Help! There’s propaganda in my book!

“Chill out about global warming” isn’t a popular message for a children’s book, but publisher Eric Jackson of World Ahead Publishing is looking for ways to counter books featuring cuddly polar bears on melting ice floes. He wants to repeat the success of Help! Mom! There Are Liberals Under My Bed!, which told of hard-working Tommy and Lou, whose dreams of funding a swing set through lemonade sales are thwarted by liberal regulators and taxers. From the LA Times:

Kindergartners these days can leaf through a picture book promoting the virtues of medical marijuana. They can read a fairy tale about two princes who get married — to each other.

But where are the children’s books denouncing affirmative action? The fairy tales promoting gun rights?

Jackson has ordered a modest print run for The Sky’s Not Falling!, which urges kids not to worry about global warming.

He’s also working on edits of Joey Gonzalez, Great American.

(It is) a bilingual story about a third-grader whose teacher tells him his last name is a sign that he’s less capable.

“It’s a little bit harder for minorities to learn,” the teacher tells him. “Don’t worry, Joey…. There’s a special way to help minorities get ahead. It’s called affirmative action.”

Joey stands up to the teacher, telling her that his ancestors, Spanish explorers, “didn’t come all the way over here to be minorities.” They didn’t need special help, and he doesn’t either: “Great Americans don’t cheat.”

I have a feeling Joey, apparently the descendant of conquistadors, is no Harry Potter.

Many classic children’s stories celebrate individualism, bravery, initiative, self-reliance, etc. Nobody calls for lance control when the hero kills the dragon. PETA doesn’t protest either. Maybe they don’t write children’s books like that any more, but there are plenty of good ones already written. For example, there’s the original sky-is-falling fable of Chicken Little.

About Joanne

Comments

  1. I should start a library of these “children’s” books!

  2. Personally even though I agree with some of the politics of the author, I think the whole concept of these books is disgusting.

    I fail to see how these books are any different than the Palestinian kindergarten graduation ceremony that was blogged about.

    Indoctrination of any sort, left or right, is wrong, especially when it is obviously so over the top.

  3. I’m not interested in a feel-good book about gun rights for my child. I’d rather spend the time shooting BB guns in the backyard and going squirrel hunting with grandpa.

  4. Richard Brandshaft says:

    How about a children’s book about how much tax money the was saved be allowing the gulf coast to deteriorate, and not having adequate flood control measures in New Orleans.

    Then there’s the matter of how well the minimal expense theory of government is working in the West-Islam wars.

  5. I’m still wishing I could find a good essay that explains why the right wing looks upon the topic of global warming as leftist propaganda.

    Is it because the solution would require cooperation instead of individualism?

    Is it because solution might restrict American business interests?

    Is it because Al Gore has his name stamped on it?

    It baffles me.

    So, please, if anybody knows a good essay on this topic, please pass along the title.

  6. Some classrooms do have a clear political bias.

    I was at my son’s open house last month and the bias was so blatant that it was amusing.

    I counted five posters of Cesar Chavez, three of Martin Luther King, one of Dolores Huerta and one of Joan Baez.

    That was it. No other heroes or sheroes were on display.

  7. I’m a libertarian, not a “right winger,” but I can easily say why global warming is viewed as leftist propaganda.

    First, it’s been pushed from the beginning by the same leftist crowd which has pushed other scares for years (the Paul Erlich/Lester Brown types). See the “population bomb” propaganda from the ’70s for details.

    Second, the solutions proposed tend to be the same things that the leftists have been pushing for years and years. When you find the same people pushing changes — but changing their alleged reason for their proposals — you have to wonder whether the new reasons are just excuses to promote the same things they’ve been unsuccessful in achieving.

    Third, the very political flavor of the debate (or lack of debate) is very typical of the political Left. With most proponents of the idea of human-caused global warming, the question isn’t open to discussion. You either agree with them or you’re a tool or the oil companies, in their book.

    I’m not here to try to change anyone’s position about global warming. My reading of the facts (on both sides) doesn’t convince me that there’s a danger. Regardless, though, it’s clear to me why many, many people would believe it to be leftist propaganda.

  8. Wayne Martin says:

    If you haven’t had a chance to watch–

    The Great Global Warmng Swindle:
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170

    take 75 minutes and watch it now.

    A goodly percentage of the film deals with the impact of “leftists” on the Global Warming movement. One of the contributors/interviewees is Patrick Moore, who was one of the founders of Green Peace. Moore’s contribution deals primarily with the politics of the Global Warming Movement.

  9. Walter E. Wallis says:

    An independent engineering survey of the New Orleans flood protectioon failures has just been released. No one is saved from criticism, from Corps of Engineering procedural failures to original engineering mistakes to failures of maintenance. About the only ones not subject to criticism are the Bush and Clinton administrations, because all the mistakes were heritage mistakes and even if the problems had been apparent when he took office he would not have had the time to make needed corrections or the apropriations to make the changes.
    Odd that Bush now is being accused of attempting an imperial presidency and yet he is also criticized for having defered to local authority in crisis management.
    Since the left’s arguments seldom advance beyond the elementary, perhaps the response needs to be at that level.
    .

  10. Rory wrote:

    Indoctrination of any sort, left or right, is wrong, especially when it is obviously so over the top.

    Indoctrination is part of the reason for the existence of the public education system. It’s just a matter of who gets to do the indoctrinating not whether indoctrinating is right or wrong.

    Robert Wright wrote:

    Is it because the solution would require cooperation instead of individualism?

    No, it’s because the implementation – not solution – is a vehicle for coercion. Cooperation would require persuasion and referring to people who have reservations as “denialists” isn’t my idea of persuasion. A more honest wording of the question would be: Is it because you effing idiots are too stupid to see the truth that intellectual giants such as myself have no trouble discerning?

    Does that remove some of the mystery?

    Is it because solution might restrict American business interests?

    You mean because it would create an economic contraction by comparison to which the Great Depression would look pretty attractive? That’s why the straw poll in the Senate back in ’95? resulted in 98 against ratification. Or did John Kerry and Ted Kennedy have some other reason for indicating they’d refuse to ratify?

    Is it because Al Gore has his name stamped on it?

    Oh yeah, that’s got to be it.

    What are the chances that people too stupid to form sentences would have any substantive reasons to object? Naw, it’s got to be because we’re nursing an unreasonable hatred of the charismatic Al Gore.

    It baffles me.

    It’s because the state of the science is nowhere near being mature enough to issue credible predictions.

    Even if the global climate weren’t as stupifyingly complex as it so clearly is, even if we had a good deal more breadth and depth of data, even if the climate models predicted something other then the likelihood of scoring another grant, it would still be an awesome responsibility to point to this particular hole in the dike. I don’t see anything remotely approaching the degree of gravity a decision like that deserves among the proponents of anthropogenic global warming.

    What the entire global warming movement comes across as is nothing more then a social class test. You’re a member of the elite if you nod vigorously every time Al Gore’s saliva hits the teleprompter and your a troglodyte if you don’t. It’s probably a character defect but I’ve always found the troglodytes to be better company.

  11. Don’t hold back, Allen. Tell us what you REALLY think. 🙂

  12. SuperSub says:

    Well said Allen

  13. Deirdre Mundy says:

    I’m always a little leary of any “Important Children’s Book” that has to be self-published…..

    I’m conservative, but that doesn’t mean I need to read JUNK to my children…..

    Heck, the National Review even has a really nice series of kids books (old reprints from St. Nicholas Magazine, lots of classic children’s authors…)

    Also, I’m not sure why you need to tell small children NOT to fear global warming… or to fear it either…. at this age shouldn’t you just be helping them to develop good habits, whatever their age?

    They shouldn’t waste electricity/water/gas etc. simply because it’s poor stewardship of what they have…. there’s no need to add the extra threat that if they’re wasteful the world will end!

    (Sorry about the early morning ramblings… The kids decided that since it was light at 5 am that sleeping time was over……)

  14. Allen, spoken like a man who’s spent a day or two debating on line. Where’s your blog?

  15. Bill Leonard says:

    Well said, Allen.

    My own take is, there may or may not be a problem; we simply, as you point out, don’t have the depth and breadth of data. But it’s a situation worth watching.

    However, I would be surprised if any viable answers come from the usual leftist environmental clacque who have solutions looking for problems.

  16. Walter E. Wallis says:

    I look at the parts that encompass my expertise, temperature measurement and computer modeling, and when I see BS, I assume the rest is BS too. Especially when the snake oil is the same stuff the last pitch man through town was also peddling, except for a whole new menu of ills.

  17. I don’t have a science background so what am I to think about global warming?

    I see Gore’s film and I was impressed. Is that because I’m ignorant?

    It seems like a lot of the opposition is shrill.

    I guess I’ll have to track down and view something like Gore’s film that takes a contrary view. So far, everything I’ve seen is purely political.

    But I’ll keep looking.

    It would be nice if a respectable magazine like Harpers or The Atlantic would print two opposing articles side by side. I’m not in the mood to pick up “Focus on the Family” or “The Sword and the Flag.”

    The last time I tracked down a Focus on the Family piece, the lead article was, “Soy Milk Will Make Your Child Gay.”

  18. Reality Czech says:

    allen describes Al Gore as “charismatic”.  Is this the same Al Gore who was described as “wooden” (and even joked about it afterward) during his presidential campaign?

    I would find allen’s fallacious argument from consequences more amusing if it hadn’t taken in some of the smartest people I know.  Because of this, I find it worrisome.

  19. Wayne Martin says:

    > I see Gore’s film and I was impressed. Is that because I’m ignorant?

    Maybe. This is not an easy topic to encapsulate in a 90 minute film.

    > allen describes Al Gore as “charismatic”.

    Perhaps Allen should have added /Sarcasm On/ and /Sarcasm Off/ tags to his comment.

    Remembering Al Gore at his “No Overriding Legal Authority” Press Conference one would hardly chose a term like “charismatic” to describe his performance. But to be fair to Mr. Gore .. he’s quite a performer, and can turn on the charm when he wants to.

  20. SuperSub says:

    Robert – Even if you don’t have a good science background, you can evaluate the film from a logic standpoint.

    How much of the film is spent on emotional pleas or humorful exaggeration instead of actual scientific discussion?

    How many times does Gore make a statement like “this is basic science that everyone understands/accepts so I won’t address it?”

    How often does the film confuse correlation with causation?

  21. How about a children’s book about how much tax money was saved by allowing the gulf coast to deteriorate, and not having adequate flood control measures in New Orleans.

    Since some people still don’t seem to know who’s really to blame for NOLA, a refresher from the LA Times:

    “In the wake of Hurricane Betsy 40 years ago, Congress approved a massive hurricane barrier to protect New Orleans from storm surges that could inundate the city.

    “But the project, signed into law by President Johnson, was derailed in 1977 by an environmental lawsuit. Now the question is: Could that barrier have protected New Orleans from the damage wrought by Hurricane Katrina?

    “‘If we had built the barriers, New Orleans would not be flooded,’ said Joseph Towers, the retired chief counsel for the Army Corps of Engineers New Orleans district.

    “Tower’s view is endorsed by a former key senator, along with academic experts, who say a hurricane barrier is the only way to control the powerful storm surges that enter Lake Pontchartrain and threaten the city.”

    The environmentalist group in question was Save Our Wetlands (SOWL). Visit them at http://www.saveourwetlands.org/.

  22. I’m always a little leary of any “Important Children’s Book” that has to be self-published.

    The reality is large publishing houses seem more likely to print children’s books like Erin Colfer’s “Artemis Fowl.” Should have been a great book, but was essentially an indictment of human environmental impacts. Accordingly, it won literary awards and rave reviews.

  23. Walter E. Wallis says:

    How about a book that teaches kids that 4 out of 5 of them should die to make the earth happy?
    Oops, that isn’t a kid’s book, it is an adult fairy tale.

  24. mike from oregon says:

    > I see Gore’s film and I was impressed. Is that because I’m ignorant?

    No, but maybe you are overly impressed with the data that Gore pushes and with his ‘heart-plucking’ pictures. His film is more emotional than it is scientific.

    > It seems like a lot of the opposition is shrill.

    And THAT is the same way I feel and view the folks that subscribe to Al’s viewpoint.

    > I guess I’ll have to track down and view something like Gore’s film that takes a contrary view. So far, everything I’ve seen is purely political.

    And THAT is EXACTLY the way I view Mr. Gore’s film, as political as it comes. Did you go to the link above for The Great Global Warming Swindle? If you didn’t you should, Gore has no rebuttal for it.

    I look at it this way, the earth has gone through many cycles of warming and cooling long before man showed up on it’s surface. It will continue to go through warming and cooling cycles long after we cease to exist. Everything that Gore and his buddies have proposed, they admit, won’t change the temperature by even 2 degrees within the next 50 to 100 years. Is there warming? I say yes. Is it man-caused, no way, no how. Can we do anything about it? Again, no way, no how. This doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t continue to try to reduce pollution, increase gas mileage and look at alternative energy sources but we need to do it without hurling ourselves back into the 18th century. Look, the cars we have today get better mileage and pollute much, much less than the ones that we were driving in the 60’s and 70’s. The pollution that goes into the air (from industry) and in the water is magnitudes less now than it was from the 60’s and 70’s. However, if you listen to Al and his buddies you would think that nothing has changed since those old days.

    Last item, go to web site for US Committee on Environment and Public Works (http://epw.senate.gov/public) – look for a May 15 article titled
    Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming – Now Skeptics. Read how many prominent scientists who once thought that Gore’s ideas made sense have now, after really looking at the data, concluded that Gore’s ideas are more fiction than fact.

  25. Wayne Martin says:

    Here’s an example of why reasonable people (who know a little something about science and computer simulation) are not prepared to get on Al Gore’s bandwagon:

    —-
    http://www.climatescience.org.nz/assets/200767148340.WelchNiwa70607.pdf

    UN scientist concedes climate models only correct half the time
    New Zealand Climate Science Coalition ^ | June 7, 2007 | By Jack Welch

    The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition Hon Secretary, Terry Dunleavy MBE, 14A Bayview Road, Hauraki, North Shore City, NZ 0622

    Phone (09) 486 3859 – Mobile 0274 836688 – Email – [email protected]
    Media release (immediate)
    7 June 2007

    World climate predictors right only half the time

    “The open admission by a climate scientist of the New Zealand National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), Dr Jim Renwick, that his organisation achieves only 50 per cent accuracy in its climate forecasts, and that this is as good as any other forecaster around the world, should be a wake-up call for world political leaders,” said Rear Admiral Jack Welch, chairman of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.

    Yesterday the coalition published an analysis of seasonal climate predictions by NIWA over the past five years which found that the overall accuracy of the predictions was just 48 per cent. Defending the Niwa record, Dr Renwick said his organisation was doing as well as any other weather forecaster around the world. He was quoted by the country’s leading newspaper, the New Zealand Herald as saying: “Climate prediction is hard, half of the variability in the climate system is not predictable, so we don’t expect to do terrifically well.” Later on New Zealand radio, Dr Renwick said: “The weather is not predictable beyond a week or two.”

    Admiral Welch said that these statements warrant immediate attention by governments around the world. “Dr Renwick is no lightweight. He was a lead author on Working Group I of the IPCC 4th Assessment Report, and serves on the World Meteorological Organisation Commission for Climatology Expert Team on Seasonal Forecasting. He is presumed to be au fait with the abilities of the official governmental climate prediction community round the world.

    (A little bit edited.)

    —-

  26. Walter E. Wallis says:

    If I wrote a process control that was accurate 50% of the time,that chemical plant would soon be scattered over the landscape. You need better than 50-50 before you bet the farm.

  27. Wayne Martin says:

    Here’s another article that suggests that greenhouse gases might not be the only culprit in Arctic warming:


    http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Science/2007/06/06/dirty_snow_may_be_warming_the_arctic/8525/

    Dirty snow may be warming the Arctic
    UPI ^ | 06/06/07

    IRVINE, Calif., June 6 (UPI) — U.S. scientists say dirty snow might be as much to blame as greenhouse gases for a third or more of Arctic warming. U niversity of California-Irvine Associate Professor Charlie Zender said snow becomes dirty as the result of soot from vehicle tailpipes, smoke stacks and forest fires that enters the atmosphere and falls to the ground.

    Soot-infused snow is darker than natural snow and dark surfaces absorb sunlight and cause warming, Zender said. Bright surfaces reflect heat back into space and cause cooling.

    “When we inject dirty particles into the atmosphere and they fall onto snow, the net effect is we warm the polar latitudes,” said Zender. “Dark soot can heat up quickly. It’s like placing tiny toaster ovens into the snow pack.”

    The study appears in the Journal of Geophysical Research.
    ——–

  28. Walter E. Wallis says:

    I understand that the population increase has caused Santa to hire more elves, whose efforts melt more snow.

  29. Robert Wright wrote:

    I don’t have a science background so what am I to think about global warming?

    Ask a question and take a look at the answer you get and the way in which it’s delivered.

    Anthropogenic global warming’s supposed to have gotten started about the time the industrial revolution started hitting its stride, around 1850. So, what happened in 1840? 1740? How about the climatic record for the previous hundred and fifty years? The numbers are important for scientific debate but the way in which the response is delivered is important for making political determinations.

    If you’re a “denialist” then you’re in the same category as a Nazi. On the basis of Godwin’s law alone the credibility of global warming would be undercut since the comparison to genocidal authoritarians closes the door on thoughtful discussion. It’s hardly much of a stretch to conclude that the one doing the door-closing is the one uninterested in thoughtful discussion.

    Another fact, and it is a fact, that Al Gore throws around is that atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased since 1900 from 280 ppm to 387 ppm today.

    “ppm” stands for parts per million.

    That means that global warming is resulting from one constituent of the atmosphere going from .000280% to .000387% of the atmosphere. I don’t know about you but that seems like a pretty narrow razor’s edge to me and I’d want to know exactly how it is that such a microscopically small percentage change has such a dramatic impact.

    As far as I’m concerned that falls under the heading of extraordinary claims which Carl Sagan observed require extraordinary proof.

    Reality Czech

    I’ve heard that Al Gore’s nickname is “the Tennessee two-by-four” and if you’ve ever heard him speak, as in his movie, the reason’s self-evident.

    I would find allen’s fallacious argument from consequences more amusing if it hadn’t taken in some of the smartest people I know.

    I like a good logical fallacy as well as the next guy, as well as you it appears. But smart people get taken in all the time and intelligence is not all that effective a defense against a good con. Conceit and greed can both neutralize the value of intelligence. The appeal of global warming is to conceit.

    Global warming proponents are, one and all, intellects. They’re also deeply concerned with protecting our precious, natural heritage. That makes them distinct from natural-heritage despoiling cretins. And, for so little effort and no sacrifice.

    You just watch “An Inconvenient Truth” (and what a pretentious title that is), shake you head at how anyone could possibly not see the plain truth and there you are, smart and a hero of the environment.

    It’s such a good idea I’ve been trying to figure out how I could cut myself in on the scam but alas, no light bulbs.

  30. Wayne Martin says:

    > It’s such a good idea I’ve been trying to figure
    > out how I could cut myself in on the scam but
    > alas, no light bulbs.

    How about this—why not be a “No Travel Credit Swap Broker”? A lot of people don’t do much traveling, so they will set their “carbon footprint” credits to someone who does a lot of traveling. (In other words the CO2 that I would normally generate from my travel I will forgo and someone else can generate that CO2 in my place. The end result is a CO2-neutral world.)

    So .. Allen .. you would simply put up a WEB-site and match buyers and sellers of “CO2 Credits”. You would make a little money by charging a percentage of each transaction.

  31. Wayne Martin advises:

    If you haven’t had a chance to watch–

    The Great Global Warmng Swindle:

    take 75 minutes and watch it now.

    But only as an exercise in propaganda awareness.

    TGGWS is full of lies, pure and simple.  The climate scientist who “testifies” in support of the producers’ claims in fact did no such thing; his remarks were editted out of context to imply the exact opposite of what he said.

    And now that I’ve done a quick search, I see that this exact subject was covered here before and Wayne’s exact claims were refuted in detail.  In other words, Wayne knows that he’s peddling falsehoods, and doesn’t care.

    Falsehoods in this case mean lives, possibly millions.  You’re a sick, sick person, Wayne.

  32. Robert Wright asks:

    Anthropogenic global warming’s supposed to have gotten started about the time the industrial revolution started hitting its stride, around 1850. So, what happened in 1840? 1740? How about the climatic record for the previous hundred and fifty years?

    The climactic anomalies start more like eight thousand years ago.  It starts with an atypical levelling of CO2 concentrations compared to previous glacial cycles, followed by a rise in methane levels about 5000 years ago.  These events correspond to the start of forest clearance for agriculture and the rise of irrigated rice cultivation (rice paddies are large methane sources).

    This is information which wasn’t available until the Antarctic and Greenland ice cores were taken and analyzed.  The climate scientists of the 70’s were asking “Why aren’t we in a glacial period yet?”, and it took this long to give them an answer.

    Getting back to education, it is grossly irresponsible to teach children that science is bunk, even climate science.  “Intelligent design” creationism, global-warming denialism, and other politically popular anti-science positions have no (or even negative) evidentiary support, and pushing them on children who don’t have the scientific background to analyze the data themselves will cripple their ability to understand the facts later.

  33. And FWIW, Robert, I’ve been concerned about global warming since before Gore became veep.  We can measure what “small” amounts of CO2 can do (and relate it to the effect of large amounts, like the lead-melting surface temperature of Venus), and have been able to since Svante Arrhenius in the nineteenth century.

  34. Wayne Martin says:

    > TGGWS is full of lies, pure and simple.

    Please be so kind to enumerate the lies.

    Note .. one error has been admitted in the statement of C02 released by Volcanoes.

    > refuted in detail.

    No it has not.

    > Wayne knows that he’s peddling falsehoods, and doesn’t care.

    Spoken with the passion of someone who is religiously motivated.

    > The climactic anomalies start more like eight thousand years ago.

    Ice core data goes back at least 750,000 years. No anomalies before 8,000 year?

    > Getting back to education, it is grossly irresponsible
    > to teach children that science is bunk, even climate science.

    No one here has said that. You should take the time to read what is written. There has been some critique of climate science–in particular the lack of accuracy of climate models. It would be irresponsible to state that anyone here is anti-scientific.

    > Falsehoods in this case mean lives, possibly millions.

    Really? How many people do you think died during the last Ice Age?

    > You’re a sick, sick person, Wayne.

    “And for my last trick—a personal attack!”

  35. Since the rest of your claims fall if the factual basis of TGGWS is shown to be falsified, I’m only going to tackle this:

    > TGGWS is full of lies, pure and simple.

    Please be so kind to enumerate the lies.

    Note .. one error has been admitted in the statement of C02 released by Volcanoes.

    > refuted in detail.

    No it has not.

    The lies include:
    1.  The aforementioned falsehood about volcanoes.
    2.  The claim (created by editting the statements of Carl Wunsch) that the oceans are major sources of CO2.
    3.  The claim that there’s no explanation for temperature drops.  Sulfate aerosols explain this quite well.

    There’s much more here.  In it, Wunsch is quoted:

    The film’s other scientific claims can be similarly dismissed. Carl Wunsch – who, as discussed, appeared in the film – comments:

    “What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which there is not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why many of the extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely accepted by the scientific community. There are so many examples, it’s hard to know where to begin, so I will cite only one: a speaker asserts, as is true, that carbon dioxide is only a small fraction of the atmospheric mass. The viewer is left to infer that means it couldn’t really matter. But even a beginning meteorology student could tell you that the relative masses of gases are irrelevant to their effects on radiative balance. A director not intending to produce pure propaganda would have tried to eliminate that piece of disinformation.”

    (http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/ papersonline/channel4response)

  36. Wayne Martin says:

    >full of lies ..

    Let’s start with examining your claim that the GGWS is “lies”.

    A standard dictionary definition of “lie” is:

    “a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.”

    So .. what proof do you, or Wunsch, provide to demonstrate that every statement in the GGWS Video is false, and that all of the contributors of this video knew that these statements were false and intentionally made the video in order to deceive?

    From Wunsch:

    “What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece”

    “There are so many examples, it’s hard to know where to begin, so I will cite only one: a speaker asserts, as is true, that carbon dioxide is only a small fraction of the atmospheric mass. The viewer is left to infer that means it couldn’t really matter. But even a beginning meteorology student could tell you that the relative masses of gases are irrelevant to their effects on radiative balance.”

    Propaganda usually benefits some party or another. For instance, AlBore is making a lot of money on his film, and also selling Carbon Credits. Who are the parties that benefit from the GGWS? Propaganda is also a word that connotes misinformation from a government source (or sometimes a political source). With the exception of Patrick Moore (who was one of the co-founders of Greenpeace), all of the contributors were degreed scientists who did not seem to espouse any political agenda. The use of the word “propaganda” here should be seen as some sort of red flag.

    This paragraph about “The viewer is left ..” is important It would appear that Wunsch believes that people who don’t know much about Climate Science are going to believe something that Wunsch, who is an expert, believes. The term “radiative balance” jumps out of his comments. I’ll bet that not even one person in 10,000 knows what this term means. Wunsch is naïve if he believes people were misled from this statement alone.

    Wunsch was interviewed on a Canadian Talk show just before the GGWS was first aired-
    Charles Addler/Carl Wunsch on Climate Change:
    http://www.cjob.com/shows/adler.aspx?mc=62757

    While Wunsch doesn’t indicate that he had participated in the video during this radio interview, his views about Global Warming expressed during the interview are not significantly different than those he expressed during his segment of the video.

    It’s difficult to believe Wunsch didn’t have “any idea” that he was participating in a “propaganda” piece. To the best of my knowledge, Wunsch has not sued to have his portion of the video deleted before the DVD is released. Wunsch has also never stated that he would not benefit (directly or indirectly) from participating in the video.

  37. Wayne Martin says:

    One of the participants of the GGWS video is Roy Spencer, a climate scientist who is fully credentialed to be considered a “competent” contributor in this discussion.

    Roy W Spencer:

    Roy W. Spencer received his PhD in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. He has been a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville since 2001, before which we was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center where he received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal. Dr. Spencer is the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. His research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE.

    The following paper provides an overview of Roy Spenser’s take on Global Warming, with his critique of the current science:

    http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm

    Anyone who believes that Spencer is “lying”, and/or spewing “propaganda” should take this opportunity to read this short paper (which follows closely the format of the information delivered in the GGWS) and identify the “lies”.

    This Paper Spencer delivered to Congress is probably better aimed at a group like this:
    http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20070320152338-19776.pdf

  38. Man, talk about moving goalposts.

    what proof do you… provide to demonstrate that every statement in the GGWS Video is false

    Show me where I said “every statement” in TGGWS is a lie.  Claiming I did is… a lie.  “Full of lies” isn’t the same claim, and effective lying uses the truth except where necessary to mislead.

    If you even have to lie about what people said just hours before, where it’s easily checked, you have zero moral integrity.

    AlBore is making a lot of money on his film

    Is that so?  Per the news, 100% of the profits are going to education on the issue.

    Who are the parties that benefit from the GGWS?

    Exxon-Mobil, Peabody Energy (formerly Peabody Coal), and the other interests which have been financing the denialism industry for years.  The sites financed include Tech Central Station and junkscience.com, FWIW.

    To the best of my knowledge, Wunsch has not sued to have his portion of the video deleted before the DVD is released.

    What knowledge do you have about the release Wunsch signed, and his prospects for even getting an injunction against release of the DVD with his appearance included?

    Wunsch has also never stated that he would not benefit (directly or indirectly) from participating in the video.

    Wunsch has stated that the film should not be shown again with his footage included.  What conclusion do you draw from that?

    And with regard to Roy Spencer, his impression of no temperature trend turns out to have been the product of arithmetic errors.  From the link therein:

    the original UAH 2LT data show very anomalous behaviour, while the new RSS 2LT product (including the latest correction) fits neatly within the range of model results, indicating that this is probably physically more consistent than the original UAH data.

    Spencer’s erroneous claims to Congress start on page 4 (section 3).

    And speaking of belief, you’re acting like somebody blasphemed your favorite prophet.

  39. SuperSub says:

    All I can say is that if there is Global Warming, I welcome it. Increased food production worldwide seems to be a nice benefit…

  40. Grain production will fall about 10% for every 1°C increase in temperatures.

    Even China is worried.

  41. Engineer-poet provides a good example of the political content of the global warming debate. For instance:

    I (not Robert Wright) wrote:

    Anthropogenic global warming’s supposed to have gotten started about the time the industrial revolution started hitting its stride, around 1850. So, what happened in 1840? 1740? How about the climatic record for the previous hundred and fifty years?

    To which the response was:

    The climactic anomalies start more like eight thousand years ago. It starts with an atypical leveling of CO2 concentrations compared to previous glacial cycles, followed by a rise in methane levels about 5000 years ago.

    The response completely ignores the original question substituting a different time frame as if that obviates the need to examine the overheated rhetoric about the Industrial Revolution. It doesn’t, of course.

    Al Gore and lots of other global warming proponents want to use the Industrial Revolution as the starting point for anthropogenic global warming that’s fine with me. Let’s just look at the evidence that contention depends upon and a good start toward doing that would be to ask what went on before the chart begins.

    Another example of a variation of Godwin’s Law is this:

    Getting back to education, it is grossly irresponsible to teach children that science is bunk, even climate science. “Intelligent design” creationism, global-warming denialism, and other politically popular anti-science positions…

    Putting legitimate scientific debate in the same category as religious doctrine is a rhetorical tactic. There’s no need to respond to critics because they’re beneath contempt. If you’ve got the answers, why stoop to rhetorical tricks?

    (I hope the stupid “quote” tags come out right. Since there’s no preview feature I don’t get to see what the site does to my posts until they’re irretrievable.)

  42. sigh

  43. The response completely ignores the original question substituting a different time frame as if that obviates the need to examine the overheated rhetoric about the Industrial Revolution.

    Where is this “overheated rhetoric”?  If it’s in a popular treatment (including “Inconvenient Truth”) and not drawn from a scientific paper, I’d like to know how it’s relevant to the science of the issue.  You know, what ought to be taught in school?

    If you want to bring in the politics, then it might be relevant for a unit in civics class.

    Al Gore and lots of other global warming proponents want to use the Industrial Revolution as the starting point for anthropogenic global warming that’s fine with me. Let’s just look at the evidence that contention depends upon and a good start toward doing that would be to ask what went on before the chart begins.

    A lot of that is answered by the data from the ice cores.  For instance, human activity appears to have first arrested the decline in carbon dioxide (by returning carbon from forests to the atmosphere), and then slightly increased warming by helping to produce methane.  However, it wasn’t until the Industrial Revolution started the massive conversion of carbon from fossil deposits to atmospheric CO2 that things started moving at all quickly.

    This is not difficult or controversial.  The ancient evidence from the ice cores and the recent evidence from spot measurements and the Keeling curve is crystal-clear.  What’s going on now is unprecedented in the last million years, and it has our fingerprints (C-12/C-13 ratios, among other things) all over it.

    Putting legitimate scientific debate in the same category as religious doctrine is a rhetorical tactic.

    The legitimate scientific debate is happening in the journals and the IPCC panel.  The public debate on GW is characterized by the same attempts to claim scientific backing for handwaving and dogmatic denials as the “scientific” creationists.  There is the same denial of iron-clad evidence and the same refusal to stipulate to facts and adhere to scientific process.  Just because the denial isn’t overtly religious does not make it scientific, any more than alien abduction is scientific.

    There’s no need to respond to critics because they’re beneath contempt.

    What’s contemptible is the refusal to discuss facts, instead citing propaganda efforts like “The Great Global Warming Swindle” (especially after specific claims therein have been shown to be falsified).  Liars have already violated the bounds of acceptable conduct and deserve no respect until they make the effort to put themselves back inside, with appropriate retractions and apologies.