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

"Well they knew hot to deal with their "deniers" didn't they?"

Well the Nazis were right wingers....what did you expect?

Nazis were "right wingers" ??????

What an idiot! Do you know what Nazi is a contraction for?...no you don't so I'll tell you.

The Nazi party was previously know as the NASDP (National-Sozialistische Deutsch Arbeiter-Partei)

To the unwashed (YOU) that means "National Socialist German Workers Party" Real "right wing" stuff?

Amoung its mandates were that no one could make money off of interest, dividends, and capital gains - real "right wing" stuff?

Hitler outlawed capital markets, controlled all corporations though centralized government authority and insisted that only the government should educate the young --- real "right wing" stuff?

What friggen' fool; not an iota of difference between Hitler and Stalin except the scope of their Government tyranny - Stalin wins hands down. Both demanded the government control all aspect of civil life - sound familiar?

Weird that Hitler is often labeled a right winger. The concept wasn't invented in this comment section - just one of those things people keep saying.

On some deep level people want strong and yet benevolent government control. Freedom is just too scary to seriously contemplate. And we know from history that government control of lives always works out for the best in the end.

Let's be Iran. They are "right wingers" too, aren't they?

The term has currency for today.

"Right Wing" has come to mean non-interference in our private interests on the part of Big Government.

"Left Wing" is essentially the Democratic party platform:

The Left Wing (ie Democrats/socialists/Marxists/Progressive - all really the same) believe that the government should monitor us; educate us; loan money to us; make investments for us; plan the economy for us; decide what we should drive; decide where we should live; decide what products we should buy; decide what products we should make; decide who should medicates us; and should tax us for the benefit of others they deem more worthy of our own wealth and productivity than we are; they should decide what the conditions of our employment should be; decide how we may interact with others through contract and business. We should obey them with bovine acceptance - they provide us hay and a barn for the deal.

In short there should be no aspect of out daily existence that is not monitored and controlled by big government. The AGW agenda is required to close the noose on some of the few aspects of our existence in which we can can exercise a small degree of autonomy.

I believe they are as dangerous to our continued liberty and freedom (concepts they truly despise) as were both Hitler and Stalin.

In their fantasy world, their is some remarkable difference between Hitler's Statist tyranny and Stalin's statist tyranny (other than scope). The agenda of each was, in fact, exactly the same: to dominate and suppress human liberty and freedom for their own egos and their own material comfort.

They view the war between Hitler and Stalin as one of ideology rather than an opportunistic struggle over just whose regime was to rule the roost.

The real treat to our national security is not from Al Qeada or the Taliban or even Iran, but comes at us directly from within: The leftists by all of their aliases. AGW is their current Jihad.

Gareth, the Nazis were socialists in the same way that "people's democracies" were democracies.

If you bothered to seriously study the history of the period, you would know that Hitler gained power in large part through deals with conservative political leaders, parties and interests. As part of the deal whereby he became Chancellor, his cabinet included a substantial number of conservatives who had affiliations with other parties. In their book "The Hundred Days to Hitler", Manvell and Fraenkel remarked that this government "could hardly be more right-wing in political character". At he same time, Hitler gained power in the face the undivided opposition of left wing parties. While he later turned on most of his non-Nazi collaborators, it is clear that they would not have entered into an alliance with him if they thought that Hitler was a left wing radical.

One can find numerous public statements by leading Nazis in favor of free enterprise. Hitler's government did assume extensive powers over the control of the economy, though most of this seems to have been motivated by military aims that necessitated a rapid conversion to a war economy.

"Nazis were "right wingers" ??????

What an idiot! Do you know what Nazi is a contraction for?...no you don't so I'll tell you.

The Nazi party was previously know as the NASDP (National-Sozialistische Deutsch Arbeiter-Partei)
"

Phwwooarhh! Socialist in the name, so of course they were socialists! Like my social golf club. It has social in it, so naturally, they are socialists. Errrr. no. See, thats the problem when you get history lessons off Glenn Beck instead of.......history. Its quite amusing seeing you bandy about the Nazi tag & getting all righteous about it, thinking its somehow socialism. If you had of spent even 5 mins googling it, instead of taking Glenn Becks word for it, you would see the Nazis were indeed right wingers.

I notice in all your froth & invective, you never bothered to post a link to back your claims. This is how deniers operate, hearsay & rumour. So lets go to the evidence eh Gareth?

1) Nazi Party : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party
"Political position: Far right"

2) Nazism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

"Nazism (Nationalsozialismus, National Socialism; alternatively spelled Naziism[1]; historically also Hitlerism,[2] Hitlerismus[3]) was the ideology and practice of the Nazi Party and of Nazi Germany.[4][5][6][7] It was a unique variety of fascism that incorporated biological racism and antisemitism.[8]

Nazism was founded out of the current of the far-right and racist German völkisch nationalist movement and the violent anti-communist Freikorps paramilitary culture that fought against the uprisings of communist revolutionaries in post-World War I Germany.[9] The ideology was created by Anton Drexler as a means to draw workers away from communism and into völkisch nationalism.[10] Nazism presented itself as politically syncretic, incorporating policies, tactics and philosophies from right- and left-wing ideologies, though a majority of scholars identify it as a far right form of politics.[11]"

3) Fascism : http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism

"
fascism (ˈfæʃɪzəm)

A.

any ideology or movement inspired by Italian Fascism, such as German National Socialism; any right-wing nationalist ideology or movement with an authoritarian and hierarchical structure that is fundamentally opposed to democracy and liberalism

B.

any ideology, movement, programme, tendency, etc, that may be characterized as right-wing, chauvinist, authoritarian, etc

BOOM!!! Game over, thanks for coming. Ouch. Thats gotta hurt, knowing the Nazis were closest ..... to your own ideology.

You decide if these fundamental principles of the NAZI party are "right wing" or popular concepts of the socialist/Marxist/progressive/communist and their party The Democrats

From the NAZI election platform that swept them into power

Regarding education:

"The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbuergerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.

"Right wing" or Left Wing ?

Where would the bane of the left, "home schooling" fit into this Hitler education scheme?

Here are more platform statements ripped from Hitlers platform - parroted almost word for word by Micheal Moore and 90% of the Democrats in congress

"We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries."

Right wing or Left wing - which is it?

"We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts)."

Right wing or Left Wing, which is it?

" We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare."

Right wing or Left Wing - which is it?

" We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms"

Right Wing or Left Wing, which is it?

" ..... we demand the total confiscation of all war profits."

Right Wing or Left Wing - which is it ?

"We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers (bankers), profiteers (investors) and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race."

Here we have Hitler putting to death people who extend credit for profit or people who invest for personal gain - You tell me is this
"Right Wing or Micheal Moore and 90% of the Democrats"

" We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order."

Ahhh, Now here we have materialism not only as the bane of the AGW Climate Fraudsters but also their brother in arms ..... Adolph Hitler.

I hold that any and all of these platform positions of the NASDP (the Nazis) would be wildly cheered within any Democrat Party Caucus held today.

The Nazi party initially included elements having diverse views. However, the right wing elements became predominant by the time Hitler came to power. He needed funding to fight the last free elections and this led to an alignment with business interests. After gaining power, he evidently decided that his military plans would best be served by minimizing disruption of the existing economic and military structures.

Subsequent actions included:

- purging the left wing of the party (look up Gregor Strasser and Ernst Rohm);
- banning labor unions (if you were a former labor union leader you were well advised to flee the country);
- promoting an extreme form of nationalism;
- backing General Franco in the Spanish civil War.

It may seem difficult to believe now, but the Nazis actually presented themselves as the Law and Order party. Of course, once coming to power, they perverted the law. Much of the legal foundation for the Nazi legal system was provided by Carl Schmitt ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Schmitt ). The influence of Schmitt's writings has grown in recent years and seems to be reflected in right wing legal thinking.

Obviously one can argue any point by selectively quoting campaign statements or taking other statements out of context. For someone on the right to claim that the Nazi party was a left wing reminds one of the saying "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."

RE: "The Nazi party initially included elements having diverse views"

What an Idiot! as exemplified by their Beer Hall Putsch and subsequent gun battles on the streets of Munich?

RE: "purging the left wing of the party (look up Gregor Strasser and Ernst Rohm)"

Rohm and Strasser (the brownshirts) challenged Hitler's domination of the party - Both Hitler and Rohm were statists (ie leftists) This issue is once again the only salient issue for all leftist tyrants - who gets to sit on top of the mega-government heap as chief dictator of "state science" and all their other crap.

The idea that Hitler was opposed to them on ideological grounds is laughable.

Hitler was what - a "right wing" laissez faire capitalist??

Could a German citizen trade shares for profit in his Krupp Industries?

In fact there was no practical difference between a Stalin's Ilyushin industries and Hitler's Krupp industries - both 100% vassals of state power.

Who in National Socialism (NAZI) or Soviet Socialist power was FOR diminishing state power over that of individuals and their private associations?

No One! and who in our leftist camp is screaming for less government involvement in our commercial and social associations including the right of citizens to buy the education THEY want for their children.

What would be the difference in the Soviet, the Nazi, and the NEA's concepts of government education?

RE "Banning labor unions (if you were a former labor union leader you were well advised to flee the country);"

Banning labor unions makes one "right wing" ???? So Stalin must have been an ardent supporter of private labor unions striking against him???

No leftists/socialists tolerate labor unions once their power is consolidated. Are their Labor unions in Cuba going on strike?

What a joke; you people are totally delusional.

No wonder you eat up the socialist climate fraud.

"You decide if these fundamental principles of the NAZI party are "right wing" or popular concepts of the socialist/Marxist/progressive/communist and their party The Democrats"

No, I am not going to play your Glen Beckian game of let me phrase something for you & you decide. You can't rewrite history Sir Godwin, it's there set in stone & I have provided the links to prove it.

You on the other hand, have provided, opinion, rhetoric, invective, hyperbole & diatribe....but not a single link or anything to back your assertions or allegations.

I bet you freaked out when you saw those links & realised you were wrong & then spent the next few hours scouring the net trying to find some authority or expert that backs your paradigm. We both know, what you found were right wing sites that said Nazism was left wing, but nothing from anything mainstream or academia that backed your assertions. So you came back & instead of accepting you were wrong, decided to examine small phrases & sentences to back your deluded world view. You AGAIN, provide no evidence.

So again, lets go to the facts & the evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-right_politics

"Far right politics commonly involve supremacism — a belief that superiority and inferiority is an innate reality between individuals and groups — and a complete rejection of the concept of social equality as a norm.[2] Far right politics often support segregation; the separation of groups deemed to be superior from groups deemed to be inferior.[3] Far right politics also commonly include authoritarianism, nativism, racism and xenophobia.[4]

The ideologies usually associated with the far right include fascism, Nazism and other ultra-nationalist, religiously extreme or reactionary ideologies"

Pretty much the same as present day Tea parties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics

"Stephen Fisher writes in The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics that in liberal democracies the term has been defined as opposition to socialism or social democracy, and that right-wing parties have included the philosophies of conservatism, Christian democracy, liberalism, libertarianism, and nationalism. He says "extreme right parties (have included) elements of racism and fascism" and "In surveys, self-placement on a left-right scale is associated with attitudes on economic policy, especially redistribution and privatization/nationalization and (particularly in Catholic countries) religiosity."

Oh & one other thing, since you are so easily conned by names like "National Socialist German Workers' Party" & choose to ignore history how about something present day? I gather you must also believe that the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" is a democracy?

Sir Godwin, I'm waiting on some evidence from you to back your claims. Please provide some instead of rhetoric & opinion.

To invoke the important words of Sir Michael Patton .
"It's not over yet, you don't remember, we wont let you forget"

"We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press."

John Kerry or Adolph Hitler? Is this what we need to shut the mouths of those damned "deniers" on Fox?

"The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young."

Adolph Hitler or Michelle Obama?

Ohhh wait, lets let some leftist nitwit on Wikopedia or the NEA define the Nazi's as "right wing" Not their ideas and actions.

Would Hitler be supportive or antagonist toward the idea of the state as the ultimate arbiter of "scientific truth"

Anyone, Anyone, Anyone?2

Hitler's "right wing capitalism"

"At first, in the period intervening between the projecting of the armaments plan and the smooth functioning of the entire machine, Hitler resorted to every single scheme tried by Roosevelt in the New Deal. ("Right Wing"???)

He tried all the forms of pump priming, the building of tremendous public works, the creation of labor camps for the youth, the subsidizing of agriculture and of exports, etc. In addition Hitler resorted to relief, not as a government project outright, but as a form of charity forced out of people. ("right wing"???)

"At once the Nazis scrapped unceremoniously all their tommyrot about the place of women in the home. There are more women in the factories and offices of Germany today than ever before in history."

(is the idea that female fulfillment best occurs in the workplace "right wing"?)

This led to the conscription of youth, male and female, for the farms.

"Where did the state get the money to carry out these vast plans? There are only three ways for any government to obtain funds: taxation, borrowing, and the printing of fiat money."

(This is true of both Hitler's and Obama's vast plans is it not?)

" The vast bulk of government funds has been raised by taxation and by borrowing. Taxation alone will not raise the tremendous sums necessary for war economy under the capitalist system. But taxation has become a greater burden with each year of the war. In 1939 with a national income of 79 billion Reichsmark total, the taxes amounted to 24 billion. "

(So Hitler was a "right winger" because he screamed for more taxation) ?????

" At least one-third the national income is now taxed away directly."

(Would this level of taxation be called "right wing")

If we count both the direct and the indirect taxes, the state absorbs 47% or more of the national income.

(Ours now approaching Hitler's under a leftist dominated government)

"This in itself means a terrific lowering of the standards of living of the masses, but this lowered standard is being made permanent by the distortion of economy wrought by the Nazis."

(Isn't that exactly the plan of our current regime - aren't energy costs "necessarily going to skyrocket" under Obama's "plan

And thus the Godwin point was reached and left far behind in a breeze.

When you blatantly dont know about Dritten Reichs economics, shut up. I have no hope for having an intelligent discussion thread now that you are in, but at least we Europeans wont hopefully facepalm not that much and thus preserve their money.
And no I wont try and debunk this, nor I will bring sources. For once, do educate yourself. Every sensible European, and lots of African, Asian and Sudamericans know far better than you, so try and elevate yourself instead of lowering everyone. Hell even far right European leaders know better.

Oh, and by the way try and get also political education (the correct one, not the propaganda you swallow at your Tea Party meetings led by the Koch brothers). "Obama a socialist like Hitler". ROFL.

You wont try to debunk this because you can't debunk it; the points stand on their own merit. Statism is left wing tyranny no matter how you stack it. Obama and his henchmen of the left sound a familiar echo of Hitler's early chirpings.

You might try to call the Tea Party (really constitutionalists) "anarchists" but you cant call them "right wing" and put Hitler under the same umbrella. Hitler as the champion of personal liberty over raw state power - get a friggin' grip you fool.

Are you a European or just one of those stupid American academicians infatuated with its dysfunctional statism?

We can see how well European socialism is working in the streets of the major cities of England. Of course the English only claim to be "European" when they are talking to Americans. You probably don't know about that.

The Euro is going to collapse and all that suppressed European hatred is once again going to take center stage as their economies collapse around it. This time we'll leave Europe to rot in its own ashes.

The USA holds the largest energy resources on the face of the earth in both coal and shale oil. We are going to drill drill drill and dig dig dig for black gold wherever it lies. Screw your nitwit propaganda - its dying and your Pied Piper Al Gore has gone off the rails notwithstanding the fact that he was never on them.

We can survive just fine when the world turns to sh!t as the siren song of statism puts it once again back on the rocks.

"You wont try to debunk this because you can't debunk it; the points stand on their own merit."

I like that challenge, because, it is in fact easily debunked, like all your other rantings.

"Statism is left wing tyranny no matter how you stack it. "

Did you bother to actually look that up before you spewed rhetoric again?....No, of course not *sigh*. Maybe you should put down your Ayn Rand lexicon.

Ok, so let's have a look shall we?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism

1) "Statism (or etatism) is a scholarly term in political philosophy either emphasising the role of the state in analysing political change; or, in describing political movements which support the use of the state to achieve goals."

2) "Statism can be used in reference to a number of different concepts and ideologies that impact different spheres of life; Conservatives view that a strong, authoritative state is required to legislate or enforce traditional morality and cultural practices."

Seems governments led by republicans have been doing a fine job of practicing statism.

"You might try to call the Tea Party (really constitutionalists) "anarchists" but you cant call them "right wing" and put Hitler under the same umbrella."

The Tea party ARE right wingers & so was Hitler. You can dress it up anyway you like to make it more palatable for your ideology, but facts are facts.It's funny how the Tea party had little to say about the extreme taxes & regulations you believe exist when the republicans were in power. As they have not changed since Obama has been in. Taxes are at a 60 year low. Nothing really has changed under Obama, yet the Tea party are up in arms about the TAXES! The REGULATIONS! My RIGHTS!...As dumb as you come.

"The Euro is going to collapse and all that suppressed European hatred is once again going to take center stage as their economies collapse around it. This time we'll leave Europe to rot in its own ashes."

Either you truly live in a snow dome, or some christian commune, because apparently you missed the fact that under GWB we had the GFC. The USA & much of the world has still not recovered from that. In case you haven't noticed, the USA isn't doing crash hot either. It's public & private debt are insane. It has a military that is 6 times bigger than it's nearest rival & they spend 1 TRILLION a year on it for nothing! The Chinese are making moves to replace the USD as the reserve currency & when that happens, you cant simply use "quantitative easing" (print money ) any more. Your revenue streams & passive incomes will dry up. The fossil fuel industry employs stuff all people in the grand scheme of things , yet they hold the most political clout. Green tech is offering you guys a chance at good employment & another boom, but for those in the thrall of the fossil fuel industries, they simply can't comprehend the dangers from AGW & even dumber, is their resistance to more jobs, cleaner fuel, less pollution, cheaper energy & sustainability.

Deniers...conned from sunup to sunset.

get mad and shout tea party! tea party!

I keep seeing this from intellectuals.

Tea Party folk are idiots because they want government to cut spending and someday balance a budget Whearas intellectuals want to operate deeper in the red and that makes them super brainy.

Those dumb tea partiers and their crazy tea partier ways!

"Tea Party folk are idiots because they want government to cut spending and someday balance a budget Whearas intellectuals want to operate deeper in the red and that makes them super brainy.

Those dumb tea partiers and their crazy tea partier ways!"

I notice how Tea party fans like yourself Rick, like to focus on the seemingly more palatable policies of the Tea party, while ignoring all the right wing policies. It has to be bad if even the Republicans are denouncing them.

Tea parties are proven to be largely funded & directed by corporate business interests, who con innocent people into their fold with promises of less tax, less ethnics, more religion ( christianity) & more bigotry.

They advocate theocrats. Unwittingly, they fight for less tax on business, but more on the supporters themselves. It should be call the confederate corporate christian party. Because that is basically what it is. It is largely populated by southern folk, already conned by christianity, led by corporate interests.

They are removing regulation wherever they can at a fast pace. Yet the same people that screamed blue murder at the people responsible for the GFC......CAUSED by lack of regulation......are advocating LESS regulation! It is incredulous.

Pages could be written about their far right views.

There you got us dead to rights. It those damned "business interests"

I hate business - lets blow up big oil, lets burn the tech industry to the ground. Lets kill off agri-business. Fire bomb retail stores

"Hey would you text the gang and tell them to drive down to the local Micky - Dees, we can have some burgers and figure out how to kill business.

"And thus the Godwin point was reached and left far behind in a breeze. "

Ahh you beat me to it, lol. Yes, I think it's only fair that from this day forward, Sir Gareth be know as Sir Godwin.

I thought invoking the tyranny of the "teabaggers" as in the exemplification of the evil of just leaving people along in their affairs was the most certain signal that the "godwin point" had been reached.

Mikey boy might have gotten a chuckle over studying the nature of evil and avoiding the mistakes of Germany that merely cost 100,000 lives --- Yuk Yuk.

RE: "When you blatantly dont know about Dritten Reichs economics, shut up."

Ahh the diversity of the left on parade - their intelligent retort: "Shut up"

My economics are influenced by Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayeck; The other Austrians.

Hitler told them to "shut up" too with his book burnings - him leftist imitators of today would burn Fox News at the first opportunity

"Hitler told them to "shut up" too with his book burnings"

Yes, because he has a right winger.

A "right winger" who hated big government and just wanted to leave people alone. Strange science.

"A "right winger" who hated big government and just wanted to leave people alone. Strange science."

Well, we have all seen your re-writes of history according to Sir Godwin, so go to town mate. Anything goes in your snow dome.

I feel like Horton & I've just heard a little voice that is telling me about the world.

You don't know shit about the complex intrication between Nazi party, big industry groups (Thyssen, Krupp), the need of autosubsistance.

Just one example, answer this question : how did Hitler interfere with Germany economy ?

And don't try to make me impress with Hayek. Or explain how Hayek apply to Third Reich economy - unless you want to appear as a pompous illiterate.

I told you to shut up for your own sake. You don't want, fine. I will spread your "arguments" on some economic fora I know, everyone needs a good laugh after all.

RE: "Just one example, answer this question : how did Hitler interfere with Germany economy ?"

OH lets see how about by confiscating all of the property of German Jews for starters.

You didn't know this?

Then we could go on to raising taxation rates to more than 33% making Hitlers' party the single largest driver of the economy. The Nazi party initiated 80% of all industrial orders and 50% of all building projects in Germany; the envy of our current Democrats.

You didn't know this?

According to the National Labour Law of January 20, 1934, the state directed and controlled all business employing more than twenty persons. Employers and employees were put under control of the government.

You didn't know this?

I could go on, ut bsuffice to say that if your thesis holds that Hitler was a Laissez Faire "right wing" capitalist you are proven to be a babbling idiot.

RE: "And don't try to make me impress with Hayek.

I never try to impress leftist morons.

I don't reply to you but around you. Hayek held that central economic planning is essentially despotism and that nations who centrally directed thier economies would inevitably choose the winners and losers. In so doing they would create enemies that would always need to be dealt with sharply, leading to mass murder.

He held there wasn't any real substantive difference between various brands of planned economies (ie Hitlers National Socialism vs Stalin's Soviet Socialism) and he was prescient in predicting the hell that was to descend upon Nazi Germany by following its current course of central planning.

Here is a primer suited to you intellectual capabilities:

http://mises.org/books/TRTS/

Resist the temptation to feed this troll. He's only doing it to deflect attention from the "PR Pollution that Clouds Climate Science".

No no...shut your eyes and cover your ears to this fool.

What passes for debate among Marxist losers

Excellent google. /bows.

Now let me add a few things you mysteriously missed :

The first "plan" was designed by Thyssen and Krupp engineers.
The economy was so directed by the government that industrials had at least 4 ways to make their business as they please :
- the Nazi party
- the Plan office
- the economy department
- the different branches of the Army
- and of course the civilian needs

Before 1942, the economy was NOT a full war economy. The generals often muttered that there were more vacuum cleaner built than machineguns. Half of the units going to war against France and England were made of people having known the first world war, and perfectly trained since they received the same weapons they carried 25 years ago. A Ammunition Office was created, because the units engaged in Poland almost burnt all their ammo. In Christmas 1941, as the russian counterattack was on the way and German soldiers were killed as often by the frost than by the bullets, train pilots went on strike to get a raise in salary. German tanks, often praised for their technicity, saw a fierce competition between industrials seeking to impress and get max of money, leading to overcomplicated and overtechnical tanks unable to withstand the war wear.

TL,DR : the "Nazi plan" was conceived and carried on by industrials so that they can rake as much money as possible, greasing hands and playing civilian administration against Nazi administration. It was so efficient that the first Economy office chief, Schacht, said he would rather be drunk than maddened by the complexity of the economy. On the other end, a lot of efforts by Party leaders were done in order to lower unemployment and get as much money as possible.

And Hitler was so directive for the economy that the situation went on like this until 1943, when Speer at last reorganised the economy to shift it to a really directed wartime economy. And by this time, his powers were severely limited by the exponentially growing SS and its economy branch.

Strangely enough, it paints a picture far different than the one you try to brush. Sorry, not everyone can be Bob Ross.

Seems you have still a lot of homework to do. Don't despair too much, you will see you will enjoy education.

Sir Godwin, when were you going to supply some facts like i asked you? Where is the evidence? Where is the links? I'm still waiting for

1) A reputable url showing Hitler or the Nazi Party was a left winger instead of your opinion.
2) Why private schools have a curriculum similar to public schools where AGW is the correct prevailing science taught & not fossil fuel science? If you believe state education is a haven for socialists, you must also believe private sector is too.
3) Is the "Democratic peoples republic of Korea" a democracy?

Sir Godwin, I think it's abundantly apparent to all bar yourself, that you are in fact a right winger, with extremely paranoid delusional right wing views.

Seriously?

This whole thread has degenerated into what the political leaning of Hitler was?

This relates to AGW How?
This relates to our children being taught Porpaganda how?

Science is about challenging what we think we know.
About Sceptisism.

Science is no longer taught in our schools.

Yes, I'm a bit over deniers derailing nearly every thread with the Godwin.

Agreed, but that's just another of the tactics the astroturfers employ to deflect criticism. In the spirit of know thine enemy, I'd advise anybody not involved in trolling here to read Climate Cover-up*. It's quite an eye opener.

Do not feed the trolls!

(* Disclaimer: I have no personal connection either to the book or this web site.)

The link between state AGW science and the Nazis is well placed and informative.

Hitler insisted that the youth be indoctrinated in state science which is exactly what the AGW religion insists upon. I really don't see a dimes worth of difference between your positions.

Like your AGW movement Hitler never thought of himself or his movement as evil - he viewed himself a savior of the people just as you do.

He saw existential threats that the masses had not perceived, in his case it was the Jews, in your case its AGW)

He needed the young to be sensitized towards his threat though the state education (inculcation) in science. His state science was to train the young in of the fact that Jews were subhuman - not merely his opinion but peer reviewed science. "Deniers" were first marginalized, then prosecuted, then murdered by the state.

If Hitler was denied the "Jewish science" he could has just as easily found "AGW science" to present an equally effective existential threat. It would have served his need for state imposed tyranny equally.

So far, sirgareth, you have established that in your reality the Americans, British, Canadians, Australians and any other society which teaches climate science in public schools is Nazi. Are there any non-Nazi societies in your reality? Except for those who were home-schooled or had no school, is it possible to not be a Nazi in your reality? Which societies do you believe love liberty more than Americans?

Yes I am making that link...not that they insist the children brown shirts...but green shirts have been suggested by your more ardent faithful.

Tell me the sdifference between teaching children the fact that Jew are subhuman in the science class of primate hierarchy and the science that 'certain' people should not have access to fossil fuels at market rates?

Both are belief based science. Nazi science cannot be denied; they produced amazing weapons like the V-2 Rocket and taught the world how to make gasoline form coal - they also taught that Jews were Subhuman in their government classrooms.

My science courses involved NO lazy indoctrination of belief but only the learning and testing of provable theories in a lab.

Note that at no point was I told that to get a grade I had to parrot back some guru or organization of gurus favorite ideology.

This in not the case with AGW "scientism" (belief or faith based "science")

Instead of faith in clergy we are expected to believe in a super class of humans that presumably know literally EVERYTHING.

Like the clergy, "climatologists" are experts in things children cant yet have any hope of understanding. These include Meteorology, Physics, Organic and Inorganic Chemistry, Botany, Zoology, Astronomy, Geology, Oceanography, Statistics, Mathematics, Paleontology, Anthropology, History, Computer science, computer programming, etc etc.

Just what don't you need to be an expert in to understand the climate?

Of course to anyone whose link with reality never fully materialized it all sounds quite plausible that super beings walk among us who know everything.

These people really must advise God in their spare time; I guess this "science" should require all little children to get down on bended knee and not merely "believe" in these super beings but to get down and worship these high priests of AGW.

I think I'm going to heave.

So, in your reality, everyone except for those with no formal education and certain home-schoolers are Nazis. A rational conversation is possible with you how?

RE: "So, in your reality, everyone except for those with no formal education and certain home-schoolers are Nazis. A rational conversation is possible with you how?"

Did I say that?

You don't read very well and you jump to conclusions not established by any factual basis. No wonder you are easy fodder for the AGW cult.

What I have said it the our national government union education establishment is an abject failure by any objective analysis.

Formal and informal education runs the gamut from excellent to worthless. I take no other position on either.

By the way, home schooling does not lay outside the realm of "formal education" unless you were to falsely assume union membership is a presumed qualifier.

I have held that the government union education establishment views home schooling as threat to its power. But that is not what you have claimed I have said.

My link with the Nazis was the way in which they forced state controlled dogma onto gullible children under their direct power; I noted that the methods used are the same as the AGW cultists use in government controlled schools by and for the governments self serving purposes.

You are not very perceptive.

Perhaps it was when I asked if,in your reality, the Americans, Canadians, Australians, British and anyone else who taught climate science were Nazis and you replied, "Yes I am making that link..."

In your reality, the majority of the world are Nazis. If the Americans, Canadians, Australians, British and anyone else who teach climate science are anti-liberty Nazis in your reality, what society is not controlled by Nazis? What society is not fascist in your reality? Does the teaching of any climate science make a society fascist? Does using the term climate make someone a Nazi in your reality? How about the term weather?

The fervently faithful have always had a very difficult time with those who "denied" their faith.

Joan of Arc and many others like her could have easily escaped their fate had they only confessed the errors of their ways and ceased "denying."

Joan's problem arouse because of her heightened sense of intellectual and moral integrity. All that she had to do escape the horrors that awaited her was to cease "denying" that only experts knew of of the mysteries of life, creation, and everything. So simple.

The faithful really fervently want edto save her and did everything they could to to stop her from "denying faith" in the experts.

But to allow her, as a national hero, to publicly "deny" was, of course, untenable so that merely putting her to death was insufficient motivation for her to cease her obdurate "denying"

Until the flames slowly crawled up her legs and consumed her they only wanted her to stop "denying"; they had only wanted what was best for her all along.

But what else can be done with "deniers?"

And now you go into slaughtering the XVst century history.

Anything good to divert attention to climate PR, mmh ?

But go on. Your history is truely fascinating. Please tell us more. And thereafter please talk also about the fourth crusade. I can't wait your analysis.

Re: "And now you go into slaughtering the XVst century history."

OK you've got me there the experts must have tickled poor Joan until she saw the errors of her way.

Let's see where it is going. Pray tell, please enlighten us about her trial. And her clothings.

There is no need for me to enlighten you (impossible) or anyone else(redundant). Her trial is available online; every word of it translated faithfully.

http://www.stjoan-center.com/Trials/index.html

The important lesson is that Joan had her own version of truth which was at variance with those who controlled the official myth and had used it to subjugate the people of France.

The question is why they could not allow her to simply trust her own motivations and instincts.

Myth is the most powerful of man's creation and those who control myth control people. This was as true in Joan's time as it is in ours.

Their myth was religion and those who controlled it were the church.

Our myth is "science"; not our real traditional science which, holds NO BELIEF, and requires NO PROFESSION OF BELIEF, but a bastardized mythical science which holds that science delivers truth as revealed by its priests or practitioners.

"Deniers" are a deadly threat to those whose job it is to create and control myth. To question myth and get away with it demolishes the entire foundation that subjugation rests upon.

If we understand this principle we can understand why it was necessary for the French owners of myth not only to destroy Joan but to do it in such a fashion so as to silence any others inclined to question the myth on a permanent basis.

AGW myth has not yet established itself with the power of the church of France but it has not been for a lack of trying. The youth are critical as they always have been. If the myth becomes an entrenched feature of the culture then all is possible and policing of those who threaten it is of primacy.

We will not burn people who threaten the myth until such time as it is widely accepted by the culture.

This is the lesson of Joan of Arc that applies to this debate.

and nothing about the fact that the judges were with the Bourbon side, the jail was british, and Joan was perceived as the "advertisement girl" for France, while Charles VII dumped her after she gave him the throne.

Fuck.
Yeah.

And the "faithful" retranscription of the trial is *of course* totally "faithful", knowing that the hand holding the plume was from the house of Bourbon which was *not at all* in
struggle with the house of Capet for the France throne ; there was therefore *not any beginning of a speck of a tentation* to try and change bits of words.

Owww.
Yeah.

Add to that the fact that the sanctification by the Church had *nothing at all to do* with the political context after WWI, with a winning France and a Italy trying to get a good face after having changed sides during the war; thus putting another tiny speck of doubt about the myth built.

Hell.
Yeah.

Joan is a *catholic* figure, as per her canonisation. And the charges against her during the trial dropped from heresy (=deviant version of religion from the standard one) to merely wearing men's clothes and hearing bad voices. Own version of truth ?

Aaaaaah.
Yeah.

Please, go on.

Oh, just a last note : Joan is now a symbol for a French party. The right-extreme one. The last nail in her coffin, after having served as a symbol for the French revenge thirst and the catholic attempt to be relegitimated. Poor Joan, being used like that for causes she couldn't even imagine.

You try to impress yourself with trivia inconsequential to the essential equation. It is easy to assume that you have never worked in scientific endeavor.

None of your rantings nullify the identification of the essential nature of the conflict. To me you appear to be a person of low intellectual capacity and I assume that you are involved in a profession that requires little of it as well.

If Joan is a symbol of the right why would that offend you?

Do you not think she was a remarkable woman?

There is no cohesiveness to your rants, your keyboard appears to be driven more by intense foaming at the mouth hatred than by rational thought. Don't let me constrain your hatred - give in to it.

oh ! look ! a mirror !

Joan trial was a trial of a woman who was used and dumped by the power behind her, and who found herself alone againts ancient allieds and still vivid enemies. Your drunk rhetoric doesn't even approach by far the historical facts.

I may have a lower IQ, but at least I happen to stick to facts instead of delirium tremens like yours.

And your line of defence is veeery weak : ad hominem. So typical. Everytime I try to have an open discussion with a "skeptic", it ends up like this, as if they didn't have any arguments and thus resorted to cheap tactics.

And this is what happens to teachers : instead of being able to teach methods and facts without emotional or political pollution, they get ad hominem attacks and some are threatened.

Open discussion ? Deniers don't want that. Otherwise Lord Monckton would have accepted Abraham's proposal.

In moving on from the obvious links with Nazi state science, and the excesses that the most of our fervent "believers" (non-deniers) have used to convince "deniers" of the consequence of independent thinking we must ask our selves the purpose of inculcation of the AGW myth to our youth.

With most subjects, traditional science, mathematics, language skills etc the aim is easily discerned: to develop skill sets enabling the child to become a productive citizen within the society.

With AGW "scientism" it certainly serves a felt need outside the realm of becoming a productive citizen; a compliant citizen yes, but inculcating this belief system is certainly the only objective that can be associated with the AGW mantra.

But for what purpose?

Becoming a member of the AGW priesthood is far too esoteric of a field to require every child of to learn of its tenets; it cant be study for the entry into the priesthood.

Besides we have already poured 80 billion dollars of the people's earnings into the priesthood's coffers and the nation is broke - its hard to see how welcoming our current priesthood are going to be to such young and recently immaculated priests; the pie isn't going to get any bigger for them; 80 billion for climate navel gazing is big even for mega-government.

No, increasing the size of the priesthood clearly is not the objective of AGW inculcation, so what can it's ultimate purpose be?

I submit that behavior modification is the only goal.

Physics, Chemistry and Calculus don't reward us for confessing our sins and mending our ways. But with AGW 'scientism', all of this is imminently do-able.

Not only can we get the kiddies to confess their carbon sins, we can get them to turn in their parents for their sins as well. We can also get them to accept punishment for transgressions against the climate god and its state priesthood. The most effective punishment is the acceptance of fines called "carbon credits"; essentially buying indulgences from the state priests.

Of course the kiddies will get extra credits for reducing their "carbon footprints" and more importantly reporting on their parents.

What cannot be countenanced is the questioning of the state use of fossil fuels which has been growing exponentially since the early days of the climate revelations.

To question why high climate priests like Cardinal Gore demanded a Jumbo Jet to take him to Kyoto would be grounds for expulsion.

Indeed questioning why the state owns literally thousands of executive jets ferrying their well heeled ministers from pleasure spa to pleasure spa across the entire globe in constant search of the ultimate answers to the climate riddle would require more severe punishment. This might include the Joan of Arc remedy.

My nest question is this; cant we achieve all of these goals with the inculcation of "jesus science"? This will have the added benefit bring of getting the bible belters to join the fold with less resistance.

Out of interest Sir Godwin, do you believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

Ahh the interrogation begins:

What do I "believe in"? Why do you care what I "believe in"?

In cultures that I have lived in, such a question would rightly be held to be deeply offensive. That you hold tyrannical instincts is self-evident in your inflamed prose.

If I choose to reveal my beliefs, that is solely on my initiative. You will notice that I do not demand that you publish your beliefs on my demand.

Would you like to see photos of the insides of my colon? I have them and could equally publish them, but come to think of it, my colon is my business, not yours.

I provided you a link: Go see how Joan's beliefs had to be examined thoroughly by Doctors from the University of Paris to identify error and exact punishment.

Can you discern a pattern; why do i doubt it?

Pages

[x]

Two Colorado legislators announced they are introducing a ballot initiative aimed at punishing cities and towns that vote to ban fracking within their borders.

Rep. Frank McNulty of Highlands Ranch and Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg of Sterling, both Republicans, announced they will attempt to get an initiative on the ballot to block local jurisdictions from getting severance tax revenues or...

read more