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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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
@ur momisugly 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