Bowsite.com

I didn't want to confuse my daughter anymore than I already had so I let it go. I immediately thought about how is there a way to explain to a child this young what is actually going on? How do I explain to her that this "science" is not science at all but a religious movement? Hence....my question. Is there material available for children that they can read that will explain this crap to them? My wife, a school teacher, is very good at explaining stuff to young people but she really doesn't understand this movement herself. So...is there material out there to combat this crap?

FWIW...I know this is not in the same arena but my daughter is currently reading the Rush Revere books (excellent read for kids or adults for that matter) so that she can learn a little non-revisionist history.

If you are a green earth do-gooder, your carbon footprint has no negative effect. (sort of the leftist version of "mine don't stink")

OTOH, if you are in business to produce something useful, or happen to believe in less government and more individual freedom, then a multiplier is attached to your carbon footprint.

The concept of carbon footprint in a nutshell:

We all release some amount of carbon into the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide from breathing, exhaust from our vehicles, ashes from our BBQ or fireplace, etc.

Mother Earth like so to lock up carbon on trees (wood, cellulose, etc), underground in fossil fuels, etc.

If we release more than we help lock up (or keep locked up), we are said to have a positive carbon footprint. If we Lock up (or avoid releasing) more than we release, we have a negative footprint.

All Gore and his minions would have us believe we can fly our private jet from LA to Paris and back and negate the resulting carbon release by planting some trees ... or paying him a small fortune to (supposedly) plant them for us.

Then you have the added factor of what HA points out ...

What I find funny about this subject is that just like water conservation. There is always the exact same amount of water or carbon on earth at all times. That number can never ever change. With the exception of an asteroid/meteor hitting the earth and leaving new carbon.

The only thing that changes is where said water or carbon is located. Its either in the air, inside living things or in the earth. BUT the count never ever changes.

What the climate changers believe is that an in-balance of where carbon exists and that is the problem. Unfortunately the equation for how the effects the earth as a whole is too complex for any person to claim they understand it. Because they will always miss part of the equation or simple lack enough knowledge in human kind to understand a particular factor.

In my opinion this is why the global warmers theory fell apart on them, they tried to analysis with partial information.

It is my opinion that big cities can have and effect on local weather patterns or simply health of people in that immediate area, due to carbon or other chemicals, I do not believe however that this creates a doomsday scenario Al Gore predicted.

Bottom line....whatever your "carbon footprint" is it doesn't matter. It has no bearing on the warming/cooling trend of the Earth.

That was part of my whole point. Sorry if it was not clear.

and that skepticism is not illegal, yet

I hope my response didn't come across as snippy. It wasn't meant to be. It is just difficult to explain to a child that people will tell you things that are not true, even at school, for personal gain.

But you're right, our school children are being indoctrinated. There's a reason why Bill Ayers went from a murdering domestic terrorist to a college professor of Elementary School Theory.

First issue is that most science texts seem to accept the Gorbal view of climate change without question, and therefore are merely propaganda.

Second, most teachers have too many administrative tasks foisted upon them that they are not able to keep up with current scientific views. (This is one of the reasons I have shared "stuff" I read in my trade journals and blogjogging with appropriate staff--and several educators here).

A good way to help your daughter is to augment her education at home. Too many token terms are tossed about in schools that have incorrect connotations attached. Climate change is not weather. Climate change happens naturally over long periods of time...and a couple hundred years is but a tick in time.

There was a great NatGeo video about how beavers that I saw a few weeks ago. The program showed how beavers created wetlands that helped prevent draught, increased biodiversity, etc. Message: beavers good.

Today, I get this article: HOW BEAVERS ARE SLOWLY CHANGING THE WORLD Study shows the effect that growing beaver population is having on habitat and methane gas emissions

The world we live in is a lot more complex than is being taught in schools.

Encourage your daughter to ask hard questions in class. Example, if carbon footprints are so important, why do the Gores, deCrapios, and other alarmists have such big ones compared to the average person? Follow the money ;o)

Two great sites addressing this issue are:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/ http://www.climatedepot.com/

You could also search this site for threads on Climategate, IPCC, Gorbal Warming. There were lots of information contained in many of them.

I'd love to see the "beaver good"/"beaver bad" dropped in a classroom ;o)

Merry Christmas

jack

Man o man, I wish I was teaching wildlife management this semester, that would be a good topic.

Carbon footprint is real, carbon footprint is in some of our science books, and carbon footprint is overrated, (OK the last is my opinion). The environmental science book we use tells the student to be skeptical and that skepticism is an important part of science. Now 2 things. One, I wish more parents would supplement what their children are being taught and teach them to question things, it would actually make my job as a science and agri teacher much better. Second, I wish more scientists would remember to be skeptical of many things instead of just what doesn't agree with their beliefs.

You bring up a good point. I attained a BS in Environmental Biology and one thing that was a common thread was whenever there was discovery, among scientists it was almost always rejected. Real scientists tend to be skeptical of pretty much anything new. The problem is their are a group of scientists that are liberals, probably a pretty large group, and as we all know...liberals are liberals first before anything else. Hence the agenda driven science.

Too many people set on the sidelines and allow their children to be "educated." My wife and I and many other parents are actively involved in what our children ingest. My wife sees much of this stuff as harmless but I know that it is just another means for liberals to systematically, slowly and methodically dig their tentacles deeper into society.

Not at all.

They are also told that all humans are biased, not just us old white males. My back ground offers insights into my biases which they should be aware of as the only concern I have regarding my biases is that it not imped their own critical thinking.

Regarding economics, they are also told I am a supply sider but I present the Keynesian view with as much enthusiasm . Most end up thanking me for trying to be fair and balanced. In fact that is one of my jokes with them-I am fair and balanced like FOX News wants to be but doesn't quite get there.

Most of my colleagues take a similar approach. In my limited view from KS, I do think the pressure on colleges as of late has driven the message home that political agendas are not what we are paid to do.

"...From the start, Richard Lindzen, former professor of meteorology at MIT, said about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis: The consensus was reached before the research had even begun.The IPCC virtually ignored evidence that showed the hypothesis wrong, including failed predictions. Instead of revisiting their science, they moved the goal posts from global warming to climate change and recently climate disruption. Mainstream media have aided and abetted them with misleading and often completely scientifically incorrect stories. These are usually a reflection of their political bias..."

Question posed in article:

What if Obama’s climate change policies are based on pHraud?

From the link...

"Feely, and his coauthor Dr. Christopher L. Sabine, PMEL Director, omitted 80 years of data, which incorporate more than 2 million records of ocean pH levels."

Science by executive order...TBVIECia.