Rebane's Ruminations
June 2013
S M T W T F S
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30  

ARCHIVES


OUR LINKS


YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

George Rebane

[This is the transcript of my regular KVMR commentary broadcast on 21 June 2013.]

These commentaries have often visited the unfolding tragedy of what our public education has inflicted on our country and its workforce.  Among the developed nations we rank way down there in every measured category of educational achievement.  But most of us go through the daily round without giving it much thought, or are simply comfortable with the false conclusion that our kids are being properly prepared for the job market, and generally that things are going along swimmingly.  Well they aren’t.

So now the federal government has decided to get into the act of educating our children.  This should not be a surprise since the feds are getting into every act possible that affects our lives.  We have witnessed how Dodd-Frank has misfired in the financial markets, and how Obamacare is screwing up America’s healthcare to a fare thee well.  But folks, this is serious and deserves your full attention whether you’re a parent or not.  Apparently feds haven’t done enough to K-12 education through their various ‘we’re here to help’ programs and their support of the teachers’ unions.  Now they plan to establish a unified curriculum across the land called Common Core.


Historically public education has been business left to the several states.  The principle has always been that education should be as local as possible where parents can meet with school districts and teachers, and influence what is being taught to their offspring.  But this is not according to the grand plan taking us to a new world order.  You see, your kids are really not yours.  Progressive professor Melissa Harris-Perry of Tulane University says it real plain, so that we all can understand, that things have to change radically.  Her words –

“So part of it is that we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents, or kids belong to their families, and recognize that kids belong to whole communities.  Once it’s everybody’s responsibility, and not just the household’s, then we start making better (education) investments.”

And the better investments dangled before the states consist of gobs of stimulus monies for education programs, granted on the condition that the states adopt the federal Common Core curricula for their schools.  I needn’t remind you of how things work out whenever individual responsibility is made into a collective responsibility, the history books are full of the resulting national scale tragedies.

But not to worry, our children will not be exposed to any of that inconvenient history.  In fact in Common Core’s history dead white men will not be heard from very much, and American foundational history will be a thing of the past.  Instead our little darlings will be taught environmentalism, globalism, feminism, social, racial issues, …, you get the idea.  But that is just the start.

The revision of the curriculum hits full stride in the maths that are the foundation of the sciences.  For example, while other countries competing in the global markets start teaching math fundamentals earlier, our new Common Core moves the teaching of algebra up from the eighth grade to the ninth grade.  This means that beginning calculus, fundamental to all the higher maths, will no longer be taught in our high schools.

The argument for Common Core is that it will standardize what our kids learn and put them into a better competitive position in the global workforce.  But it promises to do exactly the opposite of that.  The only thing we can be sure of is its impact on our youth, in that it will diminish the little that is left of what we used to call American culture.  But then, is that not an overarching objective as we shed the last vestiges of American exceptionalism?

I urge all concerned listeners to examine for themselves what Common Core promises to deliver as it makes over America’s educational system. Will adopting a federally mandated national curriculum really provide the education required for our children to earn a decent living and again make a difference that has been the hallmark of America?  Reflecting on this I am reminded of someone who said, “Give me just one generation of youth, and I'll transform the whole world."

My name is Rebane, and I also expand on this and related themes on NCTV and on georgerebane.com where the transcript of this commentary is posted with relevant links, and where such issues are debated extensively.  However my views are not necessarily shared by KVMR.  Thank you for listening.

——
Some Common Core links:
Common Core State Standards Initiative
‘There’s No Opting Out of Common Core’
‘Common Core Needs More Debate’

[22jun13 update]  I received the following email from CABPRO's ED Chuck Shea announcing a Common Core related event for the coming week; content follows –

Come and hear Orlean Koehle, author of: “Common Core — A Trojan Horse for
Education Reform”

A book about the federal
takeover of our children’s education

Orlean’s Website:    www.cuacc.org 
 
Find out the similarities:
“Parens Patria” is the Latin term for Hitler’s philosophy; literally translated
“the Fatherland is the parent"

What is "Common Core"?

  • It
    is – new & untested curriculum.
  • It
    is – the Federal takeover of our entire education system.
  • It
    is – data mining over 400 personal facts permanently retained about our
    children from preschool through college and into the workplace, includes
    fingerprints, health records, iris scans, DNA, blood type, religion,
    family income, disciplinary problems and much, much more.
  • It
    is – no parental control or opt-­-out option.
  • It
    is – no local or state control of curriculum.
  • It
    is – a one size fits all instruction and mandatory teacher compliance.
  • It
    is – intruding on the creativity and competitive nature of charter
    schools.
  • It
    is – expensive! Common Core will cost taxpayers $1.6 billion in CA alone.

When:  Wednesday June
26, 2013 • 5:30 pm

Where:  Penny’s Diner
                 
2072 Nevada City Highway • Grass Valley

Admission: 
   CABPRO Members $5  • General Admission $10
Refreshments:
 Cheese and Fruit

Posted in , , ,

145 responses to “Common Core is Coming (updated 22jun13)”

  1. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    RUSS can you please provide a link to the ESS3D in the federal standards?

    Like

  2. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    Oh, I see Greg is acknowledging t is in THE STATE standards NOT the FEDERAL standards…..

    Like

  3. Gregory Avatar

    Oh, I see Frisch is again torturing logic past its breaking point.
    Steve, you have some backtracking to do; now is a good time.

    Like

  4. Gregory Avatar

    Let’s look at the core ideas of Earth and Space Science according to CCSS (page 171 of the linked Frameword from the NAS ed group):
    Core Idea ESS1: Earth’s Place in the Universe
    ESS1.A: The Universe and Its Stars
    ESS1.B: Earth and the Solar System
    ESS1.C: The History of Planet Earth
    Core Idea ESS2: Earth’s Systems
    ESS2.A: Earth Materials and Systems
    ESS2.B: Plate Tectonics and Large-Scale System Interactions
    ESS2.C: The Roles of Water in Earth’s Surface Processes
    ESS2.D: Weather and Climate
    ESS2.E: Biogeology
    Core Idea ESS3: Earth and Human Activity
    ESS3.A: Natural Resources
    ESS3.B: Natural Hazards
    ESS3.C: Human Impacts on Earth Systems
    ESS3.D: Global Climate Change
    Yes, “Global Climate Change” is apparently weighted the same as “Earth and the Solar System”.
    Perhaps Steve can clue us into how educators and legislators in California can bring a couple of private 501c3’s headquartered in Washington DC to modify the so called State Standards?
    And, of course, the disclaimer:
    “THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS ARE PROVIDED AS-IS AND WITH ALL FAULTS, AND NGA CENTER/CCSSO MAKE NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS, IMPLIED, STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, WARRANTIES OF TITLE, MERCHANTIBILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, NONINFRINGEMENT, ACCURACY, OR THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF ERRORS, WHETHER OR NOT DISCOVERABLE.”

    Like

  5. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    HOW ABOUT SOME GODDAMN LINKS YOU BONEHEADS….
    Common Core as I presented it above, the federal standard, is as I linked it in the web page above. State’s can go beyond the standards presented in the federal standard. My point is still correct and valid.
    Just because a few idiots like you believe that you can reject a strong consensus in the scientific community that AGW is happening, it is human caused, and it poses a threat to people and ecosystems, does not make the state standards as presented incorrect.
    If George and Russ had their way we would be teaching creationism as equal to evolution in the schools. Fortunately, reason prevails.

    Like

  6. Bill the heat Tozer Avatar
    Bill the heat Tozer

    Bonehead? Guilty as charged. Thousands of years ago there were higher temps and more carbon in the atmosphere. More green house gases as well. Makes me wonder who was pulling whose finger.
    I personally blame pre-cavemen cavemen for the human caused Warming. In fact, at one time the entire earth was covered with a mist. Who changed that?
    Guess the real question is what is normal temps and normal for what eons in our planet’s history? Coming out of an ice age would certainly point to a warming trend. Heading into an ice age would also point to a cooling trend. These things can’t be measured in a mere couple of hundred years. What was normal (throwing out the natural fluctuations in temps)in Cristo Colombo’s time? The beginning of the Greek Empire to the Roman Empire’s conclusion? Certainly a lot of burning going on heating up stuff in forges to make those gawd awful heavy weapons in the Bronze Age. Took a lot of burning of carbon trees and peat fossil fuels to make an amour suit. Humans are sooo messy.
    Think bonehead is a rather enduring term. Kinda like “Get out of here you silly knuckleheads.” Time for a group hug to get over all them butt hurt feelings. Hey, its hot outside. Is it Climate Change, Global Warming, or Summer? Boneheads and inquiring minds would like to know.

    Like

  7. George Rebane Avatar

    Stevenfrisch 1147am – Steve, one of the ways you destroy all credibility in a debate is when you repeatedly demonstrate your reading skills, in this case, “If George and Russ had their way …” You have no backing for this assertion except your long established bonehead progressive stance that ‘we know what they really mean when they say …’, and then you insert whatever you wish to attribute to the other person and consider it as established fact from then on. In these pages you have been doing it for years, while attempting to pass it off as reasoned debate. Some time back I thought that you were doing it as part of a snide put down using hyperbole. However, your persistence in the practice is making me (and perhaps others) reconsider – I believe you may just be doing the best you can.

    Like

  8. Gregory Avatar

    Golly Stevie, you’ve gone off topic. No supporter of the federal Common Core ‘standards’ admit to them being Federal. The rhetoric always puts them as being ‘for the states, by the states’, not by Achieve, Inc. of Washington, D.C. in partnership with two other D.C. 501c3’s that are in essence trade groups for governors and state ed bureaucracies, and a major publishing house, all unaccountable to the states and the feds.
    The ESSD3 standard was from the “Federal” documentation, Steve, and you were given links to that. Regarding anything else, consider any link you get to be a courtesy you really haven’t earned and don’t deserve.
    You want links, man up and retract some statements that everyone knows need retracting. Everything that included “lie” or “liar”, for example.
    That “strong consensus” you like to believe in doesn’t exist. They tell the sheeple that the debate is over but lead the likes of James Lovelock to write “The great climate science centres around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they’re scared stiff of the fact that they don’t really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing. They could be absolutely running the show. We haven’t got the physics worked out yet.”
    That was three years ago, and scientific revelations continue to break towards the skeptical physics side. Keep drinking the koolaid, Frisch. The longer you’re an ass about it, the harder you’ll be falling.
    Oh, and it’s still the coolest start to the Arctic summer in 55 years.
    http://www.economist.com/node/3375415
    Yes, the Arctic is the canary in the coal mine. Then there’s Alaska, which according to the state climatology office has had a cooling trend for 10 years.

    Like

  9. Russ Steele Avatar

    Steven@11:47AM
    You wrote:
    “Just because a few idiots like you believe that you can reject a strong consensus in the scientific community that AGW is happening, it is human caused, and it poses a threat to people and ecosystems, does not make the state standards as presented incorrect.”
    Let’s analyze your statement. First consensus is not a scientific term, it is a political term. Second there is no “strong consensus” in the “scientific community” That community is quite large and there are only a few climate modelers, and some global warming grant whores, that are still proclaiming human generated CO2 is causing global warming. There a far more scientist who have rejected the AGW claim, and is some recent cases some of the original promoters of AGW have re-examined the data and changed their minds. CO2 levels continue to climb and there is no corresponding increase in temperature over the last 15+ years.
    The models have failed all prediction, the measured data is outside the 95% probability area. What threat does human CO2 emission have on people and the ecosystems? CO2 is essential to plant health, the ecosystems can not survive with out CO2. As CO2 has increased green plants, corn, soybeans, rice, and wheat have experienced increased productivity. Greenhouse operators increase CO2 to encourage plant growth. Navy Subs operate with CO2 levels as high a 6,000ppm. Tornado numbers are down, there has been fewer hurricanes than normal, sea levels increase are decelerating, and snow coverage across the northern hemisphere is increasing. So, where are those “threats to people?”
    Since there is no scientific data, only computer models, to support the AGW hypothesis, it is wrong to teach children garbage science.

    Like

  10. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    You gotta give theFrisch some credit here for being a good soldier. I bet he would say the sky is green if Obama said it was and there was some grant money to study it. I just think he is a bureaucrat troglodyte, a normal run of the mill yes-man for the status quo.

    Like

  11. Paul Emery Avatar

    Unbelievably lame statement Russ
    “As CO2 has increased green plants, corn, soybeans, rice, and wheat have experienced increased productivity. Greenhouse operators increase CO2 to encourage plant growth.”
    from http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/05/10/carbon_dioxide_and_global_warming_more_is_not_better.html
    “Simply claiming increased CO2 will help plants grow while ignoring everything else it does is a stunningly tone-deaf argument, yet one deniers seem to use over and again. Looking at a few plants growing better due to more CO2 is like ignoring that you killed a patient while curing their hangnail.

    Like

  12. George Rebane Avatar

    PaulE 932am – And there is the crux of the debate Paul. While evidence abounds that CO2 is beneficial for enhancing earth’s flora, the evidence that earth is being harmed by redeemable emissions of manmade CO2 is very much in debate. But only between those who are not tone deaf.

    Like

  13. Paul Emery Avatar

    George
    I am in the debate but you’ve got to do much better than this. To make the assumption that increased CO2 is good for plant life on earth based on a few observations of specific plants in greenhouse experiments if far beneath your usually notable attention to rational though.

    Like

  14. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    Russ, when the CO2 levels were many times greater in the distant past, is that not the time the plants and animals were quite large? Was it no true the plants of then are the coal and oil of now? I seem to recall the planet earth was a verdant garden then.

    Like

  15. Bill Tozer Avatar
    Bill Tozer

    Hello gentlemen and dear readers. One thing about education reform debates is the child/student/pupil focus always gets lost or swept under the carpet. The young minds are our target here. First and foremost. Not the teachers, not the unions, not the Feds and the Department of Education. The individual young minds are the top of the pyramid.
    They already are being taught junk science and they will continue to be taught the debate is over. The parents are looked on with suspicion if they criticize the curriculum by the school and by our government. I have made no bones that I look at government with a healthy dose of suspicion as our Founders intended it to be. Flawed humans running a flawed education system deserves to be questioned and challenged. My kids are my kids forever and ever, Amen.
    My first shock was one day after school the girls would not let me hug them. They were taught the “broom stick rule” that day, meaning no adult could every come within a broom stick’s length of “their space”. Of course I had to fine tune the subject and told the girls about strangers (again)and they perhaps misinterpreted the full meaning of the rule.
    I kept getting requests to sign the girls up for the school lunch programs. Letters home on more than one occasion and even a message on the answering machine. I refused and called the school telling them that even though I easily qualified, no way no how was it ever going to happen. I was told whether I use the school lunch program or not, I was urged with great insistence to sign up cause the school would get more money. I told the principle to go fuck himself, quote unquote. As long as I am able-bodied and can push a broom or use a rake, I will never give Washington the satisfaction nor my personal financial status.
    Learning cursive was not required as the girls’ penmanship sucks. Fortunately they can think for themselves and are going well despite their education. Charter School has a gold mine of liberals, but they opened up one daughter’s eyes to the world and gave her much confidence. Stubborn cuss that one.
    All the above information goes in the encyclopedia of worthless information, yet my well founded distrust of government programs continues. Some paper pusher in Washington DC knows what our local schools need to teach and how to teach our kids? Sadly its another pot calling the kettle black when you look how our education system is doing. Add the Feds to the mix and you got a worsening situation.
    Here is what a former Berkley professor thinks. I posted this on another topic, but its worth repeating. Our schools are filled with whack job teachers of leftist leanings and biased opinions.
    He saw the political “left” as embracing these technologies with special fervor, because they were in keeping with the “leftist” ideology that centralized power was the way to govern men.
    He saw these “leftists” as psychologically disordered—seeking to compensate for deep feelings of personal disempowerment by banding together and seeking extraordinary means of control in society. What it will take for Americans to wake up to the fact that their individuality and autonomy—indeed, what constitutes the core of a human life—is under siege (by the very forces he predicted—technology and leftist political leaders).

    Like

  16. Gregory Avatar

    “Simply claiming increased CO2 will help plants grow while ignoring everything else…” is a straw man argument. No one is “ignoring everything else”, but the more devout of the Church of Our Lady of the Presumptuous Assumption, that “CO2 is bad, n’kay?” refuse to note that there are positive benefits.
    It isn’t just a few plants, Paul. Plant life evolved with far more CO2 in the atmosphere than has existed recently, and even mammals first emerged in about a 2000ppm atmosphere. No matter what the Prophet McKibben teaches, there’s nothing magic about 350ppm, a number the Prophet pulled out of an orifice of his own choosing.
    By the way, the Marcott reconstruction that duplicates the Mann hockey stick, reproduced in your Bad Astronomer (and worse physicist) link has been backtracked, as the spike was just a statistical fluke that wasn’t present in his PhD work shortly before Mann started helping him massage the data.
    The Met Office withdrew their posting trumpeting the uptick.
    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/6/14/met-office-withdraws-article-about-marcotts-hockey-stick.html
    The money quote from Marcott’s addendum was “Any small “upticks” or “downticks” in temperature that last less than several hundred years in our compilation of paleoclimate data are probably not robust, as stated in the paper.”. “Not robust” in science-speak means don’t rely on this being true.
    Dr. Judith Curry had a guest post at her blog to delve into the errors in the Marcott Science article that came and went in a hurry because of those flaws:
    http://judithcurry.com/2013/03/19/playing-hockey-blowing-the-whistle/

    Like

  17. Paul Emery Avatar

    Pretty much the deniers are clinging to well funded arguments like the benefits of increased CO2 much like the tobacco industry paid big bucks to promote the benefits of tobacco
    Reynolds Tobacco Company International Committee on Smoking Issues (ICOSI) put together a plan in 1979 to secretly recruit and fund a group of prominent academic sociologists, philosophers, economists, anthropologists and political scientists to develop arguments promoting the benefits of smoking, refute arguments about the social costs of smoking, and emphasize the negative effects the companies believed smoking bans had on society.”
    http://pagefillers.com/scienceblog/?p=33

    Like

  18. Gregory Avatar

    Beautiful argumentum ad hominem, Paul. Let me get this straight… you’re sure the climate realists (as opposed to the computational el pollo pequeños) are getting large sums… because of the money big tobacco spent?
    What makes you think the dark forces hiding under your bed trying to poison you with CO2 are spending anything like the sums of money being spent on alarmists? IIRC with $80 billion spent to see how bad the warming would be, just by governments, in total a year or two ago, it’s unlikely that those neotobacconists you’re theorizing have spent as much as 1% of the alarmists have had to blow on their staff, not to mention the overhead charged by the institution that’s providing their offices and parking spots.
    It’s the other way around this time. Goliath is the IPCC & Friends, the EPA, and the vulture capital circling the money being thrown by the Feds to Solyndras past, present and future; David is the skeptics.

    Like

  19. Russ Steele Avatar

    Paul@09:32am
    Atmospheric carbon dioxide is the elixir of life. It is the primary raw material out of which plants construct their tissues, which in turn are the materials out of which animals construct theirs. This knowledge is so well established, in fact, that we humans – and all the rest of the biosphere – are described in the most basic of terms as carbon-based lifeforms.
    Drs. C. D. and S. B. Idso have written a book outlining 55 ways in which the modern rise in atmospheric CO2 is benefiting earth’s biosphere, as reported in the peer- reviewed scientific literature.
    http://www.co2science.org/education/book/2011/55BenefitsofCO2Pamphlet.pdf
    Here are 55 ways that CO2 enhances life on the planet. Now can you support your claim with 55 example of now CO2 will damage life on the planet.

    Like

  20. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    I bet those folks that believe as Paul;E does about AGW smoke ganga a lot. Isn’t that a hoot!

    Like

  21. Paul Emery Avatar

    Gregory
    ” you’re sure the climate realists (as opposed to the computational el pollo pequeños) are getting large sums… because of the money big tobacco spent?”
    That’s not what I contend Gregory. What is happening is that the international corporations are using a similar approach to influence public opinion on global warming. The immoral corporations were willing to spend billion’s to influence policy on tobacco addiction and would have been pleased as peaches if they would have succeeded despite the millions of deaths that would have occurred. It’s the same with the effects of global warming. The extent of influence that money extends is ilustrated here. This is a tip of the iceberg,
    Nine Out of Ten Climate Denying Scientists Have Ties to Exxon Mobil Money
    http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/04/900-papers-supporting-climate-scepticism-exxon-links
    And there’s this.
    “The secretive funding channel known as the Donors Trust patronised a host of conservative causes.
    But climate was at the top of the list. By 2010, Donors Trust had distributed $118m to 102 thinktanks or action groups which have a record of denying the existence of a human factor in climate change, or opposing environmental regulations.
    Recipients included some of the best-known thinktanks on the right. The American Enterprise Institute, which is closely connected to the Republican party establishment and has a large staff of scholars, received more than $17m in untraceable donations over the years, the record show.”
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/14/donors-trust-funding-climate-denial-networks

    Like

  22. Paul Emery Avatar

    So Russ what you are saying is that you have conclusive information that increased CO2 is actually good for the planet therefore we should welcome it. Yes or no.

    Like

  23. George Rebane Avatar

    On the obverse, is it not equally easy to demonstrate that about 11 out of ten pro-AGW scientists receive money from the government and pro-AGW NGOs? If biased money taints science to the point of uniformly discrediting results from such funded efforts, then there is no science we can trust. This ridiculous argument has been foisted upon light thinking audiences for at least a hundred years.
    The list of millions dying is even longer on the state sponsored and abetted side also. Recall that government mandated ideology has killed orders of magnitude more humans than the capitalist profit motive. Not to make too big of a deal of it – just millions upon millions of lives – but for example, the governments’ hysteria banning DDT for mosquito abatement comes to mind.

    Like

  24. Russ Steele Avatar

    Paul@06:06PM
    What I said was that there is a collection of peer reviewed papers, some 55, that indicated increased C02 levels had a positive impact on the earth ecology. Now I am waiting for a link to your 50 peer reviewed papers showing that increasing CO2 resulting from human activity will result in the extinction of earth on the planet.
    Temperatures are not rising as the IPCC models indicted, while CO2 is increasing. According to the ice cores the CO2 increased after the temperatures rose and declined as the temperatures declined. We are in for a temperature decline, therefore any small CO2 increase will only moderate the coming cooling. Yes, I welcome the CO2 increase.

    Like

  25. Paul Emery Avatar

    George
    My grandmother likely died from cancer due to DDT poisining. They were small farmers in the 30′ and 40’s when ddt was common on small farms. It does not further your cause to go there.
    http://www.panna.org/issues/persistent-poisons/the-ddt-story
    “DDT was one of the first chemicals in widespread use as a pesticide. Following World War II, it was promoted as a wonder-chemical, the simple solution to pest problems large and small. Today, nearly 40 years after DDT was banned in the U.S., we continue to live with its long-lasting effects:
    Food supplies: USDA found DDT breakdown products in 60% of heavy cream samples, 42% of kale greens, 28% of carrots and lower percentages of many other foods.
    Body burden: DDT breakdown products were found in the blood of 99% of the people tested by CDC.
    Health impacts: Girls exposed to DDT before puberty are 5 times more likely to develop breast cancer in middle age, according to the President’s Cancer Panel.”

    Like

  26. Paul Emery Avatar

    So Russ let’s pump it up and encourage C02 for the good of humanity and the planet.

    Like

  27. Russ Steele Avatar

    Paul, Joanne Nova in July 21, 2009 published study examinimg the flow climate change money and examined the Exxon claim. See the bottom half of the post:
    Summary for Policy Makers
    The US government has spent over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, administration, education campaigns, foreign aid, and tax breaks. Despite the billions: “audits” of the science are left to unpaid volunteers. A dedicated but largely uncoordinated grassroots movement of scientists has sprung up around the globe to test the integrity of the theory and compete with a well funded highly organized climate monopoly. They have exposed major
    errors. Carbon trading worldwide reached $126 billion in 2008. Banks are calling for more carbon-trading. And experts are predicting the carbon market will reach $2 – $10 trillion making carbon the largest single commodity traded. Meanwhile in a distracting sideshow, Exxon-Mobil Corp is repeatedly attacked for paying a grand total of $23 million to skeptics—less than a thousandth of what the US government has put in, and less than one five-thousandth of the value of carbon trading in just the single year of 2008.
    The Exxon “Blame-Game” is a Distracting Side Show Much media attention has relentlessly focused on the influence of “Big Oil”—but the numbers don’t add up. Exxon Mobil is still vilified for giving around 23 million dollars, spread over roughly ten years,to skeptics ofthe enhanced greenhouse effect. It amounts to about $2 million a year, compared to the US governmentinput of well over $2 billion a year. [my emhasis]
    The entire total funds supplied from Exxon amounts to less than one five-thousandth of the value of carbon trading in just the single year of 2008. Apparently Exxon was heavily “distorting the debate” with a mere 0.8% of what the US government spent on the climate industry each year at the time. (If so, it’s just another devastating admission of how effective government funding really is.) As an example for comparison, nearly three times the amount Exxon has put in was awarded to the Big Sky sequestration project29 to store just 0.1% of the annual carbon-dioxide output of the United States of America in a hole in the ground.
    The Australian government matched five years of Exxon funding with just one feel-good advertising campaign , “Think Climate. Think Change.” (but don’t think about the details). Perhaps if Exxon had balanced up its input both for and against climate change, it would have been spared the merciless attacks? It seems not, since it has donated more than four times as much to the Stanford-based Global Climate and Energy Project (GCEP). Exxon’sgrievous crime is apparently just to help give skeptics a voice of any sort. The censorship must remain complete.
    /ooo/
    The Exxon “Blame-Game” is a Distracting Side Show
    The vitriol against Exxon reached fever pitch in 2005-2008. Environmental groups urged a boycott of Exxon for its views on Global Warming. It was labeled An Enemy of the Planet.
    James Hansen called for CEOs of fossil energy companies to be “tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.”36 In the next breath he mentioned Exxon. Even The Royal Society, which ought to stand up for scientists and also for impeccable standards of logic, joined the chorus to implore Exxon to censor its speech. The unprecedented letter from the 350-year-old institution listed multiple appeals to authority, but no empirical evidence to back its claim that a link with carbon and temperature was beyond doubt and discussion. The Royal Society claims that it supports scientists, but while it relies on the fallacious argument from authority how will it ever support whistle-blowers who by definition question “authority?”
    While Exxon has been attacked repeatedly for putting this insignificant amount of money forward, few have added up the vested interests that are pro-AGW. Where are the investigative journalists? Money that comes from tax-payers is somehow devoid of corrupting incentives; while any money from Big Oil in a free market for ideas, is automatically a “crime”. The irony is that taxpayers’ money is forcibly removed at the point of a gun , but Exxon has to earn its money through thousands of voluntary transactions. Those who attack Exxon over just $2 million a year are inadvertently drawing attention away from the real power play and acting as unpaid PR agents for giant trading houses and large banks, which could sit a little uncomfortably with greenies and environmentalists. After all, on other days, some of these same groups throw rocks at big bankers.
    The side show of blaming Big Oil hides the truth: that the real issue is whether there is any evidence, and that the skeptics are a grassroots movement that consists of well respected scientists and a growing group of unpaid volunteers.
    The full money report his here, including all the references:
    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf

    Like

  28. George Rebane Avatar

    PaulE 720pm – Discussion on matters of fact and science is futile. The evidence on the utter foolishness of banning DDT is a tsunami. Only government sponsored rear guard publications and lackies are still defending the horrendous loss of life that that misguided policy has caused, and continues as you read this. Yes, very definitely I want to go there.
    “As discussed in JunkScience.com’s “100 Things You Should Know About DDT,” the Rachel Carson-Silent Spring-inspired campaign against DDT was utterly detached from reality. DDT did not cause declines in populations of great birds like the bald eagle and the peregrine falcon. These bird populations were threatened before DDT had even been invented ,thanks to over-hunting, habitat destruction, and egg collectors.”
    For a snootful of the literature on this just google ‘DDT, malaria deaths’.
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,173766,00.html
    And you missed my main point completely.

    Like

  29. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    PaulE uses the old “emotion” argument (a well used lefty tool) and has no facts. I suggest he discuss DDT with Pat Hurley (if I recall his first name correctly) regarding the chemical. He will produce a video of a DDT “supporter actually chugging some. But PaulE will care not, the facts matter not because he uses emotions not facts. And where are those links PaulE that substantiate your claims? You demand them from others, so produce some for us to review.
    DDT would have saved millions of mostly black and brown babies. I think that was the truth behind the “Silent Spring” phony book. Racism. Just like the Sierra Club refusing to take a position on illegal immigration and the damage to the environment those folks were causing. I laughed my ass off when I read that ten or fifteen years ago. What a bunch of hypocrites.

    Like

  30. Bill Tozer Avatar
    Bill Tozer

    Common Core is coming whether you like it or not:
    http://www.nohope.org/index.php/gallery/image/4247-sun-sucks/

    Like

  31. Paul Emery Avatar

    Todd
    Why don’t you raise a pint of DDT yourself to test your point.

    Like

  32. Paul Emery Avatar

    I don’t in any way trust the corporations to make decisions in the best interests of people or the earth. The comparison of corporate opposition to AGW and a similar campaign to discourage tobacco restrictions are real. It there’s a buck to be made hell with peoples health or the environment go for it. Corporations are organisms whose sole purpose is to make money at any cost. The tobacco industry was willing to encourage the addiction of millions of smokers for their profit much like energy corporations looking after their own interests with no regard for the future.

    Like

  33. Gregory Avatar

    DDT is CO2 is Tobacco is Agent Orange is PCBs… big bad corporations against the people? Can’t you tell one from the other?
    The “Increasing CO2 is good for the biosphere” meme is a response to the “CO2 is a pollutant” story. Yes, even at 400ppm plants are not at their best. Again, CO2 in the distant past when plants were evolving was at 2000, 3000, and the earth was once nearly frozen over in the earliest days of the Phanerozoic, with CO2 as high as 8000 ppm. It isn’t a hazardous substance, and Cal OSHA isn’t pissed until 5000ppm is reached in the workplace.
    There will not be a runaway warming; it’s more likely an ice age scare will be underway before the Nov 2016 election. The bad news is that burning fossil fuels, just as it wasn’t the cause of the 20th century warming, won’t be a panacea for a future cooling, although they will make sitting at home or work more comfortable in winter.

    Like

  34. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    I have no desire to chug some DDT PaulE (or smoke your favorite herb). I bet you are a chicken to talk to Pat Hurley because he would destroy your straw man. What a hoot!
    Regarding your opinion on corporations. You say they are only interested in making money and you would be right. That is their purpose. They are mainly concerned with the profit so they can payout the money to PEOPLE who own the corporation (that includes your 401k). I am shocked that you are so naive PaulE.
    Corporations now come in two forms. One that makes money and pays taxes, those are the ones you hate, and the “non-profit” corporations that say they don’t make money and pay no taxes but apparently are OK with you.
    My goodness, I just realized that I heard KVMR was a corporation. Is that true PaulE?

    Like

  35. Paul Emery Avatar

    So Todd it seems that you support corporations that knowingly produce products that cause cancer and addiction and spend millions to influence public opinion about the dangers of their products.

    Like

  36. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    Yeah PaulE, and I support tossing kitties off the cliffs of Dover. You are too funny.

    Like

  37. Paul Emery Avatar

    Isn’t that at least fraud when a company tries to mislead the public about the nature and hazards of their product? In the case of tobacco perhaps it should be murder when you know use of your products will cause death.

    Like

  38. Bill Tozer Avatar
    Bill Tozer

    Common Core is a coming. A bit off topic, but just another angle on what our parents face in our government public school system.. BTW, only 25% or less of public school teachers in Chicago send their own kids to that miserable school district. Seems they have insider information.
    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/07/02/chicago-teachers-union-president-spews-racial-hate-speech-ignores-truth-about/?intcmp=obnetwork

    Like

  39. Gregory Avatar

    “My grandmother likely died from cancer due to DDT poisining. They were small farmers in the 30′ and 40’s when ddt was common on small farms. It does not further your cause to go there.” -Paul Emery
    Paul, looking into this claim more closely, by the wiki DDT was first discovered to be an insecticide in 1939 and didn’t come into common commercial use until the 1950’s. I’ve not a clue what might have been commonly used on small farms in the 30’s and 40’s but I’ll wager a guess it was likely less effective on bugs and more immediately dangerous around people than DDT.

    Like

  40. Gregory Avatar

    “When someone tells boldfaced lies about a matter of public record I feel compelled to correct the record, especially when motivated by pathological malicious intent.”
    Steven Frisch, this thread is where you made your false accusations. Now is a good time to retract them.

    Like

  41. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    Greg, I stand by my comments. You bold-facedly lied here about the representation of my affiliation in The Union and on KVMR, corroborated here by by a direct link to the original editorial, and a quote from the host of the KVMR program. You were not gentleman enough to offer a sincere and full throated retraction or apology; instead using the grudging and limited retraction as an opportunity to change the subject and attack on something else.
    You sir are no gentleman.

    Like

  42. Gregory Avatar

    You sir are an ass. You claimed I’d been lying for three years, and ignored the evidence I gave that disproved that. Nowhere in your editorial did you state your business plans included carbon sequestration schemes, and you were portraying yourself as ‘just a regular guy commenting on what he reads in the papers’ in the blog comments. I did out you as being in that business on The Union comments three years ago, and that pretty much was the start of your being particularly upset with me, and vice versa.
    What I wrote was not a lie three years ago, was not a lie two years ago, and while the error that crept in recently was unfortuate and I did immediately retract it when alerted to that link, it wasn’t a lie then, either.
    You, however, were lying-by-omission in the editorial, in those blog comments, and here. Not because you want to lie on many matters (this I’m willing to believe) but only because you don’t want to tell the whole truth.

    Like

  43. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    Yeah, I don’t think I will give you the thrill this weekend of picking a fight. You’re full of beans about what was said then, I never hid anything, and you attack me [and others] because your life is so empty that the only way you can entertain yourself is through hate. You in serious need mental health care.

    Like

  44. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    [corrected] Yeah, I don’t think I will give you the thrill this weekend of picking a fight. You’re full of beans about what was said then, I never hid anything, and you attack me [and others] because your life is so empty that the only way you can entertain yourself is through hate. You are in serious need of mental health care.

    Like

  45. Gregory Avatar

    I don’t believe I made any claim about KVMR, that was George, Steve, and, I’m not sorry to tell you that my mental health is assessed by a physician certified by the FAA on a regular basis.
    When lobbying against a ballot proposition that affects your business, you didn’t disclose that, and you made a claim you were a regular guy, just reading the news and giving his opinion. Then a couple years later you announce to an entirely different crowd that you’ve been working to help the state write regulations, that you’re an insider helping make things happen.
    They can’t both be true, Steve. I’m on your case because of your multiple faces on public policy and in the blogosphere.
    You’ve made claim I’ve lied for three years, but all you have to back that up is a recent, trivial error that crept in and was promptly retracted. You also claim that I am “in serious need of mental health care”, a purely defamatory statement made by you, a six figure 501c3 CEO.
    Glad to hear that carbon business hasn’t actually generated any revenue, and it probably won’t unless and until those high taxes levied on carbon emissions in California pass muster in the courts as a legal fee rather than a tax.

    Like

Leave a comment