Here is the error in context of Laurie David's book...

Deep down in the Antarctic ice are atmosphere samples from the past, trapped in tiny air bubbles. These bubbles, formed when snowflakes fell on the ice, are the key to figuring out two things about climate history: what temperatures were in the past and which greenhouse gases were present in the atmosphere at that time.

The more the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the higher the temperature climbed. The less carbon dioxide, the more the temperature fell. You can see this relationship for yourself by looking at the graph:

(if you would like to see the graph that goes here please go to )

Reply: its also on the link I posted. Brett

What makes this graph so amazing is that by connecting rising CO2 to rising temperature scientists have discovered the link between greenhouse-gas pollution and global warming.�
___________
While it is agreed upon that the graph was mislabled by those who uncovered the error and by the author, the text was also erred. David admitted to the swapping of lables on the graph but contended that the text that went with was correct. This is not so. Instead of saying that the more co2 was in the air the higher the temp went, it should have been written in reverse. He implies a relationship that is simply not true. Whether intentional or not, this needs to be admitted by him, and it needs to be corrected. If he fails to do that, it will make me certain that it was an intentional error. Otherwise very careless on his part.

Reply: David is a woman Elliot

laurie David: Why am I not surprised? These "skeptics" have grown so predictable.
Reply: Laurie makes a very good point here, but not in the way that alarmist's can identify with. Namely, that they trot out untruth's or theories claimed as fact, then the realists shoot them down with real facts. Of course when you come out with lies someone is going to correct you! Get used to it, there's much more coming.
I doubt that it was a mistake, and she knew she could just claim as much if and when it was caught, thereby generating more publicity which is the lifeblood of the cult.

I suspect it was an innocent error on the part of the publisher and or editor. It is not unusual for first editions of books to have errors in them. Editors or peer reviews should be checking for these types of things.

It is good that SPPI checked this out and reported it. However, it is hardly news worthy.

On the other hand, SPPI appears to have a thing about global warming. For example, they have unfairly criticized the IPCC. Wether they like it or not, it is an accepted scientific finding that our current global warming is due to the emission of greenhouse gases, CO2 and CH4. That is just the way the physics of greenhouse gases work.

Finally as an aside, I have started to read the IPCCs other reports. The one I generally refer to is the working group 1 report on the physical science basis. There are also reports by working group 2 on the impact of global warming and working group 3 on mitigation.

Anyhow, as some on this blog know I have expressed concern about the impact of global warming on agriculture since everybody needs to eat. Well, believe it or not the IPCC WG2 report states that agriculture output should actually increase with global warming up to about 3C of warming. Beyond that and output is expected to fall.

So, this is good news!

Global warming will still have negative impacts on wildlife, extreme weather and sea levels. However, the most dangerous negative impact of global warming for humans should not happen for over a century from now and who knows, we may even be able to limit CO2 emissions enough to keep agriculture output from declining.

Is the SPPI correct in their specific claim that the red line on the graph is actually climate temperture and the blue line is CO2 levels? If so, then the text in the book is clearly in conflict with the correctly labeled graph. To claim this is a minor mistake is laughable.

Brett,

How blatant can you get? From the text, the book was absolutely trying to create the impression that the Vostok ice cores show that CO2 drives the temperature.

I'm guessing your kids are young. There are enough idiotic left-wing agendas in the educational system already. We don't need any more.

Using the term "innocent boys and girls" is no worse than "mislabeling" a graph in a book. Reply: I am not comparing the two, and I am not implying that. Brett. What AGW is proposing are huge changes in the way we live our life... that isn't light or casual reading if you ask me. Errors are what made me wonder if the science was actually "settled" to begin with. How big was the graph in relation to the text?
Is this the actual text of the book? :
"The more the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the higher the temperature climbed. The less carbon dioxide, the more the temperature fell. You can see this relationship for yourself by looking at the graph. What makes this graph so amazing is that by connecting rising CO2 to rising temperature scientists have discovered the link between greenhouse-gas pollution (sic) and global warming.?

Doesn't sound like it was any different than the graph to me?

I've read blogs from other AGW sites where 6 year olds have actually written, "Please stop global warming, I don't want to die". Very sad.

This is clearly an attempt to indoctrinate, not educate. Recruiting young, impressionable people now will give the forces that make up this crazy world future dividends by creating strength in numbers. Kind of like the tobacco industry going after young smokers and getting them "hooked". They will eventually use their unified voices to manipulate global legislature, which will fortify the thrust of this agenda. Laurie David is not the only one to utilize false and misleading information. It is everywhere, in politics, economics, science, religion, government, etc. and it is gaining strength.

We are on the precipise of very difficult times. Just look around you. I honestly believe that the AGW movement will win. Regardless, stay vigilant, it is just a piece to the puzzle.

Deception is easily achieved by those who are blind and ignorant to the truth.

Im not worried about the error in the book. It was probably just an honest mistake but who would write a childrens book about global warming? Seriously, who would buy that?

I don't know any child that cares about AGW and even knows what C02 is. No parent goes to the store and says "look, let's waste money on that book so little jonny can learn about C02 emission causing climate change." Kids are interested in candy and toys, not climate.

Mabye the AGW'ers are realizing that their numbers are falling? I do notice a trend in my generation of future climate scientists. We are mostly skeptics. That might not sound good to some of you, sorry but thats the truth.

One other thing, would this book be considered fiction or non-fiction? I seriously want to know that one.

Why should a children's book on GLO-BULL warming strive for anymore accuracy than Hansen, Jones or Micheal Mann achieve in their " peer reviewed " trash?
Anyone watching the uncovering of the Hansen shuffle over at Climate Audit? Hansen is busy torturing the temperature data until it yields the answer he wants.
Great science for sure.

Snow here in Calgary Brett, good job & keep it coming.

Reply: Any accumulation at your place Rick? Brett

Rick.

I don't for a moment believe this was an innocent error. David was the producer of Al Gore's dumb science fiction flic AIT. She still stands behind the crap in that story.
We have been suffering this lunacy for a generation now. Brainwashing 6 year olds now will pay big dividends in less than 15 years.
Hitler knew this, Liberals use this tactic all the time. It is a proven method of affecting social revolution.
These people are not stupid and they know exactly what they are doing. They would not make dumb errors like that unintentionsllly.

Here is a good example of political indoctrination in public schools. The University of Colorado is hosting a discussion tomorrow called "Climate Change: Is It Debatable?"

The problem is they only invited panelists from one side of the argument. Then in the description of the discussion they frame it as "scientists vs. others." Pretty sick that they are using taxpayer money to push propaganda. If they are so sure of their position, they should invite open discussion - not try to stifle it and manipulate the audience. Why didn't they invite Dr. Pielke or Dr. Gray? They have one of the world's leading climate experts right on campus.

http://ucblibraries.colorado.edu/news/
Science or politics? Scientists say climate change is a reality we must come to terms with, while others suggest that more study is needed. Is more discussion what we need or it is time to focus on action? And who decides what we do next? Come hear the response of our panel members to these questions and more.

Join the discussion with our panelists:

Dr. Chuck Kutscher from the National Renewable Energy Lab
Lisa Dilling from CIRES
Diane Dandeneau from ConservEd/Interfaith Power and Light

Tuesday, September 25, 7 - 9:00 p.m.
CU-Boulder Norlin Library�s Center for British and Irish Studies 5th Floor

Hyperbole aside (including the "innocent" remark and Brett's response), it simply points (for the zillionth time) out the fact that AGWers are using the Big Lie propaganda tactics to cover the fact that they have no real scientific support.

No children, taking a few data points and drawing a line to fit your theory is not science. Neither is making up beyond worst case, hyperextreme scenarios and then touting them as truth. Actually, the "innocent" remark is only a fraction of the usual AGW hyperbole.

Error's are error's intentional or not. The problem I see with the whole AGW/GHG arguement is this: Is or is Not the Earth a Living Symbiotic Synergistic System? That is to say I am firmly rooted in the idea that the Earth is a Living Entity and NOT a mechanical one. To reduce the earth's weather to simply a mechanical system fly's in the face of the sacred nature of life itself. The atmosphere is a living extention of the oceans, thus the two are alive with life. I suggest we all examine the possibility ( probability) that weather is also drivin by Natural Living Things contending with the Un-natural Man Made impacts such as pollution and electromagnetic smog. Ice core samples also show a higher quantity of carbon particulates and CO2 imediately preceeding Ice Ages....curious stuff indeed...

Some people see that increases in CO2 cause global warming; some people see a conspiracy;

For me, what is clear is that CO2 and temperature changes fluctuate, and this is all part of a normal cycle. The notion that we are approaching a tipping point is discredited with this graph, no matter how you draw it.

No accumulation at our house but several places surrounding my part of town were either at higher elevations & colder or had the snow coming down harder & it was building up on cars, grass etc.
The ground is still too warm for the snow to have any hope of staying but those days are numbered & we are heading into winter quickly. Calgary is weird in that we often experience almost no fall but get on the cold side of the jet stream in October & then it's more wintery than fall like.
We do get some mind blowing Chinooks but they seem to show up after January. Although as you know better than I the weather rules were made to be broken.
Be good,
Rick.

I am shocked to read that the Feather Bed Lane Nursery School Peer reviewers for AGW have again missed another one. They must have been busy auditing Mann’s latest work or trying to invent new numbers for Hansen’s latest attempt at scientific misconduct.
But the AGW crowd is right when it comes to lies, make it appear everywhere. And for kids?…..I see they are taking the same approach that NAMBA has. “Get them by eight, before it’s too late. How can anybody defend this “mistake”?
Just how many times can AGW work be proven inaccurate or down right lies before you AGW groupies realize you are being taken for mindless dupes, willing to accept garbage and defend it with fanatically religious zeal? If you need to feel guilty and suffer become a painter and leave the rest of us alone.
Thirty years of a mythical warming trend…. and the children shall lead the way.
Innocent errors? LOL!! Let the insanity continue!

the close relationship between CO2 and temperature

The close relationship she is talking about is analogous to a horse pulling a cart. Would you teach children that the cart pushes the horse forward?

People convinced that their belief system is critical to the survival of the planet are a threat to us all. Our children deserve to be taught to think for themselves.

Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski has an excellent article posted at http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm that refutes the use of ice cores to determine ancient levels of co2. It's a must read!
Jim

As I was looking at the 'corrected' graph it appeared to me that increases in CO2 concentration were followed by an increase in temperature. The reason for this is I was reading the graph from left to right, where the left side of the graphic is the past and the right side is the present (I'm pretty sure this is the conventional way you present anything with a time component). So as I looked closer I noticed that the time axis was the reverse. It was like looking at a map where the top of the page was south.(very disorienting)
I know this is a minor but it appears to me that the 'corrected' graph actually suggests to the casual reader that CO2 increases lead to temperature increases. I still think the corrected graph is still very misleading, especially for kids who often tend to be visual learners.
Be forwarned 'visual' learners - read the axis titles closely. Am I the only one that noticed this?

"Hansen is busy torturing the temperature data until it yields the answer he wants."

Really? How much has Hansen increased the temperature? GISS numbers match staelite numbers, so did Hansen get his hands on the satelites too? What about the other data sets? Is Hansen causing species to change migration patterns? Is Hansen melting the icecaps with a hair-dryer? What about world glaciers? Please, you seem to have uncovered the conspiracy. How's he doing it?

Clearly the fact that someone over at climate audit doesn't understand what Hansen did is proof that the globe is actually cooling!!!

"For me, what is clear is that CO2 and temperature changes fluctuate, and this is all part of a normal cycle."

The current CO2 increase is caused by the burning of fossil fuels and is not part of a natural cycle, so comparisons to past climate can't tell us everything. But CO2 does cause warming--this is undisputed. Te amount of wamring for a doubling--climate sensitivity--is hard to pin down, but is likely between 2`C and 4`C.

Since the author, Laurie David, is a "global warming activist" it comes as no surpise that her book leads its young readers to accept, as fact, what is indeed fictional.

This book should be carefully placed on the children's shelf in libraries right next to the story about Henny Penny and the falling sky.

............before a single copy reaches any more innocent boys and girls. What do they think is in this book? Dirty pictures, slang? Give me a break!

Brett, the folks at SPPI may have used innocent to mean impressionable. While it is by no means statistically significant, we got a taste of that in our family recently. My H.S. junior niece's class was shown "An Inconvenient Truth" by a teacher and if my niece is to be believed every single student took Al Gore as authoritative, and reacted fearfully. Mind-lock set in almost instantly. When her father suggested she gather information from other sources, she refused to believe that the film might not be the final and complete answer on AGW.

Brett:

Thanks for pointing out that the Huffington post is a left of center blog. Just for the record, by her own comments, the blog is actually out near the left field wall.

I wonder who funded this certain to be Pulitzer prize winning book from David? We all know that the best way for an AGW minded group to validate another AGW effort is to give it some sort of award.

As far as the error in the book, I sincerely doubt it was an error in their minds when they wrote it. It only became an error when it was pointed out to be propaganda and not factual.

It should also be noted that Ariana Huffington used to be a hardcore conservative.