
We have touched on the subject of the hatred for “deniers” and a “black list.” This travesty of justice shows just how innocent people can be the target of media whipped mass hysteria. I hope “deniers” never find themselves in this type of situation.
people keep saying where is their honor?
hmmm probably the same place A certain ex senator’s was when he created an inconvenient truth, probably the same place the CRU teams was during the period that all the Climategate emails were being written.
This is why I don’t take my child to any museum funded by grants from the US or State governments as they are forced to supply propaganda since they receive funding.
This is also why I homeschool my 5yr old son.
I want my son to have a classic education where he can learn and grow into a honorable, decent, human being that can think for himself and isn’t part of the Borg collective.
Brad aka 1personofdifference says:
July 20, 2010 at 12:02 pm
……This is also why I homeschool my 5yr old son.
I want my son to have a classic education where he can learn and grow into a honorable, decent, human being that can think for himself and isn’t part of the Borg collective.
_____________________________________________
I am glad to hear that. It is what I recommend to all parents who have that option. (I do children’s entertainment)
Unfortunately I am afraid the day is soon coming where homeschooling is no longer “legal” in any country. I am sure that is one reason for the UN’s “rights of the child” propaganda. To take the children away from their parents influence so they can be turned into good little “team players” instead of individualists.
The more I read about what is happening in the world today the more disgusted and frightened I become. I fear we are looking at the beginning of another “dark ages” I show why I believe this in my comment at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/20/two-senators-upcoming-presser-on-clear-act/#comment-435211