The Attacks on Climate Science Education Are Picking Up Steam

Wed, 2011-08-10 07:22Chris Mooney
Chris Mooney's picture

The Attacks on Climate Science Education Are Picking Up Steam

A few months back, those who care about accurate climate science and energy education in high school classes registered a minor victory. Under fire from outlets like The New York Times, the education publishing behemoth Scholastic (of Clifford the Big Red Dog and Harry Potter fame) pulled an energy curriculum sponsored by the American Coal Foundation, which gave a nice PR sheen to coal without bothering to cover, uh, the whole environmental angle. The curriculum had reportedly already been mailed to 66,000 classrooms by the time it got yanked.

When it comes to undermining accurate and responsible climate and energy education at the high school level, Scholastic may have been the most prominent transgressor. But precisely because it is a massive and respected educational publisher, and actually cares what The New York Times thinks, it was also the most moderate and easy to reason with.

Although it’s hard to find online now, I’ve reviewed the offending coal curriculum, entitled “The United States of Energy.” In my view, it didn’t even contain any obvious falsehoods—except for errors of omission. It was more a case of subtle greenwashing.

What’s currently seeping into classrooms across the country is far, far worse—more ideological, and more difficult to stop. We’re talking about outright climate denial being fed to students—and accurate climate science teaching being attacked by aggressive Tea Party-style ideologues.

Science magazine just released a report on the state of affairs out there in this place called America, and it’s ugly. From the piece:

It’s very difficult when we, as science teachers, are just trying to present scientific facts,” says Kathryn Currie, head of the [Los Alamitos High School’s] science department. And science educators around the country say such attacks are becoming all too familiar. They see climate science now joining evolution as an inviting target for those who accuse “liberal” teachers of forcing their “beliefs” upon a captive audience of impressionable children.

Evolution is still the big one, but climate change is catching up,” says Roberta Johnson, executive director of the National Earth Science Teachers Association (NESTA) in Boulder, Colorado. An informal survey this spring of 800 NESTA members found that climate change was second only to evolution in triggering protests from parents and school administrators. One teacher reported being told by school administrators not to teach climate change after a parent threatened to come to class and make a scene. Online message boards for science teachers tell similar tales…

There seems to be a lynch-mob hate against any teacher trying to teach climate change,” says Andrew Milbauer, an environmental sciences teacher at Conserve School, a private boarding school in Land O’Lakes, Wisconsin.

How to fight this? 

That’s very difficult because, as the Science piece notes, you can’t use the First Amendment. It only bans teaching religion in classrooms, and it is hard to claim that climate change denial—unlike evolution denial—is fundamentally religious in nature. I wouldn’t want to have to argue that case in court.

But while not religiously impelled in a traditional sense, the conservative activists who are attacking the teaching of climate science at the grassroots do fit a familiar profile. We’ve gotten to know them very well by now.

They are hierarchical in outlook, and tend to deny all manner of environmental risks. They often believe that climate science is part of a global conspiracy to impose a statist economy. And of course, they are often conservative white men like Jeffrey Barke, the Los Alamitos Unified School District board of education member who has placed this school at the center of attacks on accurate climate science teaching.

These people are nothing if not highly politicized and emotional. Here’s Barke in his own words:

Most teachers are left to center, and if we leave it to teachers to impose their liberal views, then it would make for an unbalanced lesson,” Barke said. “Some people believe that global warming is a crock of crap, and others are zealots.” 

What is the case for not letting people like Barke influence young students?

Simple: When a political fight erupts at a school over the teaching science, students are effectively being taught to tie science together with emotional, politicized reasoning processes–the way the adults who are interefering in the curriculum have already done in their own minds.

That’s precisely the opposite of what we want to be instilling in young brains. Students ought to be learning to think critically, to be dispassionate and apportion their beliefs to the evidence. 

Attacks on climate science in schools aren’t just interferences with teaching, then. By supplying teenagers with politicized misinformation, you’re prepping them to have the kinds of emotionally driven argumentative responses that make our public discourse at the national level so fruitless. 

You’re not just instilling denial. You’re creating the next generation of political dysfunction.

You’re not teaching kids to think, you’re teaching them to shout.

Comments

The Tea Party (and the Maine Republican state party) has a plank to investigate climate scientists. The ludicrous and incompetent pursuit of Mann, who worked at UVa for a while early in the last decade continues even after most of what AG Cuccinelli requested was shot down by the Judge Peatross.

Now a bizarre investigation of a wildlife biologist is underway. Dr. Monnett co-authored a paper noting the observation of 4 drowned polar bears, published in 2006. The IG interrogated him at length yesterday for the 2cd time. He is suspended with pay -- but has not been told what he is being investigated for. Although the BOEMRE (successor to MMS, notorious for partying with the mining companies it leases to) said that Monnett was suspended for investigation of a different matter, many of the questions are reported as concerning the 2006 paper.

Some of the earlier questions said "statisticians" had checked the "arithmetic" in the 2006 paper. Sen. Inhofe has just sent a letter to BOEMRE. There is a whiff of the same cast of characters involved who are behind the Va pursuit of Dr. Mann. I have a strong hunch what "scientist" provided the balderdash for the Va AG.

Not a coincidence that papers, inherently simple and scientifically uncontroversial, were picked by Al Gore for his movie. The "hockey stick" and the "drowning polar bears" became poster boys for global warming. Dr. Monnett and his colleague Dr. Gleason had no idea that would happen when they published their observation of dead bears floating in the Arctic sea.

I wonder why Barke things most teachers are left of center? Are those in the middle and to the right of center not taking up teaching, and if so, why not--do they think teaching is not important? Is there a conspiracy to keep out most who are not left of center? It might be interesting to quiz Barke on this and see how far down the rabbit hole he drops.

This reminds me of some of the episodes in Garwood"s excellent book, Flat Earth, where flat earthers were saying the school system, full of corrupt people, are teaching young people a lie and it was their (flat earthers) duty to teach young people the truth so they would not be brainwashed by a worldwide conspiracy. The parallels with creationist techniques are obvious, as Garwood highlights numerous times, but the parallels with deniers are now evident even though she was not writing with that particular group of deniers in mind.

O/T: anyone else unable to use the apostrophe in the comments? It just does not register, not even a blank space e.g. dont, cant Ive, or as the above Garwood *apostrophe* s to signal possession.

hasnt worked for a long time. Its annoying. Ive a Mac.

"O/T: anyone else unable to use the apostrophe in the comments? It just does not register, not even a blank space e.g. dont, cant Ive,"

Yep, same thing from my Ipad.

Don't can't I've - from the iPod touch.

Self correcting text thingy

The apostrophe thing is an old complaint here. Who has time to fix such small problems when there is a world to save?

They're too busy trying to block IP addresses and deleting comments from their critics.

Consider yourself banned for complaining.

But a well resources astroturfer like you was easily able to find yourself another IP address to troll from.

Incidentally, the blogs on WUWT "disproving" the science behind AGW run counter to the mainstream view, so are by definition controversial, yet the posters are remorselessly on message. Do you ever wonder what's up with that?

I hate "on message" commenters. That gets boring real fast which is probably the reason I dont comment or read wuwt.

The only value in cheering on the article is stroking someones ego. If what they said was so perfect - let it stand on its own.

Internet comments should only be used to offer a viewpoint that isnt already there.

So basically I agree with you and I am breaking my own rule - cause Im that bad.

"They're too busy trying to block IP addresses and deleting comments from their critics."

Only from people that impersonate others for the purpose of smear. There is nothing added to the debate when people do that. It's just smear.

"They're too busy trying to block IP addresses and deleting comments from their critics."

Maybe because this is you.

"AMA: I was a paid Internet troll"

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread738780/pg1

Excerpt from your post:

"For almost five years, I was a paid Internet troll. Yes, I admit.

But first let me state that I never performed my job here on ATS, though I believe I have occasionally seen a handful on here who were using a script similar to what I was assigned.

I cannot and will not name names, but after an internship at a firm with government and political party (Republican) contracts, I was offered the position of "Online Communications Associate" at another company by someone from the original firm for which I interned. My contract completed one year ago, and I have since moved on.

Utilizing six artificial personas, I was active in social networks and bulletin boards. But since I came to love and respect this site, as I stated, I never performed my functions here. Each week, I and presumably several others, were provided with information to use in our online postings. At first the information was comprised of fully conceived scripts, but as I became more and more experienced, it eventually became simple bullet or talking points.

At first I needed to provide links to my postings, but when the company name changed (never knew the real names of any people there), that requirement stopped.

The pay wasn't very good, but since I was working from my apartment, I suppose it wasn't bad and I was able to do several other writing assignments on the side.

AMA"

"My script was completely focused on politics, generally supporting just about any extreme conservative position. I never received anything outside that thematic."

Dude, that is soooo you.

*thinks* (sigh)

My relative is about to help on such a project. Should I tell him/her the risks?

“tend to deny all manner of environmental risks”

Deny the risks, or point out the impossibility of quantifying them with any reasonable degree of certainty?

I’d be happier if high school science curriculum equipped students with the ability to explain basic concepts like the laws of thermodynamics, Newtonian physics, the EM spectrum, structure and function, etcetera then regurgitate algore’s talking points.

God forbid we have truly literate people … that’s just a bunch of affluent conservative white male talk!

Dear Mike,

It is simply not true to say that it is impossible to quantify a range of environmental risks. Many,many cases can be put forward such as acid rain, ocean acidification, biodiversity loss, deforestation, ozone depletion etc etc. All of these risks have been and are being assessed using well-worn concepts of scientific uncertainty.One such recent attempt to quantify a range of environmental risks that draws on a huge amount of excellent scientific work is the planetary boundaries findings linked here(goes through to the full scientific paper as published in Nature:

http://www.stockholmresilience.org/download/18.8615c78125078c8d3380002197/ES-2009-3180.pdf

We are sure of a remarkable work done and idea that those who have come of age but who lack practical experience will be able to engage in and benefit from moral inquiry on two fronts.  People are grateful for competent ideas and clever materials. Not so many are aware of this fact. Reasonable papersmart.net professional essay writers are not likely to be underestimated in future.

"And of course, they are often conservative white men like Jeffrey Barke, the Los Alamitos Unified School District board of education who has placed this school at the center of attacks on accurate climate science teaching."

Chris are you saying that the ratio of conservative men of black, hispanic, asian and other non-white ethnicity is different than that of conservative white men with respect to climate science views? That's the impression you're giving by only mentioning conservative white men. Your link does not show the ratios of non-white conservatives. Why not?

Left-wingers can't keep themselves from race-baiting.

It's what they do.

And your evidence for that cheap shot is?

To give you an idea what I mean by evidence, here are some examples of racism from the tea-party:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S38VioxnBaI

http://www.teapartynationalism.com/the-reportbriall-of-tea-party-nationalismi

control the conversation via the use of ridicule. you set up your position as being beyond question, you use blake as if you were pointing out a leper to the crowd. which seems to solidify your position, obviously in support of global warming. and just as clearly you infer that there is no discussion to be had, that the science is beyond question. however; there are some very credible folks with some impressive credentials who believe some of the science was badly done and the results are not as clear as many, such as yourself; would have us believe. but because you seem so certain perhaps you could tell us what the right temprature is supposed to be?

"there are some very credible folks with some impressive credentials who believe some of the science was badly done and the results are not as clear as many, such as yourself, would have us believe."

So let`s analyse what you wrote. You are an anonymous poster who has made an assertion not backed up with any links to your evidence. Too embarrassed to link to WUWT?

Firstly, you are an anonymous poster as well Keith M. How is anonymity relevant in any way?

Second, are you so blindly faithful that you have never even heard of any single paper ever published that doesn't tow the consensus line? You really need someone to post URLs? I find it hard to believe that someone who bothers to post on this subject has never heard of any paper published in a peer reviewed journal that doesn't tow the line.

Here are a few for you. And before you start posting URLs to Skeptical Science or RealClimate that claim to refute the papers, please stick to actual peer reviewed scientific papers and not blog posts. That's what we deniers are always told.

McIntyre and McKitrick 2005
O'Donnell 2010
Spencer and Braswell 2011

They're all available on line with a simple google search. There are many others, which you can look up for yourself. The bottom line is that while there may be a consensus, the science is far from settled, no matter how many times someone screams DENIER or demands evidence on some blog somewhere. It's out there, you just have to open your eyes to see it.

Obvious reasons for not posting anonymously:

1. It's not possible to identify which posts belong to which anonymous poster;

2. When posting an opinion, for example about the credentials of McIntyre and McKitrick, it's not possible to judge the validity of that opinion.

It's obvious why you, a self confessed denier, wouldn't want me to read the debunked zombie arguments of deniers on skepticalscience.com, or the opinions of real scientists on realclimate.org. However, making those statements in public completely undermines your credibility.

By all means read the blog posts at Skeptical Science and RealClimate. But appreciate what they are. Blog posts. If a denier posts any claim they are shouted down with "stick to the peer reviewed science". Skeptical Science and RealClimate are not peer review science.

Anyway, you nicely illustrate the point. Ignore the peer reviewed science that was posted, which supports the statement you demanded evidence for. Instead switch to attacking my credibility. Why would you ask for evidence if, when posted, you would just change the subject to an anonymous poster's credibility?

What does my credibility have to do with was the peer reviewed science says?

You've gotta love being patronised by a self confessed denier! Someone who, by definition, denies any evidence put in front of him that contradicts his preconceived narrative.

No subsequent peer reviewed science has confirmed the McIntyre and McKitrick 2005 paper, whereas Mann's hockey stick graph has been confirmed multiple times.

Most people, me included, want what you deniers say to be true, but saying it doesn't make it so. The scientific method tells a different, much more unsettling story. That has the potential to impact on the profits of the carbon industries, so they are employing the tactics of the tobacco industry to undermine the science. It's as simple and as disgusting as that.

Why do you assume I am male? Oh, that's right, because Mooney told you deniers are all conservative white men. I forgot, sorry.

I see another problem. You seem to think that all deniers are the same. Some blob of people who are all oil company shills.

What is the truth, you will find is that those who have been labelled deniers by your ilk are markedly diverse in their opinions. I do not deny any evidence put in front of me. I can see that the global average temperature has been rising and it seems pretty likely that it has something to do with increased anthropogenic CO2 emmissions. But what I do find less than convincing (here is where I get labelled a denier) is with the certanty with which the understanding of the feedbacks and their effects on climate in the future are reported by the likes of Chris Mooney and others.

We are told the science is settled. If you dare question it then you are a denier. Well, from my perspective, if there are still papers being published in peer reviewed scientific journals that question the consensus views on such things as the magnitude of climate sensitivity to increasing CO2 (as illustrated in Spencer 2011), I will stay of the opinion that the science is not settled. Particularly in the SUPER important area of what effect on climate the increase in temperature is likely to have and therefore what should be done to mitigate it, if anything.

As it's tedious to be gender neutral, a convention has long been established to use him/his in a generic sense when writing in the English language. If that upsets you because you are not male, give some clues of your gender in the name you choose to post under.

You're the one who chose to label yourself a denier, not me, and what is my "ilk"? All deniers are the same, in that they deny anything that contradicts their preconceived narrative. Look it up in a dictionary. Otherwise they would be considered to be skeptical.

Anybody who successfully comes up with an alternative theory to the greenhouse gas one that accounts for the climate change we are living through will be hailed as a brilliant scientist and deserve a Nobel prize. I skeptically await that development.

That's the Nobel "Peace Prize" conferred by some luny Norwegians who equally honored Yasser Arafat who bilked untold millions from starving Palestinians to support his Parisian prostitute with it.

They also conferred it upon Jimmy Carter and our dear beloved Obama in the hopes that it would make him "peaceful" No such luck, as his predator missiles come raining down on Pakistani villages. Can they take it back?

Oh I forgot fat Al and the IPCC - whom they gave it to equall; each for being the world's most profligate consumers of fossil fuels - I think Stat Oil of Norway got a kickback on that one.

Here in the USA we view the luney Norwegians heralded "peace prize" much as Hamlet would:

"it is a custom More honor'd in the breach than the observance"

Your knowledge of the Nobel Prizes is sadly lacking, but your purpose is straight out of the astroturfers' handbook: when all else fails, throw in a red herring to deflect attention from the matter at hand.

In case you're still in any doubt, you have failed!

In what way?

The Nobel Peace Prize is and always has been dubious. It is not part of the Swedish prize for intellectual accomplishment in science but is a separate prize run by the Norwegians.

It does not honor science but more often honors political hacks like Jimmy Carter, Yasser Arafat, Al Gore, the IPCC, and Obama.

In short its a joke.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21262661/ns/us_news-environment/t/gore-un-climate-panel-win-nobel-peace-prize/

You do like digging holes for yourself:

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/

I made no mention of the Nobel Peace prize. If you're competing for the Nobel prize for introducing the most red herrings into a blog, a friend should advise you it would leave you open to ridicule.

Turn back the clock to the "summer of love II;" Tea Party activists trashing town hall meetings to prohibit the orderly transfer of information about the Affordable Care Act. "Keep your government hands off my Medicare."

The truth, of course, is that these incurious people who are incapable of critical thinking were recruited, trained and misinformed by lobbying organizations; Freedom Works and Americans for Prosperity. Both of these are funded by Koch and other polluters.

Meanwhile, the Christianists were busy getting their people on board. American "Family" Association and others were busy recruiting Tea Partiers

The same easily manipulated and misinformed people, the same money and the same religious groups are attempting to discredit climate science. This is nothing but an encore performance of the TOBACCO INSTITUTE. The process is the same; Discredit science and research in order to advance and economic and political agenda.

A good friend of mine who also works as an on air meteorologist has come up against this very problem. A parent demanded that his talk on climate change be accompanied by "the other side".

He agreed as long as it was based on published peer reviewed science, but the principle quickly saw that it was a bunch of fox news/talk radio myths and the complainer could not com cup with any citations for his claims. The students got the truth in this case at least.

I suspect that I have not been asked to speak in some classrooms because so many here tend to believe the propaganda they get from these outlets. I have run up against the evolution problem which is rampant.

Last night I saw a good doco on the attack on science I hadn't seen before, by the new president of the royal society , Sir Paul Nurse.

http://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/play/v/2086038819/Science-Under-Attack-Full-Ep

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V89AeCLCtJQ

It mainly focuses on climate change but also somewhat covers attacks on science from other areas e.g. vaccines, evolution. The same as in climate science. When there is money involved from the private sector, they find ways of making the science into science fiction & bend it towards their particular agendas.

Paul Nurse pins a particular denier down when he gets all worked up about consensus. Yes, a consensus can be changed by new evidence, but once that happens, a new consensus will be reached.

E.g. If Oncologists all agree the best way to treat your cancer is chemo, that is a consensus. When someone comes up with a better method....that will become the new consensus....the best course of action. Until then, doctors don't say, "let's do nothing, because in 5/20/50 years, there could be something that breaks the current consensus & could be better treatment". How many oncology patients would accept that as an answer.

Hey, there are 100% of scientists who say you have cancer, but for 2%, they go against the cancer treatment consensus & tell you to wait for a better treatment. Will you wait?

That's the one with James Delingpole, who writes a blog for the Daily Telegraph, a right wing British newspaper. That hilarious extract is on YouTube here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36Xu3SQcIE0

In it, he admits he "doesn't do science", doesn't read the relevant scientific papers but is instead "an interpreter of interpretations". As a cheerleader for AGW deniers, he felt it necessary to complain about being treated unfairly by the BBC, before the programme was aired:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100073116/oh-no-not-another-unbiased-bbc-documentary-about-climate-change/

Shameless!

I see you view private initiate as a threat to state security - a common thread that runs thought all socialist tyrannies from Soviet socialism to National Socialism (NAZI)

You view science as a club to smash your enemies - This is what Hitler and Stalin did. Why should you care what I believe unless you want to use belief as a matter of control (slavery)

I don't give a crap what you believe in. You can believe in AGW or the moon is made of swiss cheese; it's your business, not mine.

Odd that you petty tyrants cannot accept the contrary - I must buy your God Damned religion or you what? Fine me? Hit me? Hurt me? Nail me to your God Damned cross?

I attended a meeting of my local middle school in which they invited comment on their use of Al Gore's Leni Riefenstahl style propaganda film called "An Inconvenient Truth"

I was appalled by the lies distortions and downright flagrant manipulation of children represresnted by this appalling film proffered as "science"

If this is "science" then so is "Triumph of the Will"

We need to get our kids back on a steady diet of Math, Language, and working simple scientific problems - not regurgitating the Marxist propaganda of our socialist dominated government school advocates.

Science is not about inculcating belief - that's religion even if the Marxists like to call their crap science which they have been doing since Stalin.

"An Inconvient Truth" was found by a British Court to be based on science. The attacks on the film by people who are uneducated as to what the science says about climate are based on lies and distortions. From the court ruling:

"The Film advances four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC:
(1) global average temperatures have been rising significantly over the past half century and are likely to continue to rise ("climate change");
(2) climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide ("greenhouse gases");
(3) climate change will, if unchecked, have significant adverse effects on the world and its populations; and
(4) there are measures which individuals and governments can take which will help to reduce climate change or mitigate its effects."

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html

""An Inconvient Truth" was found by a British Court to be based on science. "

In fact, Monckton attempted to prevent it & asked that his own film be shown along side of inconvenient truth....both attempts failed, because they were propaganda & not based on science at all.

"Found by a British court"....what does that mean, that's like saying German courts upheld Nazi science.

The larger point is what are rotten pieces of political propaganda dong masquerading as science in our classrooms? What is government doing inculcating belief systems in our children.

This is as abhorrent in our own classrooms as it was in Nazi classrooms. Please don't tell us Germans are stupid.

Unless you have a totalitarian impulse citizens inform public policy and governments do not educate citizens concerning public policy (the Nazi model)

I have seen this despicable piece of Gore trash cover to cover and that fact that anyone could call it science is as frightening to me as Nazi science was.

So your premise is that the British are Nazis, or at least comparable to the German Nazi regime, for teaching what a hundred plus years of science has shown us about the physical world. Alarmist rhetoric detached from reality. Reality has no meaning for those in denial.

They are alike in they both determine that the government is seen as the arbitrator of truth.

That's backwards from all societies that love liberty. Ie societies where citizens determine truth and direct their representatives to follow their interpretation of truth as it applies to civil life.

The top down concept of truth is a Nazi odmel, it is a Pol Pot model, it is a Stalin model, it is a Castro model, it is a Kim Sung II model but it is not an American model - yet

I will do all I can to drive a stake through the heart of the efforts to make courts, politicians, and bureaucrats the guardians of truth which is the in the sole purview of the citizenry.

One hundred years of science have seen one hundred years of horrible errors. You worship state science in the same way all tyrannies do.

Stalin's science was certainly included in the past 100 years; his science defined the ranges of what was and what was not mental illness - are you satisfied with his Soviet Science

Hitler's regime led the world in state science - super weapons, V-2 rockets, jet aircraft, sub orbital ballistics, AND a racial hierarchy of human intelligence and the worthiness of life of each member of within these classifications.

When did state science clean up its act? In Rwanda, with the hutus and the tutsis? In Iraq?

So in your reality, the British, Americans, Canadians, Austrialians and any others who teach climate science in government schools are Nazis. If not any of the above, which societies in your reality are not Nazis and love liberty? Are there any non-Nazi regimes in your reality?

I watched that miserable piece of statist propaganda. The children to which it is directed have immature minds that are barely beyond the Santa Claus myth. What are they to make of "science" the rests on esoteric models that none of you have the remotest concept of their limitations.

Hows this for "science":

Flim Flam Man Al Gore tells the gullible little children that the rising costs of insurance company claims on coastal properties are convincing proof that something funny is happening with the climate (he illustrates the issue with a graph - everyone believes a graph don't they?)

If you cannot find at least a half dozen outrageous logical fallacies with this British court approved piece of socialist rot then your high school diploma isn't worth the paper it was written on let alone the $250,000 the taxpayers wasted on your government union "edgycashun"

"We need to get our kids back on a steady diet of Math, Language, and working simple scientific problems - not regurgitating the Marxist propaganda of our socialist dominated government school advocates."

Yeah!! They need a good dose of private sector input like the coal propaganda of this story. Or maybe when they are teaching kids in science about the food pyramid & the dangers of high sugar, fat & salt diets , we could have reps descend en masse from the fast food giants to provide "scientific balance", provide "another point of view".

Or when they teach in science class the benefits of vaccines & how many lives they have saved, we can have chiropractors or homeopaths descend to let the kids know another side of the story. Provide balance & let the kids know that vaccines kill & maim you & to convince mum & dad all they need to do is go to a chiro or homeopath appointment......because teams of chiro's & homeopaths are proven to have eradicated small pox or polio haven't they?........NOT.

Or when the science teacher talks about fossils & early man & evolution, we can have video of Roy Spencer telling them that it's all crap, intelligent design is responsible for putting it all there.

Because otherwise, if we don't have private sector input into every facet of our science curriculum......it's as you say, just marxism or whatever other stupid socialist or communist label you want to apply to it to appease your ideology....duh!

Oh heavens no. Non state interests involved in education?

Hell No the Marxists scream; indoctrination of you is a matter of state security. We can't have kids learning the bare neutrality of mathematics and language.

We only want the state to "educate" our children. Socialist doctrine is clear on this - The state controls the minds of ALL children.

Could you image that "right wing" National Socialist Adolph Hitler allowing anyone but the state from filling his little brown shirt's mind's with what they needed to know about "science"

We need state approved myth imposed on ALL children The big bang myth is is the state approved religion - question that myth and we burn you at the stake.

It's what we Marxists call "Diversity"

"Hell No the Marxists scream; indoctrination of you is a matter of state security. We can't have kids learning the bare neutrality of mathematics and language. "

So answer me this Gareth. If its state education you are so worked up over & you insinuate there is some socialist agenda ( I dont think you even know what that is) then why does private sector education have a curriculum pretty much the same? Why arent private schools a stand out as teaching climate change denialism?

"Pretty much the same????"

My neighbors home schooled their kids simply because of the rot proffered as education by trade unionists and statists masquerading as teachers.

AGW was not on their "science" agenda. He held a PhD in electrical engineering from MIT, started his own highly successful business and she was a stay at home wife with a master's in Biology. She did the teaching.

Their kids were miles above the substandard rotten product of our union run decaying schools; Schools that cannot produce the (real) scientists and engineers needed to keep our economy from going Cuba.

My last employer was required to recruit our young engineers and scientists exclusively from international pools from India, China, Vietnam, Singapore, Taiwan, Malaysia etc.

Why, because none of our government educated dolts were up to the task. And don't tell me its for cheap labor; our senior engineers were paid between 150,000 - 200,000 per year.

Instead we get the crappy product of our ed schools pawned of as "educators" (what the Hell was wrong with: "teachers") who can't teach basic science and math. I know this; I do in school tutoring in the subjects that our teachers can't teach. Real science (physics, chemistry, etc) and real mathematics much beyond numerical literacy (and half of the students do not know the multiplication tables essentially required to work with larger equations) is not done in most of our government classrooms

So what do we have from the socialist left in lieu of a real education is "environmental studies" or "climate change" behavior modification as education????? Tyranny!

It is my well founded perception that any course title ending in "studies" is worthless propaganda. We have Algebra, Geometry, Trigonometry, Calculus, Chemistry and Physics to teach our kids but the unions wont let the teachers who cant teach any of it get fired.

Just what kind of intellect is required to blather socialist rot called "global warming" to gullible kids; Do they learn how to deconstruct or challenge the climate models put forth by yet more bureaucrats as "science"?

Sir Godwin, you entirely evaded my question & illustrated that your crusade against the left is misdirected & misunderstood.

First of all, lets get back to my question that you were so keen to avoid, where you instead padded out with rhetoric. Here it is again:

"So answer me this Sir Godwin. If its state education you are so worked up over & you insinuate there is some socialist agenda ( I dont think you even know what that is) then why does private sector education have a curriculum pretty much the same? Why arent private schools a stand out as teaching climate change denialism?

Answer the question Sir Godwin. If private education is this bastion of light, then why do they also back the pro agw science stance? Why don't they offer opposing climate science views? The simply answer is, because opposing views are NOT science, they are business interests & propaganda.

"Their kids were miles above the substandard rotten product of our union run decaying schools; Schools that cannot produce the (real) scientists and engineers needed to keep our economy from going Cuba."

I gather you have watched the movie "Waiting for Superman" & have chosen to focus entirely on the role of the unions, because it fits your paradigm. I agree with you, the unions have a lot to answer for here, but if you had openly & honestly watched that film , plus done some background reading you would realise it is not entirely the fault of the unions. Private school teachers are also members of unions, so that shoots your theory down there. There are problems at the federal, state & local levels as well as role overlap, no national curriculum, no national set of standards, no change in the education formula designed in the 50's which was geared primarily at churning out "workers", not "professionals". Teaching quality, less regulations & requirements on teachers to prove they can teach are also a problem.

You can't point to imports from other countries & whinge that there isn't enough home grown experts, when universities & colleges actively advertise in those countries to attract people to the USA because they are the bread & butter of the universities. The foreigners are usually full fee paying & looking at their population compared to the USA, it is only natural to assume there will be some smart people out there from other countries, who pay to be educated in the USA.

"It is my well founded perception"

Yes, I think we have seen your perception & opinion in action many times now. Unfortunately, you never back anything you say up with evidence.

Universal instruction on AGW science is going to have some interesting effects. A generation will turn as one and reinvent human energy consumption - maybe. Either that or that education will reinforce a hopeless outlook on a generation that will come to understand they have no future. Rather than make plans and build they will live in the moment because there is no future for them.

Thats how Im betting and I think thats what were starting to see. Its not all about AGW of course, but that iss one more layer of the hopelessness that young people believe in more and more.

You just cant turn this human CO2 production around. Not for hundreds of years at least - unless you get a mass die off.

I haven't seen such an attack on science since the days of Nazi inculcated science in their government schools;

A bunch of malcontent Jewish "deniers" attempted to derail their government school science. Well they knew hot to deal with their "deniers" didn't they?

Pages

[x]
No dumping
The former owner of a Youngstown, Ohio, excavating company pled guilty to illegally dumping thousands of gallons of contaminated fracking wastewater into a storm drain that led to the Mahoning River. 
 
Benedict Lupo, 63, will be sentenced on June 16 for violating the Clean Water Act. His sentence could range from probation to up to three years in federal prison. The federal prosecutor in the case intends to seek the maximum sentence....
read more