Global warming indoctrination

Parents, take note: Attacks on liberty in our schools - common Core and other global initiatives put a worm into this apple, producing students who do not think. Here's another worm: when teachers take a prey from among their own students. Not to mention a teacher who prostitutes herself to a corrupt seller of offices. Or an anti-bullying campaign that pulls a cruel humanitarian hoax by replacing one kind of bullying with another.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The US Department of Education used taxpayer funds to indoctrinate children to believe the dubious global warming theory.

Details of the global warming event

On July 20, 2011, the Education Department held a children’s reading event in Washington, DC. The event organizers handed out free books. Two of them came from the Nickelodeon network’s “Big Green Help” series. (Penny Starr at CNS News has the most detailed report on the event.) The books each featured a licensed Nickelodeon character: “Spongebob Squarepants” and “Dora the Explorer.” Each book told a fanciful story on this theme:

  1. Global warming is occurring.
  2. Man, through his “unnatural” activities, is responsible for it.
  3. Man can stop it by giving things up.

The teaching text is very facile. One might expect that in a children’s book. But “facile” here means more than “written for a three-year-old.” It’s way too simple, and says many things that simply do not follow.

What’s wrong with the logic?

Penny Starr’s piece quotes the Spongebob book:

Earth has these gases called greenhouse gases…They’re in the atmosphere to keep the temperature of the planet just right. Carbon Dioxide is one of those gases. But when we make more greenhouse gases than the planet needs naturally, like you’ve been burnin’ tires and fuel, it locks the heat in the atmosphere. That makes the planet hotter than it should be. That’s global warming. And that’s not good.

That argument assumes at least three things:

  1. That the sun shines at the same exact brightness, year after year, decade after decade, century after century.
  2. That every other “greenhouse gas” stays at the same level everywhere.
  3. That if carbon dioxide rises, nothing will take it away just as fast.

How Ronald Reagan would address the global warming hoax, if he were alive. Photo: Gene Tew, CC BY 2.0

How would Ronald Reagan address Mr. Obama, if he were alive today? Photo:

None of these assumptions is safe. The sun shines in cycles. Sometimes it shines hotter, sometimes colder. In the Middle Ages, the son shone bright enough for Greenland to be truly green. (Eric the Red was not the shady real-estate salesman that global warming alarmists make him out to be.) Then at about the time of the first English settlements of North America, the Little Ice Age set in.

Carbon dioxide is not the only “greenhouse gas.” Water is another. When clouds roll in, they moderate the temperatures during day and night. Any warming of the ocean would produce more clouds that would provide shade. Any engineer knows what to call this: negative feedback. When something makes the globe hotter, something else will act to cool it down. No problem.

Besides the clouds, any global warming that does occur will make plants grow. When plants grow, they take in carbon dioxide. That is how they grow.

But that’s too much for a thirty-second sound bite in a children’s cartoon. It’s also inconvenient for a government that wants to control how we think and act, in the smallest detail.

More inconvenient facts

Those aren’t the only facts that give the lie to the global warming narrative. A few more:

The government suspended Charles Monnett, the scientist who first said that polar bears were drowning. Questions had come up over how he ran his projects.

New evidence, from satellites, shows that when the earth gets warmer, it dumps the excess heat into space. Heat moves in three ways:

  1. Conduction. Touch a hot stove and you’ll see—or feel—what that means.
  2. Convection. When air gets hot, it rises, and cold air moves down to replace it. This is how sea and land breezes work. (Baseboard heaters work the same way, by setting up convection currents in room air.)
  3. Radiation. Anything that gets hot, will give off radiation. That works for a whole planet as well as one small object on it.

Whoever built the climate models that the United Nations relies on, forgot to account for radiation. We now know that radiation disposes of far more heat than anyone realized.

The real issue

Why is the government spending money that it doesn’t have, doing something that only local school boards should worry about? More than that: why is the government giving a science lecture full of rookie mistakes?

Could this have anything to do, perhaps, with UN Agenda 21? Why else try to convince children that global warming is real?

Environmentalism is always about control. To get the kind of control they want, they must persuade people to hand it over to them. Children are far easier to persuade than are adults—and global warming is only one of many lies that environmentalists tell.

This is one government contract that Nickelodeon, if they really cared about their (adult) customers, should never have taken.

Featured image: a stack of schoolbooks with an apple on top

Editor-in-chief at | + posts

Terry A. Hurlbut has been a student of politics, philosophy, and science for more than 35 years. He is a graduate of Yale College and has served as a physician-level laboratory administrator in a 250-bed community hospital. He also is a serious student of the Bible, is conversant in its two primary original languages, and has followed the creation-science movement closely since 1993.

12 Responses to Global warming indoctrination

  1. Terry A. Hurlbut says:

    You can spout that lie all you want, Paul Durrant. That does not change the story that I myself first broke in November of 2009. Namely, that the top scientist in the world on the subject of “climate change” had been orchestrating the wholesale fudging of data. “Hide the decline!” he ordered. It was done. And then he got caught.

  2. Tracy says:

    We are too small on this earth to change the climate and some of the above organizations are noted for their hard core swing to the left. Global warming science is not science because it is divided along political lines and something that is science has no political bent. An example is bacterial infections are usually healed with pennicillan. Both left and right agree with that statement and medical science proves it. All the cars in the world could fit in the state of Delaware which is 1/79000th of the earth’s surface which is very, very small.

  3. Clem says:

    Hi Terry.
    I’m not from America, and I was brought up believing in evolutionism and in global warming. However, I’ve been following american politics for a few monthes now, and I’ve been trying to understand the point of views of Republicans and especially Tea Partiers on science and social debates.
    I’ve then stumbled upon this website (along with Conservapedia) and read interesting things, very different from what I was taught in school. To give you an example, creationism is considered as scientific as the existence of Santa or unicorns where I live.
    Reading articles and theories on this website sure has opened new grounds for my opinions, sometimes really surprising to me : dinausors live among us, comets and water on Mars came from the Earth…
    I have a few questions about this article above :
    _How can you say this : “That argument assumes at least three things[…]”. Major global warming theories take the 3 points you mention there after into consideration.
    _Do you have figures for your “water cools it down” and “conduction” arguments ?
    _Do you seriously believe that negative feedback occurs in every system, and maintain it balanced whatever may happen ? (I studied physics and biology for quite some years). One of the main points of global warming theories is that human-based greenhouse effect actually is an offsetting factor in what would stay a balanced system without it.

    I have many other questions, but I hope you are willing to answer those few. I’m wanting to debate politely and respectfully with someone who doesn’t share the same beliefs. I’ll add that I was also brought up in a religious environment and read the Bible. However, I hope (and I don’t think you will, having read some of your articles and comments) that you won’t base your answers on faith and interpretaion of sacred texts, since I want to discuss about science.

    Oh and also, @Tracy : All the nuclear weapons in the world could fit in the little town of Fukushima, which is very, very small.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      Any time I seek to weaken an argument, I challenge its underlying assumptions. And here is your challenge: are you willing to defend those underlying assumptions? For I have not seen one single showing to establish them on the level of the sum of two plus two.

      I am the man, furthermore, who first broke the “Climate-gate” story out of the noncommercial blogosphere and into the sphere of semi-professional journalism. I found the archive on the Siberian server, I unpacked the archive, and I wrote the first articles quoting Dr. Phil Jones as saying, “I just used Mike’s Nature trick of grafting the real-time temperature series onto the proxy data to hide the decline.” Hide the decline. Remember that.

      And remember something else: no proper scientist grafts raw data onto derived data in the same series.

      And yes, I know about negative feedback. I studied engineering at Yale University. I learned then to recognize negative feedback when it occurred.

      Finally, if you want to discuss science, let’s discuss it. Like any creation scientist (or at least any worth his salt), I accept the raw data that others have gathered (except for obvious frauds like Piltdown and Peking “Men”). That is, I accept the raw data, not the derived data or the evaluations. Derived data make assumptions, too. And those assumptions aren’t always safe.

      For instance: the proportion of potassium to argon in dacite is a raw datum. The “age” of that dacite is a derived datum. And when a laboratory says that a rock is half a million to two million years old, when I remember the geological process (a volcanic eruption) that laid it down ten years before I sampled it, what do you expect me to do? What do you expect any investigator to do? Steven A. Austin made this very finding in 1996. Result: he rejected the derived data. That was just one finding that convinced him and many others that the entire scheme for deriving “ages” from proportions of radioactive substances had great need of re-examination.

      Are you willing to re-examine such thing? Are you willing to check your premises?

  4. Clem says:


    First of all, I want to stress that I’m not challenging your your accomplishments and your honesty.

    Then I’d like to go back on what you call “underlying assumptions”. To me underlying assumptions are concepts and ideas that are implied within another idea or concept. However, you must show or prove that they lay there.
    So you took the ideas “Global climate warming is true. It is affected by human activities. It’s bad”
    And you said it also means this :
    ” 1. That the sun shines at the same exact brightness, year after year, decade after decade, century after century.
    2. That every other “greenhouse gas” stays at the same level everywhere.
    3. That if carbon dioxide rises, nothing will take it away just as fast.”

    Nobody else than you says this. If you take a look at this : ,which is a good example of the arguments you “seek to weaken”, you’ll see that they take other factors including the ones in your “assumptions” into account.
    I most certainly agree that it was not refered to in those children books though.

    About the feedback… Are you saying that negative feedback will be enough to prevent climate changes ? On the VERY long run, maybe. Else, how do you explain the Little Ice Age and other climate changes trhroughout centuries ? We don’t care about the global balance in terms of thousands of years, but mainly about how our children and grand-children will be negatively affected in the years to come. Furthermore, there is positive feedback too. (eg ).

    And as for radioisotopes dating… I had trouble to find clear data on what Steven A Austin thinks but I was able to get on this website ( which explains very well what he said, and why he’s wrong.

    And it’s not just about this article… Why does creation science always rely on single examples to counter well-established theories ? One guy believing in global warming lied, so the entire theory is a fraud ? One guy “found” that some rocks were younger than was everybody thought, and then the whole radioisotopes dating is false ?
    I have the feeling that you used the words “derived data” for facts that you don’t want to believe in.

    To use another example from geology, the proportion of crystallised minerals in a sample found after a volcanic eruption is a raw datum. Do you challenge the original depth (of existence of this sample) that this proportion shows as a derived datum ?

    I don’t think that the majority is always right, but I have issues with your methodology. What type of derived data do you accept ? More accurately, how do you draw the line between raw and derived data ? Would you rather always rather believe the 1% scientists despised by their peers than the other 99% ?

    PS : do you believe that the theory of relativity is false ?

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      “Nobody else other than [I] says this”? Well, you admitted that the children’s books made that same argument. And here is a curious thing: those “other factors,” when and to the extent that the alarmists mention them, weaken their own argument. Which is: government must not allow humans to run around loose, for humans shall certainly harm themselves and wreck the planet. They forget, all the while, that government officials are human, too.

      And yes, I do say that negative feedback will negate any effect of man on the climate. And there’s something else you have forgotten: the world went through a Little Ice Age beginning at about the time of the Renaissance and ending during the Victorian Era. Your alarmists evidently see the Little Ice Age as normal and appropriate. Furthermore, since the recent heat wave went away, and temperatures in the Northeast turned distinctly mild, the alarmists have fallen silent. I would expect no better of them. They love to come out and sound their alarms in high summer. But then I think of Al Gore having to cancel speaking engagements on account of—wait for it—ice and snow at the venue. Not to mention his keeping his engine at idle, the air conditioner full on, until he comes out of a speaking venue to ride away. (Like so many celebrities, he seems almost to have forgotten how to drive his own automobile.)

      The arguments against Austin crash and burn on this count: if their position was correct, then Geochron Laboratories ought to have reported “Age undetermined; argon undetectable.” They did not. Nor did they suggest in any way, shape or form that they would have a lick of trouble determining the dates on any of the samples they received. Austin sent them five different samples from the same lava dome. Geochron reported seeming ages that were much further apart than their respective tolerances (the “error bars”) would allow. Those ages varied from half a million to 2.8 million years.

      And so, when he revealed that all five samples came from the same location, and that location formed ten years before sampling, the predictable howl went up from game-players who realized, with a sickening thud in their hearts, that the game was up:


      Sorry, Geochron. The only “foul” is the procedure that you have followed all these years. Might that explain why Geochron shut down their K-Ar dating service shortly after that disgraceful episode? In any event, that’s why I insist that the proportions are the raw data. As to the depth: well, the depth of the sample when found is a raw datum. But if you’re going to calculate a depth from the mother-daughter proportion, that is a derived datum. Do you know what derived data are? Absolutely any number that you calculate from another number or numbers is a derived datum. And I challenge all derived data, because I challenge the assumptions that lie beneath the derivation.

      We deal here with trying to explain what many call “the geological column.” Two, and only two, possibilities exist. Proposition A: billions of years of erosion laid it all down. Proposition B: the one event in the history of the earth that deserves the name cataclysm laid it all down in one year. If you’re going to accept as fact certain derived data that depend on Proposition A above, then you favor Proposition A a priori. That wasn’t how my professors of physics, physical chemistry, and organic chemistry taught me to do science. That might be the way uniformitarians do science. But that means that they are so wedded to their scheme that they won’t admit, even to themselves, that another scheme is possible. And you never test one theory by assuming as fact the predictions of another. That’s a special form of circular reasoning called “Your theory does not work under my theory; therefore your theory must be wrong.”

      Now about relativity. False? Far from it. In fact, I say that it doesn’t go far enough. Einstein worked out an excellent scheme for explaining local effects. But Carmeli (1996) and Hartnett (2007) worked out a relativity applicable on a cosmic scale. And their scheme—guess what?—totally obviates “dark matter” and “dark energy,” while at the same time showing that the universe can be no older than six thousand or so years by clocks on earth even though we see light from far-off objects.

      So I accept relativity as true, and in need of expansion. I don’t accept dark energy or dark matter. At best, those are yet more questionable derived data. At worse, those are mathematical fudges, on the order of the assumed “Planet Vulcan” of the early 20th century (not to be confused with 40 Eridani III, or whatever number it was supposed to be, that Gene Roddenberry invented).

  5. Clem says:

    I didn’t admit that the children books made the same arguments. I said that what could be blamed on them is that they didn’t present the whole theory, including those “other factors”. As you wrote, those are simple books, for young people.
    The global warming theory, however, integrates those “other factors” BEFORE finding out that manly activities still affects the climate. It DOES weaken the scale of the warming, they say it themselves.

    I don’t think I forgot about the Little Ice Age, since I mentionned it myself in my previous post. Why wouldn’t you see it as “normal and appropriate” if you don’t believe that men affect the climate ?

    About the negative feedback again… You state that it “will negate any effect of man on the climate”. Can you back this ?
    In the same sentence you recognize that man have effect on the climate, and you say that SOMETHING will be able to counter any single imput that he will have ? SOMETHING will be able to evaluate the influence of man and accuratly strike back, through negative feedback, in the other direction ?

    With Geochron, you just fall again in what I pointed as a repititive logical flaw in the way you build your arguments :
    _A (among millions of others) supports theory 1.
    _A makes a mistake (or lies).
    _Theory 1 is plain wrong.
    That’s not how science works.
    Moreover, here the failing comes from Austin, not from the lab. The samples he took DID NOT come from the same location. Oh of course they all were in the Great Canyon. But in different lava flows.
    Even if we imagine that it was the lab that made the mistake, it doesn’t prove radioisotopes dating wrong. It proves that a lab made a mistake. That is all.

    I had trouble finding informations on Hartnett and Carmeli, but I could finally read his points on Hartnett in particular had quite a strange way of “proving” things. It amused me to see his biography :
    1 Studies, believe in what 99% physicists believe.
    2 Converts to extremist christian church.
    3 Suddenly changes all his views on the universe and start building theories backing up creation science.

    Dark matter and dark energy have become more than just concepts in the past few years. However, let’s just look at what they were thought as in the beginning : explanations built up to fill gaps in the relativity theory. They are strictly coherent mathematically, and even if they are proven wrong in the future, they are part of a general theory that stands solid.
    And yes, I and all non-creationist physicits admit that they could be proven wrong in the years to come. We see that this a a frontier for science, that we need to push, and we consider a lot of different explanations, not entering what you call a “special form of circular reasoning”.

    However, what made laugh about Hartnett is his justification about why we can see (and people 6000 years ago could see) stars that are (and this is raw datum) millions of light years away. Well Hartnett simply assumes that the light from the stars travelled, during the “creation”, FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT to get to us. This is COMPLETE nonsense. It’s not backable by anything.

    He says here ( “god stretching out the heavens” during creation refers to a supposedly massive and temporary shift in the laws of physics at that moment that explains why we can see those stars.
    If this is not basing “science” on faith, I don’t know what it is. Quotes and interpretations from the Bible will never be a valid proof for “science”.
    And we’re not even talking about derived data here, it’s actually worse : it’s an interpretation of a sacred book in order to back an interpretation of an observation. (positions of galaxies and stars from Arp and HBN).

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      Maybe you forgot something else: the Medieval Warming Period. That’s one thing that the alarmists do try to deny.

      As to feedback: the burden of proof is on you, because: You are, in effect, “suing” mankind for “wrongful effect on the climate.” You pray that the court impose severe sanctions on economic activity. In fact, you think that your case is a prima facie case, and are moving for an order to show just cause! Extraordinary complaints, and extraordinary prayers for relief, require extraordinary evidence. Which I have not seen. Quite opposite: the correspondence in my possession contains clear and convincing evidence of the very sort of conspiracy you say that I allege. Less than two years ago, I wrote all about it.

      Concerning Geochron: again you left out this key point. Had Geochron said, “Age not determinable. Daughter nuclide undetectable.” then Austin would never have had a case. They wouldn’t have taken the bait.

      But they did. They measured a ratio of argon to potassium. Austin never disputed that. They then published derived ages that were way out of line.

      Austin called them on it. And then the foul-crying started. They said that he had submitted samples that he ought to have known would have excess argon, for reasons having nothing to do with the age. He showed that he had not submitted a contaminated sample. What they accused him of, was a rookie mistake that he very easily showed that he did not make.

      Now about cosmological relativity: You said that dark matter and dark energy were explanations to fill in gaps in “relativity.” Well, in a sense a lot different from what the creators of those concepts meant, they were. Here’s the problem: Carmeli anticipated a problem back in 1994, and predicted even then that someone would find raw data suggesting an “accelerating” universe. Two years later, that is exactly what many astronomers did find. But instead of re-examining whether their understanding of relativity was complete, they invented the concept “dark energy” to explain the marked discrepancy between prediction and actuality.

      Now if you want to talk about basing science on faith—or rather, anti-faith—consider Edwin Hubble. Did he not vociferously defend his principle, even to naming it after Copernicus, thus falsely implying that Copernicus formulated it before him, by saying that the alternative was philosophically unacceptable? The Hubble Principle is: the universe has no center, and our place in it is not special. Specifically, any observer anywhere in the universe would see the exact same vista, as regards the distribution of galaxies and larger objects. The alternative: large objects have a concentric-spherical distribution, with our galaxy at the center.

      And by the way: when you speak of light moving faster than light itself, you forget that he specifically said that he was computing the effective speed of light, after accounting for the stretching-out of space. And we do have evidence of a stretching of space. I cite the Pioneer Anomaly—signals reaching earth more quickly than the distance of Pioneer 10 would predict. It wasn’t because Pioneer wasn’t as far away as thought. It was. But space was stretched out, and that stretching even affected the speed of light.

  6. Clem says:

    I knew about this MWP, and nobody is denying it. In fact, see :

    Flawed logic once again : why would the burden of the proof be mine ?
    YOU are saying that negative feedback will counter “any effect of man on the climate” . You didn’t back this.
    I’m not praying any court, I don’t want any sanctions on the economy.
    My evidence, is there. I posted links to it, and it’s shared by 99% of the scientific community. Your evidence, however, is different. You don’t provide any links towards scientific articles. All the creation scientists you refer to are considered fraud by the large majority of their peers. You never shared real links to this “correspondence” you’re supposed to have.

    You never answered my questions about backing your arguments with evidence. You keep using single examples to say that wholes theories are wrong.
    Even if geochron is wrong, it doesn’t make the radiosisotopes dating wrong !!

    Talking about Hubble is actually bad for your own case. Maybe he used these words, and ased an interpretation on personal beliefs. But what then ? Then the scientific community counterproofed it and tested it for a whole century and found out he was right.

    That’s the difference between creation science and real science as it seems. In real science you have many theories, scientists fight about them, counterproof and test them, and in the end the come with the good one. Creation science has a model based on the Bible and then tries to make everything fit to this model, coming out with the most crazy explanations. Dinosaurs living as the same time as men ? Earth 6000 years old ? Water on Mars on comets WERE EJECTED DURING THE GREAT FLOOD ? Any normal child above 8 years old will laugh about this.

    As a christian, I operate a clear separation between science and faith. I don’t need to believe that the Genesis is science-proof to believe in God.

    I came here to see what creation science was and what it’s followers had to say, how they backed it. I’m disappointed. You didn’t last more than 2 posts before using the argument of faith to base your points (through Hartnett). As I said, you were not able to back anyting with scientific data.

    I won’t comment anymore, since you couldn’t engage in a serious debate. Your logic is flawed as I wrote (you never answered to that by the way). I understand that this website is about conservative views, but please stop talking about science. There is no such thing as creation “science”.

    Nonetheless I understand and respect your views about other topics, and I believe you’re only mistaken about this “science”, not blatantly lying to the face of your fellows.


    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      The burden of proof is yours, once again, because you propose to curtail my liberty. And that of everyone else. And, given the latest dust-up at CERN, you arguably don’t even have standing.

      That is what this debate is all about: human liberty. Which you would deny.

      By the way: with your use of the acute accent, does that make you a Frenchman? If so—well, you’re free to comment, of course, because you haven’t talked total trash. But I suggest that, though the motto of your country is still “Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity,” you probably do not understand Liberty nearly as much as you do Equality and Fraternity. In fact, I suggest that you pursue Equality and Fraternity at the expense of Liberty.

      In America, Liberty is the abiding principle.

      The hypothetical court, in which I suggest that you have not proved your case or even shown standing, is an American court, not a French one. French courts perhaps allow a much wider application of res ipsa loquitur (Latin, “the thing speaks for itself”) than do American. To argue res ipsa loquitur in our courts, you must show that the thing is under the exclusive control of the defendant. In the case of (hypothetical) global warming, you have not so shown. Indeed, Jasper Kirkby at CERN has recently shown the opposite.

      As for the rest of what you said: No cosmologist has made any more satisfactory showing of the Hubble Principle than has Hubble. Which is to say, they have made no showing at all. The Hubble Principle is still more asserted than proved. And it stays current because current cosmologists like the philosophy behind it. They don’t want to think of the implications of finding that our galaxy is at the center of the universe.

      Well, it is at the center. In fact, it’s even at the center of the rotation of the universe. Did you know that the universe has a definite spin? And that our galaxy lies along the axis of that spin, and itself spins in the same direction?

      What you call your evidence is merely a matter of opinion. It is the body of opinion of the conventional community. No one has dared challenge it—until now. Now I have challenged it. And I don’t care what you think of my “credentials.”

  7. […] Global warming indoctrination […]

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.