|
Letters from Sixth Grade Students
Reveal Global Warming Indoctrination
Bill Haymin
American
Chronicle
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
By: Maureen Martin
Published In: Environment News
The Heartland Institute
www.heartland.org
If you doubt teachers across the country are trying to brainwash
schoolchildren with global warming alarmism, take a look inside
the sixth grade classroom of teacher Michael Steria at David A.
Brown Middle School in Wildomar, California.
Twenty-five sixth graders teamed up to write eight letters to
The Heartland Institute describing what they had been taught about
global warming. Steria sent the letters to the institute in March.
(The letters themselves are posted here.) [GO TO HEARTLAND.ORG
AND CLICK ON TO THIS ARTICLE TO READ THIS LINK]
The students said they learned about global warming by reading
10 articles about it. None of the articles, however, was about
the science of global warming. Many described terrifying consequences
that supposedly will result, convincing the students all living
things--including all human beings--will be dead in 10 years.
(Article continues below)
Steria´s Teachings
Global warming "means that if we don´t fix the climate,
everything will be destroyed and we won´t be able to survive,"
two students wrote. Others found their global warming lessons
similarly frightening (all transcriptions are as the students
wrote and sent them, uncorrected):
"I think your fools for denying G.W. you know it could kill
us all & you´re just adding to it. I want you to help
stop G.W. not increase it."
"We are going to tell you about global warming. I don´t
care if you don´t want to read, but I´m making you
read it you horrible people."
"We feel that it is wrong what you are doing. We know that
you know that global warming is NOT we repeat NOT a myth, And
we think it is selfish that you would take money over yours and
your peers lives."
"We feel upset because you are making Global Warming worse
instead of helping it. We know that almost half of the country
knows that G.W. is a crisis. We know that you could help the environment
with the $800,000 you have."
"We feel that they are destroying our planet by saying G.W.
is not a crisis. You think GW is not a crisis but it is; you know
deep down that it´s a real thing that´s happening.
Everyone has a part in helping GW, and you´re making worse."
"I do not think that what you are doing is right because
you are telling people that global warming is not a crisis. If
this is not a crisis, how come floods have occurred in asia, Mexico,
and India. Plus, how can you explain why the glacier glaciers
are melting. they can´t melt themselves, because they are
in the coldest region in the world."
"Air pollution shrinks fetus size, 31 states target global
warming, World must fix Climate in 10 years-UNDP, National disasters
have quadrupled in two decades, and Global Warming Denier Group
funded by Big Oil Hosting Climate Change Denial conference."
Off-Topic Articles
The students say they read 10 articles about global warming;
their letters describe and identify seven of them.
Three of the articles have nothing to do with global warming
or greenhouse gases. Two are dire predictions from non-scientists
at the United Nations disaster relief agency, the U.N. Development
Programme, and nongovernmental organizations engaged in disaster
aid. One article relates state efforts at monitoring greenhouse
gases.
Antarctic Ice Melt Scare Lacks Scientific Support
By: Patrick J. Michaels
The Heartland Institute
www.heartland.org
The Washington Post recently ran a shocking above-the-fold article
warning us of "Escalating Ice Loss Found in Antarctica."
A new paper by Eric Rignot of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory
shows a net loss of ice where most scientists thought the opposite
would occur, the story noted.
The Post went full-bore with this one, spreading the article
on to an entire interior page. The piece ends by noting that Rajenda
Pachauri, head of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC), is so concerned that he is personally
going down to inspect the situation.
Record Sea Ice
He should. Before he even gets to Antarctica, Pachauri is going
to see something even more surprising than Rignot's finding. Despite
a warming Southern Ocean, the amount of ice surrounding Antarctica
is now at the highest level ever measured for this time of the
year, since satellites first began to monitor it almost 30 years
ago. This represents a continuation of the record set last winter
(our summer).
Thanks to the miracles of modern technology, we can also look
at the departure from the average for ice mass in a given month.
At present, the coverage of ice surrounding Antarctica is almost
exactly two million square miles above where it is historically
supposed to be at this time of year. It's farther above normal
than it has ever been for any month in climatologic records.
Around now, because it's summer down there and the ice is headed
toward its annual low point, there should be about seven million
square miles of it. That means, as data in University of Illinois'
Web publication Cryosphere Today shows, there is nearly 30 percent
more ice down in Antarctica than usual for this time of the year.
IPCC Predicts Growing Ice
All of the IPCC's models of Antarctica in the twenty-first century
forecast a gain in ice, as a warmer surrounding ocean evaporates
more water, which subsequently falls in the form of snow when
it hits the continent. It's simply too cold for rain in Antarctica,
and it'll stay that way for a very long time.
Concerning Antarctica as a whole, the IPCC's new climate compendium
notes "the lack of warming reflected in atmospheric temperatures
averaged across the region." Other studies, such as Peter
Doran's in Nature in 2003, show actual cooling in recent decades.
(There is a small area of significant warming in the peninsula
that points towards South America, but this is less than 2 percent
of Antarctica's total land mass.)
There's brand new evidence, just published in mid-January in
Geophysical Research Letters, of a striking increase in snowfall
over that peninsula. The few snowfall records that are available
elsewhere in Antarctica show considerable variation from decade
to decade, so discriminating the "signal" of increased
snowfall caused by global warming from all the rest of the "noise"
may be very difficult indeed.
We see the same problem with hurricanes and global warming. Their
strength and numbers vary considerably from year to year. The
year 2005 was the most active ever measured in the Atlantic Basin,
while 2007 was one of the weakest in history. How do you find
the fingerprint of global warming amid such variation?
Putting Facts in Context
So it's not warming up, and the snowfall data are equivocal,
yet the continent is experiencing a net loss of ice. How can this
be, and is it even important? The current hypothesis is that warmer
waters beneath the surface are somehow loosening the ice. That's
plausible, but again, there's precious little proof of it.
And further, the bottom line is that there is more ice than ever
surrounding Antarctica.
One of the tired tropes that reverberate throughout global warming
reporting is that inconvenient facts get left out. In this case,
it's blatant. Midway through the Post's page-long article comes
a statement that "these new findings come as the Arctic is
losing ice at a dramatic rate." Wouldn't that have been an
appropriate place to note that, despite a small recent loss of
ice from the Antarctic landmass, the ice field surrounding Antarctica
is now larger than ever measured?
Patrick J. Michaels (pmichaels@cato.org) is senior fellow in
environmental studies at the Cato Institute and author of Meltdown:
The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians,
and the Media. This article first appeared in the American Spectator
on February 5, 2008.
San Francisco Regulators Seek Greenhouse Fee
By Tom Tanton
Published In: Environment News
The Heartland Institute
www.heartland.org
San Francisco-area air quality regulators are proposing to charge
a fee to most businesses based on the amount of greenhouse gases
they emit.
The fee--4.2 cents per metric ton of carbon dioxide--would affect
everything from oil refineries to power plants and would include
landfills, factories, and small businesses such as restaurants
and bakeries.
The largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the Bay Area, the
Shell oil refinery in Martinez, would pay $186,475 a year for
its 4.4 million annual metric tons of emissions. The largest emitter
in Santa Clara County, the Hanson Permanente Cement Plant in Cupertino,
would pay $44,507 a year for its 1.05 million tons.
Foot in Door
The levy proposed by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
would replace voluntary local measures that have recently slowed
local greenhouse gas emissions. If the fee is successfully implemented,
supporters of greenhouse gas fees are likely to seek similar ones
in other cities and states.
"The climate is changing, and we think that everybody needs
to help with the solution and pay their fair share to reduce greenhouse
gases," said Jack Broadbent, executive officer of the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District in San Francisco, according
to the February 9 San Jose Mercury News.
Taxes in Disguise?
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District has regulated smog
for the past 50 years in nine counties around San Francisco Bay.
The air district's board could take a final vote on the proposed
greenhouse gas fee by May. Broadbent said the proposal is designed
to raise $1.1 million a year, the Mercury News reported.
"It is not a 'carbon tax' but a cost recovery fee,"
Broadbent said, according to the article, "because the money
would not go into a general fund, but would be used instead to
pay for the air district's global warming reduction programs."
"California, regrettably, has taken the lead in obfuscating
the differences between a tax and a true fee," responded
Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association,
in an interview for this story.
"The proposed global warming 'fee' is clearly a tax,"
said Coupal. "There is little if any nexus between fee payers
and the alleged harm sought to be addressed, and there is clearly
no direct benefit to the fee payers."
Successful Current Programs
The proposal is being closely watched around the state because
it would represent the first time companies have been hit with
direct levies based on their greenhouse gas emissions. Businesses
already pay various surcharges on energy use to fund greenhouse
gas emissions programs, but this is the first time a fee would
be charged per unit of such emissions.
To date, most greenhouse gas reduction programs in the U.S. have
been voluntary. The voluntary programs have been much more successful
than the mandatory ones put in place in other developed nations.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration reports the greenhouse
gas intensity of the U.S. economy has been declining for the past
10 years and U.S. greenhouse gas emissions are slowing faster
than emissions in the European Union, which relies on mandatory
restrictions.
Chasing Businesses Away
Consumer groups and business officials reacted warily to the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District's proposed new fee. Tupper
Hull, a representative for the Western States Petroleum Association
in Sacramento, said hitting oil refineries and power plants with
fees could end up hitting consumers in the pocketbook.
"This proposal will raise the cost of producing energy and
fuel for California consumers, and at a time when consumers have
concerns about what they are paying," said Hull, according
to the February 9 San Jose Mercury News. "We can't say how
much that is, but it is a significant concern."
Hull also said if some of the other 30 air districts in California
begin copying the idea, the state will have a confusing patchwork
of rules right at the time government is trying to craft a statewide
implementation plan for Assembly Bill 32, the greenhouse gas reduction
law signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) two years ago.
The proposed fee would be especially harmful because costs and
tax burdens on California businesses are already significantly
higher than in the rest of the country, critics note. The neighboring
states of Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon each have much lower energy
costs and tax burdens, and therefore are better able to attract
new business development.
"Other states, such as Florida, Nevada, and Arizona, are
cheering the proposal," Coupal said. "They will welcome
with open arms those businesses operating in California whose
tolerance for nuttiness has run out."
Tom Tanton (ttanton@fastkat.com) is a senior fellow at the Pacific
Research Institute.
Disclaimer: Posting articles does not necessarily endorse or
agree with every opinion expressed in every article. All articles
that are posted are aimed at getting people to think & consider
the various issues, ideas & factual research presented.
Reprinted by permission
Presented by Bill Haymin, 2008
|
INFOWARS:
BECAUSE THERE'S A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND
|
|
