The American Spectator

Appleby| 9.8.09 @ 6:58AM

Wait until these little farts start explaining to The Kids how big a carbon footprint is caused by their Binkies -- and why they need to give them up ...

Melvin| 9.8.09 @ 7:10AM

!Oh my God! All those times I asked my parents and relatives to pull my finger when I was younger. I'mmmmm sorry I had no idea that I was contributing to Global Warming.
It was many years ago, we had no idea, that an innocent prank was destroying the earth. We just... didn't know. Van should have warned us.

S.L. Toddard| 9.8.09 @ 7:28AM

If George W. Bush had proposed a back-to-school speech, do you suppose anyone at AmSpec would object? Or do you think they would cheer the idea, and condemn anyone who opposed it as far-left, shrill, paranoid "Bush haters"?

Don L| 9.8.09 @ 9:12AM

I thought the culprit was CO2 not methane?
Those cows going Mooo are killing us quicker that the ones farting...hmmmm?

Marc Jeric| 9.8.09 @ 9:41AM

1) There was first in the 1970's the global cooling scam (see e.g. Newsweek April 28 1975 on the Internet); the government-paid scientists (90% of them are rejects of private enterprise) recommended to fight the new ice age by sending our war planes to cover the polar ice with soot in order to increase solar heat and so prevent crushing of New York skyscrapers by the new glaciers;
2) When that did not work we had the global warming hoax in the 1990's, proclaimed by mainly the same government-paid scientists (Dr. Hansen of the NOAA, for example); to prevent the massive heating, fires, flooding of coastal cities, disappearance of Florida, California, and Caribbean islands, massive hurricanes, global famine, and other catastrophic events we should nationalize oil and gas and coal and electricity companies;
3) after 11 years of considerable cooling we are now faced with the climate change flimflam where whatever happens with our climate we should nationalize oil and gas and coal and electricity companies; and why not our banks, car and insurance companies while we are at it. To prevent this catastrophe the best vehicle presumably is international agreements enforced by the United Nations world government.
As for the influence of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas: on a normal day the atmosphere contains 10,000 ppm (parts per million) of water vapor and about 300 ppm of carbon dioxide. The government-paid scientists say that an increase of 100 ppm of CO2 over the next 50 years will result in a catastrophic warming. The thermal absorptivity of water vapor is 4 times larger than that of carbon dioxide; it follows that the CO2 increase will increase the overall thermal absorptivity of the mixture by about 1/4 of one percent. The production of methane from livestock flatulence and the rotting swamps (called "wetlands" by the environmentalists) vastly surpasses the influence of human-produced CO2.
There is the Global Warming Petition Project (see Internet) where 31,478 US independent scientists declared that there is no anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming; of these 9,029 are scientists with PhD degrees. Our environmentalists tried to sabotage this effort by submiiting phony names with phoney degrees - and then claimed the whole effort by the Petition scientists was a fraud. It took us 3 years and a lot of private money to verify the credentials of all the signatories and clean up the Petition of those saboteurs. See also Manhattan Declaration with more such signatories, plus a large number of scientific groups from other countries who state the same.
I am one of these signatories, MS and PhD degrees from UCLA, with majors in thermodynamics and heat & mass transfer.
I think to fight this communist attempt to secure a permanent hold on power should not be fought on the narrow grounds of more taxes - that is the losing proposition; where about 50% of the population is on some kind of welfare we will always be outvoted. The battle should be fought and won on the firm scientific basis.
4) And now we have "cap™" power grab.
SCAM - HOAX - FLIMFLAM - POWER GRAB!!!

Gerald Dudley Ph D| 9.8.09 @ 10:03AM

Note: This article provides arguments against the notion that CO2 in our atmosphere MUST be controlled. Writer: Gerald Dudley Ph D, sellernow1@cox.net

Politicians Exhale and the Planet Heats Up

By: Gerald Dudley Ph D

In all of the years of scientific discovery, we have not been able to detect any other planet in the universe with our unique chemical makeup, which sustains all forms of animal and plant life. Today, we are said to be on the verge of ruining that life opportunity by our careless overproduction of one of those natural chemical substances, now labeled a pollutant.

Like many who read this, I had education classes in high school and college that give me the background to examine this dilemma in a simple and practical manner. In my time, scientists had identified all 92 elements within our planet. Since then, that detected number has grown to slightly over 100, using the scientific advancement of microscopic power. These elements are called atoms and have been given names and symbols. They exist all around us as unique chemicals and are sometimes naturally combined together and called molecules.

These atoms and molecules exist in three different forms within this climate bubble where we all live together. One form is a solid and can be easily seen—like dirt. Another is a fluid form that is also visible—like water. The third form is gaseous and is normally not readily visible. Some of these molecules can even change from one form to another. An example is the one that is currently causing concern. Carbon and oxygen atoms naturally exist in a molecule known as carbon dioxide that is popularly symbolized as CO2. The solid form of CO2 is commonly called “dry ice”. Extreme changes in the temperature levels actually convert it from gas to solid, and back.

This gas is the non-visible element that humans and other vertebrates produce each time they exhale. It is also a very important gas that is necessary for the growth and health of all plants in our universe. We breathe CO2 out and plants absorb it from that atmosphere. In turn, the plants exude oxygen (O2) into that same climate and we beneficially breathe it into our lungs. Shortages, not overages, of each chemical would cause human and plant death. This is the wonderful, natural sharing of gases that makes this planet unique in the universe.

Some plants have grown naturally since the beginning of time. Others have been cultivated as a means to produce food. Those that are grown outdoors are subject to the changes occurring naturally in our weather. Control of plant growth in an enclosed atmosphere is possible and reduces those damaging weather effects. Those enclosed facilities have an atmosphere that can be manipulated to effect plant growth artificially. Most of these enclosures are called greenhouses and the atmosphere is greenhouse gas.

By manipulating the ratio of just these two gaseous chemicals it is possible to produce positive benefits for mankind. By increasing controlled levels of carbon dioxide in a greenhouse, flowering plants produce much better blooms; more quickly and uniformly. Persons with limited lung capacity are aided in their breathing through the artificially increased ratio of oxygen that they inhale. Outside of a greenhouse it is much more difficult to change the ratios of these chemicals in the earth’s atmosphere. This, however, seems to be the argument that is being given by elected politicians to convince the rest of us that ratios are changing and that we are the cause of this recklessness.

For as long as measurements have been sampled, our ground level outdoor atmosphere has contained about 1 portion of CO2 and 3332 portions of other gases. Those other gases, which we aren’t able to see, are: nitrogen (2600 portions), oxygen (666 portions) and argon (31 portions). The remaining 35 portions of atmospheric gases are too numerous to name and each exists in very insignificant portions. The concern among government policymakers is that increasing this ratio beyond 1 portion of CO2 would be unhealthy to humans and would increase the planet’s temperature.

Both of those concerns have been shown to be scientifically inaccurate. Valid studies have shown that humans in confined enclosures can tolerate CO2 levels of 50 portions or more in their atmosphere without health dangers. These studies were conducted with humans breathing normally in submerged submarines, in space capsules and in the Arizona Biosphere. It seems unnecessary to spend taxpayer money on methods that have the intent of reducing manmade levels of carbon dioxide, based on this practical, researched knowledge.

The political intent is to place a price on the excess CO2 that is created and market it to those who don’t go over their agreed limit. This measurement has been named “the carbon footprint” so a tax can be levied, payable to the government. I wonder how a college will pay the taxes for the CO2 produced by screaming, cheering basketball fans in their enclosed arena during a winning season? The results in a packed arena with a double overtime game would easily create 10 portions of this “polluting” gas in the enclosure during the event. The college could go broke.

While many persons claim the earth is warming, it has actually been cooling for the last decade. There seems to be only one strong indicator related to this warming and cooling phenomenon. That causal element is the sun. Can you believe that? The sun rises and earth’s temperature rises. The sun sets and we cool. Unusual daytime warming occurs when that sun is actively tossing solar flares toward our earth. About every eleven years this solar activity slows down or ceases. That is the time the earth cools. It is a natural cycle, not human created. No other warming causes have been scientifically identified.

Some have explained this warming to be the result of carbon dioxide trapping heat that warms the earth. Others include water vapor as a greenhouse gas, which is really the sauna factor of heat trapping, but water vapor doesn’t appear uniformly throughout the planet, so most people don’t consider it a real greenhouse gas. If convinced that it is a greenhouse gas, politicians might try to tax water also.

One reason why some decades-long studies may trend toward detecting earth warming is the placement of the measuring thermometers. Throughout the United States there are over twelve hundred weather stations that have continually recorded their closely surrounding temperature for decades. Over 90% of these sites are not in “open country” where they were first located. The urbanization factor in our nation has placed asphalt parking lots and other heat-trapping structures close enough to these stations to artificially elevate their recorded temperatures. Relocating them to sites away from “heat traps” would surely provide more reliable information. Could this be a better and less-costly political choice?

It would be my desire that every elected official use this common understanding of the way our wonderfully created planet has functioned from the beginning of time. We all inhale oxygen (a greenhouse gas) and exhale carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas). Plants reverse this process and we benefit from it. It seems important that our elected officials attention should be focused more on growing grass than on politically passing gas.

Gerald Dudley Ph D, sellernow1@cox.net.

The author is a researcher whose work can be viewed at: www.careerfit-test.com.

Tinnai01| 9.8.09 @ 10:24AM

Global Warming Propaganda in school will useful to broaden the horizon of students.If you want to buy Nike dunks sb shoes,you can clik site below:
http://www.dunksbonline.com/wo.....c-306.html

Dai Alanye| 9.8.09 @ 11:28AM

I think SL Libtard will enthuse over my solution to global warmenization, a crisis that must be solved, and solved NOW!

1. Eradicate all herbivores, and 2. cover large areas of the oceans with Saran Wrap. Not a cheap or easy solution, merely a necessary one.

P. S.: George W Bush had no part in developing this solution.

Egoriy| 9.8.09 @ 11:42AM

One reason why some decades-long studies may trend toward detecting earth warming is the placement of the measuring thermometers.

Big J| 9.8.09 @ 11:55AM

It's somewhat comical to see that Toddard has so much to say on everything today, with the exception of the Van Jones controversy. What's up with that, S.L.?

As for your "What if Booooooosh did it?" question, I will direct your limited and convenient memory to the cries from the left on September 11th, 2001: "What was he doing reading to the children when our nation was in a crisis and needed leadership?" Remember that, Toddard?

How about when Booooooosh 41 gave his speech to the chilluns? There were investigations and hearings ad nauseum, mostly focused on the cost of the speech. Remember that, Toddard?

How about when Reagan did it? Same story.

So please spare us your partisan, goose and gander theories that are based solely on your disdain for all things Republican. Puh-leeze!

This much is clear to anyone of sound mind and cogent thinking: the radical leftist environmental wackos are doing everything in their power to indoctrinate our youth into falling for the global warming hoax.

Obama really could have avoided all of this by releasing a transcript of the speech when he made the announcement. The retraction of the accompanying "curriculum" asking students how they could help the president didn't help one bit.

The whole thing stinks. Ergo, vis a vis, your comment is invalid.

IllinoisRez| 9.8.09 @ 12:14PM

Is anyone surprised that Michael Haas the AEC President of the Board for donated thousands of dollars to Barack Obama?
http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/by.....st=Michael
Jim Eisen, the Board of Directors also gave thousands to Obama;
http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/by.....;first=Jim

These presentations are FREE to schools, who is funding them? They claim to have a 2M budget.

S.L. Toddard| 9.8.09 @ 12:32PM

“It's somewhat comical to see that Toddard has so much to say on everything today, with the exception of the Van Jones controversy. What's up with that, S.L.?”

I don’t usually comment on vapid, insignificant, personality-based “controversies”. They didn’t vet the guy sufficiently, got caught with their pants down etc. Unlike John McCain once it was revealed that Sarah Palin couldn’t think critically, speak coherently, name even one newspaper etc, and that she went to a witch doctor to drive away evil spirits and all of that – Obama had the good sense to give the guy the boot.

“I will direct your limited and convenient memory to the cries from the left on September 11th, 2001: "What was he doing reading to the children when our nation was in a crisis and needed leadership?" Remember that, Toddard?”

Indeed – he had just been alerted that our nation was under attack and, stunned and incompetent as he was, he did not react as a President should and immediately go into action but instead continued to puzzle his way doggedly through a children’s book. I’m not sure why you’re asking the question though – nothing similar has happened here.

“How about when Booooooosh 41 gave his speech to the chilluns? There were investigations and hearings ad nauseum, mostly focused on the cost of the speech. Remember that, Toddard?”

And you were vehemently against Bush 41 addressing schoolchildren?

“How about when Reagan did it? Same story.”

And you were vehemently against Reagan addressing schoolchildren?

Also (man it’s not easy to get a question answered around here!) if George W. Bush had proposed a back-to-school speech, do you suppose anyone at AmSpec would object? Or do you think they would cheer the idea, and condemn anyone who opposed it as far-left, shrill, paranoid "Bush haters"?

Pete| 9.8.09 @ 3:51PM

I would have objected if the message being delivered had anything to do with the children "serving" him, yes. Most people here would too, since we believe that those in our government are our REPRESENTATIVES (in other words, they represent us) not our rulers (as the current administration clearly believes is their charter). That's not hard to understand, now is it? I suspect the reason you haven't seen this in a response yet is that it is so F*****G obvious.

Goyims have no brains| 9.8.09 @ 7:31PM

Vast majority of Americans are Goyims and lack the ability to think, and lack the ability to know their country is under dictatorship.

Their troops is fighting in the Middle East and the fight is at home, in the wrong place, Arieal Sharon said Israel control America, and America anyone who knows that is Anti-Semetic.

The power of mind control is fantastic, promoted by the Germans paid for by the Israelis, complement of the stupid GOYIMS, with their own money. Their troops die in the desert by our comand. There is Israeli troops in Iraq blowing up Americans and the Government can't even tell their own people they are our slave we decide what happens in America.

Obama can't stop us, expanding in the west Bank or Gaza eventually take over the whole place and we will use Americans as cannon fodder to die for our benefit. Stupid GOYIMS.

jd| 9.8.09 @ 9:01PM

Hey Retard,

If Bush had given a back to school speech, I guarantee he would not ask the kids to write letters supporting his leftist agenda. The man plays by the old liberal playbook -- indoctrinate the young via the state sponsored schools.

Your posts are so ridiculous. I've just read my last one because from now on I'm hitting the scroll down bar whenever I see your retarded name. Loser.

jordan 6 rings| 9.8.09 @ 9:25PM

You’re website has very good infos. I learned very a lot from reading these.

Sheryl Reidy| 9.9.09 @ 3:21AM

Seems we can't do anything about it.This article provides arguments against the notion that CO2 in our atmosphere MUST be controlled. Writer: Gerald Dudley Ph D.
ugg boots uk
cheap ugg boots

sdf| 5.10.10 @ 5:36AM

M2TS Converter,
M2TS to DVD Converter

anthony ranieri iii| 9.9.09 @ 3:22AM

When that did not work we had the global warming hoax in the 1990's, proclaimed by mainly the same government-paid scientists (Dr. Hansen of the NOAA, for example); to prevent the massive heating, fires, flooding of coastal cities, disappearance of Florida, California, and Caribbean islands, massive hurricanes, global famine, and other catastrophic events we should nationalize oil and gas and coal and electricity companies.
Bailey Button Ugg Boots
cheap ugg boots

Nicholas Wind| 9.9.09 @ 9:35AM

I want to thank Gerald Dudley Ph D above for the facts but we all know that does not matter to our idiot politicians.

Russell Seitz| 9.9.09 @ 4:18PM

Mrk jeric reminds us that
"There is the Global Warming Petition Project (see Internet) where 31,478 US independent scientists declared that there is no anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming; of these 9,029 are scientists with PhD degrees. Our environmentalists tried to sabotage this effort by submiiting phony names with phoney degrees - and then claimed the whole effort by the Petition scientists was a fraud. It took us 3 years and a lot of private money to verify the credentials of all the signatories ...I am one of these signatories, "

At long last the famous list has been run through a comprehensive search engine to see how many of the umpteen thousand signatories have actually demonstrated their climate science expertise by publishing a paper of any sort in any one of the several hundred peer reviewed journals that can be charitably construed as having anything to do with climate science.

The grand total is 31 out of over 30 thousand.
For all the sound and fury, Marc Jeric is not among them. Neither is Paul Chesser, leaving poor TAS with a three order of magnitude scientific street cred shortfall.

John Michael | 9.12.09 @ 8:16AM

This is my first time reading the Spectator and I'm very interested in the perspectives represented here. I often hear a lot of resistance when people suggest that any big changes be made to our current system of government and economy. I have also observed that our industrial economy consumes resources like--fresh water, trees, fish, top soil--faster than the earth's ecosystems can replace them. If current trends continue it will inevitably lead to scarcity. I am interested ideas of how we can sustain a safe comfortable standard of living into the future. Thoughts?

Rubicon| 9.12.09 @ 4:44PM

The same folks pushing Global Warming are also pushing for New Orleans to be rebuilt. These folks buy into Al Gore's alarmist prognostications of gloom & doom, such as the sea level rising by twenty feet.
Now, since New Orleans is already below sea level & the new levees will only deal w/a Cat. 3 hurricane, & not the twenty foot surge that will accompany it, how is it we will spend billions to save a city that even Al has told us will be about twenty five feet below sea level & easily 15 feet below the highest levee?
All we do in New Orleans today could be done in Baton Rouge, so why not move all but the entertainment/historical districts out of what Al Gore has told us will be harm's way. That way all we lose is that minor section of the city originally founded by the French & the really important stuff will be saved?
Or is it that Al may have been exaggerating by about twenty feet, plus a slew of other distortions?

Rubicon| 9.12.09 @ 4:52PM

On the credibility of the scientists petition.... has anyone else asked to see Al Gore's scientific credentials? If Cap & Trade was designed by Al Gore buddies, why are we to challenge scientists on the issue of challenging Al Gore's hysteria?
Even the man who founded the Weather Channel has stood up calling Al & his hysteria bunk. Al will not debate the man, using 'consensus' as his excuse.
Its an easy thing to hide behind isn't it?
CO2 is not a pollutant, it is what makes this planet green. CO2 is only a tiny fractional part of our environment & simply could not be the cause they say it is. The earth was warmer during medieval times when carbon levels were higher. No cars & trucks then by the way. And to top it off, the planet experienced that small event changing phenomena known historically as, the Renaissance. Gosh, how could the planet survive all that CO2, have no cars, and experience what can easily be described as one of the greatest life sustaining events in the history of the planet?

bape-caps| 10.22.10 @ 4:07AM

Thanks for shairng this experience

Julie| 11.4.10 @ 10:17PM

The www.acespace.org/ site is sad.
My daughter saw this at age 14 in HS last year.
The funder/founder is M Haas-BP Alt energy exec for Orion (wind turbines). When you go to blogs section- then " Consequence 09" link-kids can email their legislators to beg for green jobs-energy (with suggestion letter there!).
What benefit is this to acespace/Orion/BP/Haas
founder/original funder? Gvt $ for alt energy.
I was so mad I called them, everyone but Mr.Haas called me. Public schools should not show this and they don't know the website has links (and many to pro BO stuff). Ugh. Parents- tell your kids and prewarn them. The young teachers are all gung ho and can't believe there is a side of people who question it.