Look what I just received in my work mailbox -- from the Heartland Institute

They must have a lot of money to send hard-copies out, unsolicited, mind you, to random university professors.

Or, they possibly know that I teach intro Chemistry, so they hope I will use the book to indoctrinate unsuspecting freshmen students.

In any case, if sending out copies is the only way to get the book into the hands of "readers" it doesn't make a good case for the book.

Of course, they no longer disclose their funding sources. The Koch brothers used to be on their donor list, however.

That's apparently where AWG denier money is spent -- to change the hearts and minds of university professors.

 

No scientist or professor worth his tenure would ever challenge AGW. It's just not allowed.

 

I am a Chemist, not a climate scientist. And I don't teach pro or contra AGW in my class, I teach science based on facts. I teach my students to be critical thinkers, whether that relates to the saturation of the CO2 dose response curve in plants (against AGW denier argument of "the plants soak up all the CO2"), or the heat capacity of ocean water and polar ice, which acts as huge buffer against global warming (a valid AGW denier argument).

I find it funny, though, that you don't wonder about a political organization trying to politically influence professors, using large donor money.

 

I don't wonder about people with too much money and spare time trying to influence any side of any issue including climate change. Bribery is what makes the world go round.

 

You don't worry about propaganda material written as a scientific book in disguise that is rather trying to push political agenda rather than scientific facts?

 

Publishers typically send unsolicited stuff in the hopes that it will be used in the class. One professor with 200 students is 200 books sold per academic year.

I once helped out with a book fair for teachers from a well known university press, and the presenter arrived with about five huge boxes filled with all sorts of teaching aids, textbooks, etc. etc. that were given away during the fair. Those of us who stayed behind to clean up the mess were given whatever was left.

Another dude whose job was to shill for his publisher told me on the side that a teacher with enough students could make a side deal for everything from a night out on the town boozing it up, to a trip to the university, or maybe even some female companionship for a night.

 

What is the NIPCC? It comes up as the Northern Illinois Postal Customer Council, or Nagoya International Personal Computer Club

 

Oh give me a break. Everyone wants to influence that debate because, in the end, its all about power.
And of course no one claims that plants soak up all the CO2.

 

Say, you are exactly whom I want to talk to.

Since you teach Chemistry, and I took Chemistry long ago in college, explain where this Carbon Dioxide gas is some are so fearful of?

I can't find any level where it is located. I know the gas is heavier than air by a lot. So much so, I see how it sinks. Why it is excellent for plants and easily absorbed by the ocean.

But nothing I find shows where this heavy gas is. They talk of the green house blanket. I get that.

Why would a teacher call posters a denier?

Deny what exactly? Deny man is to blame?

We did experiments in college Chemistry. What experiment demonstrates that Carbon Dioxide is widely dispersed rather than being found at the lowest levels?

Why too is this a recent form of discussion? I studied global weather in 1980 and nobody at that time claimed man was ruining the atmosphere and must be tarred and feathered, that dastardly human.

I have seen many university professors that know the subject allege we need not fear. Must i call them all liars?

 

Quantum nerd, if you do not teach pro or con AGW, how can you find fault with a book publisher?

In one fashion I get the idea by you not taking a stand & you are neutral, yet you talk like you are all in for some of the science community that wants us to look scared out of our wits.

Frankly that is not me. i don't find scaring humans at all amusing.

An interesting thing happened at a forum. The debate had 3 and 3 as for and against AGW.

On the pro side, only one scientist gave his arguments. His two helpers were not climate scientists.

They opposed two genuine scientists and one very interested woman.

You would think settled science gave the win to the two scientists who blame humans for the dastardly deed of warming Earth.

But at the end, believe it or not, the one scientist that finds he is not one bit concerned took the win.

I posted the link to the debate in the past post. Check it out.

 

Yep. Challenging thought is a dangerous thing.

 

God. Just stop. If you wish to "challenge" gravity or relativity or AGW or evolution, then submit your paper for peer review. Shoving leaflets in professors' mailboxes is not the way to engage in discourse.

 

I have never read the book and after the reviews doubt i shall.

But this is a fair and balanced review.

https://www.amazon.com/Scientists-D...=why+scientists+disagree+about+global+warming

 

We face two primary existential threats today: Islamic terrorists obtaining nuclear capabilities, and AGW/ocean acidification.

 

When I shut the door in a Mormon's face, it's not because I fear being "challenged."

 

How can I find fault with the publisher?

"The Heartland Institute’s mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. Those solutions include parental choice in education, market-based approaches to environmental protection, privatization of public services, and deregulation in areas where property rights and markets do a better job than government bureaucracies."

In other words, it is not the science and facts, but rather the promotion of pro-market policies that are the driver behind the book. it is propaganda veiled in the appearance of a genuine textbook.

That's what I have a problem with.

 

The reason CO2 does not sink to the ground is because the kinetic energy of the gas particles is higher than the potential energy of the gravity well of the earth, attracting the CO2 to the bottom. Now, both O2 and CO2 adhere to the exponential altitude formula, both with different exponential altitude distributions, meaning that CO2 is slightly more concentrated close to the ground than at higher altitudes. However, there will be no gas separation. Read up on the kinetic gas theory, if you are interested.

 

Oh sure. Because you told us so.

Frankly, Islamists need currently do no more than simply flock to our shores. Where Democrats will welcome them still believing in Islam. Islam teaches them to kill us. Democrats, heads in the sand, plan to ignore it until it is too late.

Democrats use science as a cudgel. To be used politically. To whip humans into a frenzy driving them this way or that way, but always the way Democrats want them driven. They are relentless in their pursuit of human control. What they forget is that they too are getting controlled. This reminds me of the movie where This guy was supposed to die on a date certain and had accepted it until a point where he then decided to escape. What a trip he was on.

 

What power? I don't have power to make policy, so why would I try to influence?

My opinion is that policy discussion does not belong in the science classroom. There is nothing wrong, however, to clarify misconceptions on both sides of the aisle, and there are plenty. I will not shy away from telling students that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, if they ask me. That behavior just follows from the IR absorption spectrum of CO2, which is not up to political debate but a fact established since 100 years.

 

Have you reviewed the study that demonstrated causation between man made CO2 emissions and global warming?

 

Nasa does not waste money sending that out

 

Yes, I get tons of intro chem textbook samples sent to me. With a class of 1,100, there is a lot of money to be made. Receiving a anti-AGW book, however, is a first.

 

Well, you took off your chemists hat and plopped on your Democrat hat.

I read a review of a man that really read the book and posted his more than excellent review.

When a person tells me they are a chemist and I ask a very simple question, then they go political on me, I know what I am dealing with.

In fairness to Nerd, he did explain why carbon dioxide achieves altitude though still sinks to earth ... so i withdraw the Democrat hat complaint.

 

Then you know this is pretty much par for the course. Sure, it's an anti-AGW book. You look at the cover, and throw it away. You do the same for a ton of different books, and this is no different.

How many pro-AGW books do you get?

 

Gravity is not controversial. AGW is. So stop copying others as putting them both in the same category. Its a weak ploy to intimidate others from examining and challenging the thoughts and opinions of others.