White House Announces ‘Goal of Ensuring Climate Smart Citizenry’

CNSNews.com ^ | February 17, 2015 | Eric Scheiner

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

The White House Science and Technology Advisor, says an initiative is underway “with the goal of ensuring a climate smart citizenry in the United States.”

“In December of last year the White House Climate Education and Literacy Initiative was launched--with the goal of ensuring a climate smart citizenry in the United States,” Dr. John Holdren says in a White House video released last week.

“Whenever I can I use opportunities like this ‘Ask Dr. H’ initiative to communicate about climate change and the strong scientific underpinnings of our actions to combat it.”

“Based on our scientific understanding of climate change the administration is continuing to develop and implement a number of policies to cut carbon pollution in America, to prepare for the climate impacts that cannot be avoided, and to work with the international community so best practices for emissions reductions and building resilience are embraced everywhere,” Holdren continues.

A December 2014 White House press release announcing the effort says, “In response to an initial call to action made in October, more than 150 activities, projects, and ideas were submitted by individuals and organizations across the country, from more than 30 states. These included a diverse array of innovative approaches being implemented in K-12 classrooms, on college and university campuses, and in zoos, parks, aquariums, and museums to educate and engage students and citizens of all ages. Today’s launch includes a number of exciting new commitments by Federal agencies and outside groups.”

Among the efforts listed by federal agencies include “leveraging digital games to enhance climate education” by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and using the National Park Service (NPS), “the plan will assist NPS interpretive managers and practitioners in the creation and delivery of effective climate-change messages in the programs and exhibits across all National Parks.”

[Teacher317]

It’s so wonderful to have a White House Science Advisor who has so little faith in Science! Hopefully he can open a bunch of Camps really soon to help us understand what we need to know so that we can grow in the ways that they need us to!!! Obama’s disciples are truly our national treasures!

[Bob434]

and by ‘climate smart’ they of course mean IGNORANT of the FACTS

man is responsible for... hold onto your hats.... 0.0015% of all the CO2 in our atmosphere-

Our atmosphere has just 0.04% CO2 in it- that’s it- of that amount, man is responsible for only 3.4%- the rest occurs naturally

So 3.4% of 0.04% = 0.0015% CO2 in our atmosphere that is due to man

And we’re going to financially cripple this nation to ‘fix’ something that WE DID NOT CREATE NOR ARE AFFECTING.

Where is the GOP on this issue? Where are they? We are about to be destroyed as a nation because our energy costs are going to go through the roof, in the name of global climate change, something we are NOT causing- that we CAN NOT BE CAUSING, and the GOP are SILENT!

Folks, of that 0.0015% of the atmosphere CO2 that we are responsible for, only a VERYU TINY fraction of earth’s escaping heat actually gets trapped, and of that VERY TINY amount of heat that gets trapped, only a VERY TINY fraction of that amount actually gets back radiated I nthe right direct to earth- there is no way in hell that this tiny amount of heat can change global climates- NONE! You are talking only TINY FRACTION of the3 0.0015% of heat that escapes making it’s way back to earth- and when it finally gets released, it is instantly overwhelmed by the cooler temps and is NEVER EVEN NOTICED because it equalizes out to he surrounding temps instantly-

I can not believe we have to sit here in America and watch our GOP representatives ALLOW this LIE to be spread that man is entirely responsible for global climate change!

0.0015% man produced CO2 in our atmosphere is no more capable of trapping heat, sending it back to earth, and having it cause global climate change than a man pissing I n the ocean once caused global flooding!

[palmer]

Carbon dioxide comprises about 4/100ths of ONE PERCENT of the atmosphere, yet it is considered by alarmists to be pretty much the only significant driver of climate change

The problem comes from using their term. Adding CO2 to a column of air causes more IR photons with the right frequency to be absorbed to be intercepted. The reason is pretty simple, the mean free path is 47m: http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/attachment.php?aid=250 You don't need to take my word for it, that site is a climate skeptic showing that CO2 is saturated. IOW, adding more CO2 shortens the average distance to where a photon gets intercepted and the photon has to be the right frequency to be intercepted. Also water vapor overlaps with those frequencies.

But where the saturation analysis can be debatable is when you theorize layers of atmosphere. With more CO2 there will be more layers since the path is shorter. That means more layers to get through, so fewer get through.

But suffice to say 0.04% of a lot of air molecules is still a lot of molecules and more than enough for those photons to be intercepted. Thus "global warming" which is modest and beneficial. "climate change" is a nonsense phrase that is meaningless.

[palmer]

So 3.4% of 0.04% = 0.0015% CO2 in our atmosphere that is due to man

We agree that CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere. We agree that 7Gt of manmade CO2 is 3.5% of 200Gt of naturally made CO2. But this is mistake #1, the natural flux is balanced by a return flux. Essentially all of the 200Gt produced in various places and seasons is reabsorbed in other locations and seasons. For example nearly all of the CO2 produced by decaying leaves in the fall is reabsorbed by the same plants in the spring. That's why the concentration looks like this:

CO2 goes up and goes down again each year. That rise and fall dwarfs the manmade contribution (200 to 7). But the manmade contribution is one way so taking any point during the year and comparing to a year before you will see the effect of the manmade contribution. The manmade contribution is unidirectional and the natural CO2 flux is bidirectional.

So out of the 0.04%, there is 0.012% due to man.

Folks, of that 0.0015% of the atmosphere CO2 that we are responsible for, only a VERYU TINY fraction of earth’s escaping heat actually gets trapped, and of that VERY TINY amount of heat that gets trapped, only a VERY TINY fraction of that amount actually gets back radiated

Yes, 0.012% is very tiny but remember that the mean free path is 47 meters so every IR photon of the right frequency to be intercepted gets intercepted. That number is still a small fraction of the total IR photons leaving the earth. But contrary to your claim, 50% of the IR photons are radiated back to earth. It can't be anything other than that since they are radiated in all directions.

I can not believe we have to sit here in America and watch our GOP representatives ALLOW this LIE to be spread

The GOP needs to point out that the added warming from added CO2 is modest and beneficial. That is the bottom line.

[Steve_Seattle]

Well, I skimmed through the article you referenced (it would not be accurate to say I READ it, since I don’t have the scientific background to read that article), and my interpretation of it is that the author was saying that CO2 alone does not have the ability to significantly hold heat IN the atmosphere or allow heat to escape the atmosphere, and that water vapor is a far more potent factor in regulating atmospheric temperature.

[palmer]

Yes, all in line with my understanding. I am an engineer (hopefully a better engineer than Bill Nye) but I have read a lot of explanations and tutorials that cohere with that link above (i.e. other references don’t agree with every point but cannot disprove any of it).

[vpintheak]

What they want is good little sheep who will eat all their propaganda.
I don’t think so! I will raise my children to think for themselves. We all may up enemies of the state some day, but will not cow before the government.

[QT3.14]

Will they emphasize this in class?

Paul Watson, a founder of Greenpeace
"It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true."

Jim Sibbison, environmental journalist, former public relations official for the EPA
"We routinely wrote scare stories...Our press reports were more or less true...We were out to whip the public into a frenzy
about the environment."

Stephen Schneider, Stanford Univ., environmentalist
"That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic
statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."

Timoth Wirth, U.S./UN functionary, former elected Democrat Senator
“We’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing
in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”

Richard Benedik, former U.S./UN bureaucrat
"A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect."

Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official  
"We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy…Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy
separately from the major themes of globalization...One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate
policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore."

Club of Rome
"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water
shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention....and thus the “real
enemy, then, is humanity itself....believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to
realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose.""

[Still Thinking]

White House Announces 'Goal of Ensuring Climate Smart Citizenry' dumbed-down stampeded science- & logic-illiterate sheeple who think the way to cleaner air is give the stupidest people in the country their money and autonomy.

[HotHunt]

Exactly what I was thinking before you said it first. This is just liberal-speak for "we need to indoctrinate the public with the left's climate change propaganda hoax". They seem to think that the public is ignorant about climate change. They are not. They just have seen through the three-card Monte scam the progressives have been playing on the them for years.

Thanks.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Diana in Wisconsin]

Fourteen BELOW zero here last night. Temp is hovering at -4.

Yep. Sure. Whatever. ;)

[Bob434]

[[But contrary to your claim, 50% of the IR photons are radiated back to earth.]]

Again- that is only 50% of the heat that gets trapped by man’s 0.0015% (I’m not sure the actual percentage- it’s probably even smaller than 50%- but I’m being generous)- the bottom line is that only 0.04% of the heat leaving earth gets trapped and only a small percentage of that gets back radiated, and man is ‘responsible’ for an even smaller amount/percentage’ being back radiated-

you keep saying man-made CO2 is ‘one way’- yet if this were true, none would be making it’s way back to earth- You then seem to suggest that man’s CO2 isn’t absorbed by anything- or that it doesn’t get trapped in heat sinks? and again- the amount of CO2 produced by man is insignificant- What special qualities of CO2 make it impossible for it to settle into heat sinks or be reabsorbed? And how are we determining that the ‘heat’ that makes it back to earth is caused by man made CO2 as compared to natural CO2 in atmosphere? Are there markers I n the heat molecules to indicate mans’ CO2 was the cause of the back radiated heat molecules?

[[50% of the IR photons are radiated back to earth. It can’t be anything other than that since they are radiated in all directions.]]

Sure it can- we don’t know what amount get’s radiated back to earth- the majority can be radiated outward- the majority could be radiated to earth- it doesn’t necessarily have to be radiated in all direction equally- there could be atmospheric conditions that make it very difficult for it to be radiated back towards earth- who knows-

[[The GOP needs to point out that the added warming from added CO2 is modest and beneficial]]

Sorry- but the GOP needs to point out that CO2 doesn’t cause warming- period- and even if it did- that man’s insignificant contribution couldn’t possibly be causing any warming

Temps rise FIRST- then atmospheric CO2 rises, many years AFTER climates warm- AND IF CO2 were the ‘cause of climate change’ then global temps would NOT have remained flat for nearly 20 years despite man producing more CO2- IF CO2 were the cause of climate change, temps would have steadily RISEN- NOT REMAIEND FLAT-

[[CO2 is modest and beneficial]]

sURE IT IS- so modest infact that it can’t possibly be causing global climate change even IF CO2 were responsible for climate change-

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

My town is going to be -4 tomorrow morning.