Teaching against climate change deniers

“The tragic aspect of all such eco-brainwashing is that the scientific method is being bastardized as our students are being told what to think, not how to think.”

Brian Sussman writes at Human Events,

This month, the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), a nonprofit group that denounces intelligent design and supports evolution-only curricula in the classroom, is expanding its mission. The organization is determined to silence global warming deniers, and is unfurling an aggressive effort to teach America’s schoolchildren that climate change is real and is being caused by human activity…

The NCSE has created a website filled with propaganda aimed at equipping educators with rhetoric to denounce what they describe as, “The Pillars of Climate-Change Denial.” The pillars are actually an accurate self-indictment of the global warming movement. For example, the first pillar states deniers believe, “Climate change is bad science”…

As a prime example of what the NCSE intends, the University of California at Berkeley operates the website GlobalWarmingKids.net. On the site, instructors can order “Global Warming for Young Minds,” a handbook aimed at 6- to 10-year-olds. It also offers “Let’s Stop Climate Change” DVDs, in which Simon the hippopotamus encourages children to take action against the dangers presented by global warming.

In the class projects section of a similar website, HotStuffChillOut.org, school kids are told, “We all know about climate change. We all know what to expect. Now we must act”…

Read Sussman’s entire commentary.

2 thoughts on “Teaching against climate change deniers”

  1. The theory of evolution was possible once people started to understand geological time. Billions of years would allow adaption to chance events to sculpt the beautiful interrelations of species in the world. Critics said the word of God as expressed in the bible should be taken literally. Evolution is not religion in any sense of the word.

    Climate change skepticism isn’t the same. The argument is that conclusions from climate change research are not robust. The Hockey Stick was a spurious result from pounding too hard on the data. I though that one could put gases into a container and measure the change in spectrum between incoming light and transmitted light. Such data could be fed into super computers and implications drawn. I was willing to let others do the actual calculations as my PC is not quite a super computer.

    I was disappointed when I saw the graphs of spectrum changes from Carbon Dioxide. Then I recalled that Hansen said that an interaction between Caron Dioxide, a trace gas, and water vapor in cloud formation was needed, and the non-signal from satellites continued. Nobody claimed Climate Change violated God’s word. People do say that all research supported by Oil companies has to be rejected because Oil Companies have not been ordained in the Climate Change Sect. The religious component of the Climate Change resides in the followers of Hansen.

    It is a shame that NCSE conflates the science of evolution with the hype of Climate Change. And that Mark, above, says in effect that all statement, particularly about evolution, are just religion.

  2. And, according to their form 990 (Schedule A, Part II, Section A, Line 6), they have received over $4 million in public support (i.e., the government).

    How much do YOU guys get? (Bah ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!)

    This for a “non profit” that has as its main purpose is to keep evolution in science high school classes (which sounds kind of like a religious viewpoint to me).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.