Speaking up against our would be soviet overlords.

Remember kids, "help your parents shop for energy saving appliances"... Also, get them to buy solar panels...

This is quite an interesting website, the most interesting bit is that:

1. It is being actively advertised in other websites (I got there via a link from one)

2. It targets kids.

3. It is a .gov website... meaning it is run by the USA government.


Comments
on Sep 21, 2010

of course.  If you want to change a generation you start with the children.  Old as the hills.    Used to be the parents, family and peers influenced the kids.  In modern times, the government and businesses both seek to take that job away.  There's a clash going on in many households between the parents and the culture like never before. 

Follow the money trail...  it's a war out there!

 

on Sep 21, 2010

One thing both the old USSR and Nazi Germany had in common (and has been noticed and used ever since) is the indoctrination of the children to further the states goals.  it works for awhile.  But then with one exception, eventually the children grow up and realize there is no Santa Claus, it was all just a lie.

But short term (a political term) it works.

on Sep 21, 2010

You're gonna have to forgive me here but I am having a hard time figuring out whats so bad about this site. Sure one would not want our children to be brainwashed but considering our kids already go to public schools run by our Gov't, why is there anything wrong with teaching kids about saving energy?

Normally I agree with you guys and gals but this time I am a bit at a loss here. Perhaps you can point out specifically what is wrong with the site.

I am upset with how our Gov't has been handling things lately but this is my Gov't and compared to many others around the world I would never change it for any other. This Gov't is not entirely bad. So again, a bit more details as to how exactly is it wrong to educate our children with this information? It's not like they can force their parents to give up driving their gas powered vehicles and I seriously doubt children with stop using their favorite electronics simply because they are not solar powered.

on Sep 21, 2010

Chuck, have your kids go hug a polar bear.

Did you ever see "Kindergarten Cop"?  Although in that one, the kids were only taught to yell "stranger danger", the concept is he same.  So what if the kids are taught that AGW is real?  So what if they are told Polar bears are cute and cuddly?  So what when they turn mommy and daddy in for failing to recycle the pop bottles.

They are not going to force the parents to do anything.  The gestapo will when the kids report them.  It already has happened, so the weak pliant of "it can't happen" just does not work any longer.

on Sep 22, 2010

@ChuckUSA:

First and foremost, even if you agree with the message, that doesn't mean its ok for the government to go "around the parents" and brainwash kids with whatever the current majority of Washington politicians think is right. This is "just energy policy"... but such behavior should be opposed in principle in all its forms. (and it does occur in other fields too)

As for the message itself... There is absolutely no reason to conserve energy for the sake of conserving energy (AGW is BS); CFLs use mercury and are bad for the environment and your health when they break, as well as producing dreary light that isn't really helping either (SAD); It extols currently unfeasible technology (the renewable) that causes a lot of damage (wind farms are disastrous for bird populations, etc), it ignores sensible solutions (the greenest energy in the world today is nuclear power... followed by hydroelectric dams, which do have an environmental impact, but a manageable one).

on Sep 22, 2010

I hear 'Earth Day" (Vladimir Lenin's birthday, and no it isn't a coincidence) is getting more and more popular in schools these days.

Interesting article here: http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2010/04/naked-communism-of-earth-day.html

on Sep 22, 2010

Chuck, have your kids go hug a polar bear.

It's funny you say that considering most toys these days promote the idea that things like dinosaurs are fun to play with (if they existed), that it's ok to shoot guns at other people, that cars are meant to be driven fast and that most dangerous animals are actually cute and cuddly. I get your point and I agree but I'm of the mentality that if you are gonna argue against something you can't pick and chose which ones to argue against and which ones to accpet even though they all have the same problem.

Did you ever see "Kindergarten Cop"? Although in that one, the kids were only taught to yell "stranger danger", the concept is he same. So what if the kids are taught that AGW is real? So what if they are told Polar bears are cute and cuddly? So what when they turn mommy and daddy in for failing to recycle the pop bottles.

One of my favorite movies. In the end it's all about what the parents do. If they sit there and not explain these things to children rather than just letting them swallow the information unfiltered then you should be going after the parents, not the Gov't. I can't help but compare this to the whole "don't blame the gun makers for people killing with guns" debate. Again, I get your point and yes the site should not be stating false information or information based on the beliefs (and not necessarily facts) of any member of this Gov't, but I would think it's the parents who should be responsible here.

They are not going to force the parents to do anything. The gestapo will when the kids report them. It already has happened, so the weak pliant of "it can't happen" just does not work any longer.

I guess this could be an issue although I would be amazed to see anyone take the word of a child as proof especially when the child may not know exactly what they are saying or even understand the situation.

I looked at the site and saw things I felt were interesting and important, the trick is to filter out the parts that seem more like opinion rather than fact and educational.

 

on Sep 22, 2010

First and foremost, even if you agree with the message, that doesn't mean its ok for the government to go "around the parents" and brainwash kids with whatever the current majority of Washington politicians think is right. This is "just energy policy"... but such behavior should be opposed in principle in all its forms. (and it does occur in other fields too)

I agree the Gov't should not be promoting opinions based on those running the country at the time but instead should be providing information based on facts but lets not forget that this is the same Gov't in charge of out educational system and as I mentioned in my previous comments we either attack the problem entirely (that the gov't should not be involved in our education) or none at all but not pick on some things and accept others when they all have the same problem.

As for the message itself... There is absolutely no reason to conserve energy for the sake of conserving energy (AGW is BS);

Hmmm, I am gonna have to disagree with on this one. By the same token there is no reason to waste energy just because we can. This is the main problem with this country, the whole concept that it's OK to do things just because we can makes no sense more often than not. Common sense dictates that if you can find a more efficient and safe way to do things then that should be the way to do it. From what I have read CFL light bulbs are not common sense at this point when not only is the content of the bulb dangerous to people who it's in their nature to break things and the product was not made to resist shattering, but have also been linked to making some illnesses even worse such as asthma not to mention that there are also reports that they are not as energy efficient as once believed. Still, I believe there are reasons to save energy just for the sake of saving because there is absolutely no reason to waste it at all.

Thanks for the replies though, the article makes much more sense to me know and I can understand why you posted it and can now agree with you all more. But let's not take the responsibility away from the parent because there are thousands of things out there that can brainwash children, things not necessarily controlled by the Gov't, but it's up to us parents to keep them from brainwashing our children.

on Sep 22, 2010

I guess this could be an issue although I would be amazed to see anyone take the word of a child as proof especially when the child may not know exactly what they are saying or even understand the situation.

Schools already do that (take the word of the child).  Why would it be different just because the subject is different?  Many a court case has been instigated on the basis of a child's testimony - later found to be incorrect. 

Children do not understand, that is why they need to be taught how to learn.  They do not need to be indoctrinated because that is not only not learning, it is also not teaching.

on Sep 29, 2010

Hmmm, I am gonna have to disagree with on this one. By the same token there is no reason to waste energy just because we can. This is the main problem with this country, the whole concept that it's OK to do things just because we can makes no sense more often than not.

I would say that the main problem of this country is that about 50% of us think that everyone BUT THEM is a blithering idiot and MUST be oppressed and controlled, to be protected from themselves, and to be made safe for others.

That freedom is evil and the government must control every aspect of our lives, from our choices in health insurance coverage, to our employment, production, and income (communism)

Still, I believe there are reasons to save energy just for the sake of saving because there is absolutely no reason to waste it at all.

First law of thermodynamics: The law expresses that energy can be transformed, i.e. changed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed. It is usually formulated by stating that the change in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of heat supplied to the system, minus the amount of work performed by the system on its surroundings.

When you are "wasting energy" what are you doing? You are consuming a product. Fossil fuels are nothing but naturally occurring high density and cheap energy stores; carbohydrates from ancient algae that have been preserved through many years. But autotrophes constantly collect more energy from the sun.

In the end, the energy is not produced, it is transformed, the product is "useful energy" (aka electricity). Useful energy is produced (by transforming non useful energy) by people for people. It takes more effort on behalf of humans to transform sun/nuclear energy into useful energy than it does to transform the energy stored in fossil fuels, but so what? you simply pay for it. Money is nothing more or less then a measure of your contribution to that amazing thing called society. You acquire money by doing things for others in society, you spend your money on energy collect and transformed for your use (110 or 220V AC electric current... metered) and use it as you will. I DO conserve energy, because I want to spend the minimum of money (my contribution to society) on paying for energy. But I also weigh it against other costs. I will not pay extra 5$ for a RAM module that will save 0.05$ a year on power (actual costs of a low energy DDR3 RAM module I saw, I made said calculations to decide whether to purchase it or not).

The main claim that people make is that producing energy is !EVIL-BAD TM!... Their argument hinges on a posit that human Carbon Dioxide emissions cause global warming... There are lots and lots of reason why this is utter ballony... and all of them scientific.

I used to be very derisive of anyone who would oppose AGW, because I bought the line of "they are just religious fundamentalists who say God controls the weather, and humans cannot affect it, and they are opposing scientific evidence that shows it does".

As an atheist and a scientist that seemed really REALLY stupid to me... however, my liberal upbringing EXTOLLED the virtue of the Open mind... so I listened with an open mind and found out that opposition to AGW does NOT stem from the above strawman. Just like religious fundamentalists attack strawman (false representations of the other's argument meant to be easily counterable) of evolutionary science, so do communist interested in the destruction of capitalism (and thus, the corporations that represent them) have been using strawman. The actual arguments against AGW are all scientific in nature and often championed by Atheists and Scientists who are sickened at seeing the perversion of science that AGW is.

Political pundits are falsifying evidence, hiding research, ignoring fact, or simply declaring unresearched opinions as scientifically proven fact.

The claimed that the Himalayas are melting... A college student INVENTED that with 0 research, it was published in his college newspaper (not an actual scientific publication)... the politicians in the IPCC (which outnumber the scientists in the IPCC 5 to 1) read it and decided to publish it as fact.

The head of the hurricane research department of the IPCC quit in rage, in his letter of resignation he said that he and his team found NO CONNECTION between so called rising temperatures and increased hurricane activity... but that the IPCC politicians simply took their reports, ignored them, and told the media that they found that it DOES cause an increase.

The dean of the geoscience department of (IIRC) the university of massechusets did not quit his position in the IPCC, but did go to the media himself saying how the politicians in the IPCC are misrepresenting their results, and explaining in detail what they found (which is zilch). He is currently in the IPCC and goes out and contradicts the "official stance" of the IPCC (compiled by the politicians that run it, not the scientists who are members in it).

Then there is the issue with shutting down 3/4s of the USA's weather monitoring stations... all of which in colder /cooling areas. The fact that solar activity about matches the temperature.

the fact that carbon dioxide is 0.036% of out atmosphere, but that earth wasn't much hotter when it was nearly 20% way back in its early days. That there has never been a reproducible lab test tying carbon dioxide to temperature (even though we have reproducible lab tests showing spontaneous formation of basic biological compounds in artificially replicated primordial soup conditions)

That sun activity was causing the frozen carbon dioxide poles on mars to melt in conjunction with temperature changes here. That we have been having repeated periods of cooling and heating in the past century alone (in the 1970s they wanted to paint the poles black to stop global cooling... which was supposedly caused by the same emissions now causing global warming)

Oh, and let us not forget, humans emit 3% of the total carbon dioxide that is emitted into the atmosphere every year... almost half of it from breathing (we oxidize sugars to produce water and carbon dioxide) and the other half from our industry... Vulcanos, undergrown coal fires, etc account for the other 97%. The USA has spent a LOT of money and effort (and lives, its dangerous work) chocking and forcing some of its underground coal smoldering fires to extinguish. If the chinese do the same they could reduce global emissions from natural sources of carbon dioxide by more than 5 times the total human production (we can't really staunch vulcanoes though... nor should we)...

It should be noted that carbon dioxide is absolutely VITAL for plant life... We pump it into greenhouses to increase yields, and any time there is an increase, it merely results in a surge in autotroph population. (some of which CAN be bad though, such as algeal blooms)...

Anyways, the list goes on and on. If there IS a real HUMAN CAUSED global warming issue, it is being discredited most by those so called "supporters" of the "cause" with their clumsy attempts at misdirection and falsification (which are eventually caught). But in truth, they are mostly opponents of "greed" (read: they hate businesses with a passion) and simply use AGW as a blunt instrument to force extra taxation and limitation to harm them.

on Sep 29, 2010

oops

Meta
Views
» 267
Comments
» 11
Category
Sponsored Links