Today was my last day of school with students for the year. After saying a final farewell to my students, I wrapped up my day with my usual trek to the mail room and I found a little gift in my mailbox:
For those of you who don’t know, it’s climate change denial garbage from a conservative think tank. This New York Times Op-ed explains.
The book is unscientific propaganda from authors with connections to the disinformation-machinery of the Heartland Institute. In a recent letter to his members, David L. Evans, executive director of the National Science Teachers Association, said that “labeling propaganda as science does not make it so.†He called the institute’s mass mailing of the book an “unprecedented attack†on science education.
Judging from the responses of educators I know who have received “Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming†in recent weeks, most copies of it are likely to be ignored or discarded. But if only a small percentage of teachers use it as intended, they could still mislead tens of thousands of students with it year after year.
Knowing that the other science teachers at my school received the same package, I sent an email to my department explaining what’s going on and pointing them to the National Center for Science Education’s material that refutes Heartland’s junk. I’m glad I did. I later spoke with a fellow teacher who didn’t know anything about Heartland. With that in mind, I advise that all teachers educate their coworkers when this junk mail shows up!
https://www.heartland.org/publications-resources/publications/why-scientists-disagree-about-global-warming
Interesting video’s.
Chris – The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, and Donald Trump’s books are “interesting”, too.
Pierce – That’s true, but all of those together won’t even touch the cash cow called global warming.
Chris – [sigh]
Pls provide an estimate, with citations, of the money involved with global warming warnings.
Compare with figures for the fossil fuel industries.
Pierce – Wow that’s a hard one. But I’ll bet our buddy Al knows how to make that comparison with the snap of his fingers. His rental Gulfstream burns around 500 gallons of fuel an hour. So he probably thinks about stuff like that while covering his carbon footprints.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/11/climate-change-industry-now-15-trillion-global-bus/
Chris, do you get paid for supporting climate science denial?
Kirsten, that’s a great question, I’m sorry to say the answer is no. But you have hit the nail on the head. If the government would start paying climate change deniers and stop paying the pro climate change crowd, climate change would be fixed almost overnight. Just think millions of lives would be saved not to mention the planet itself. With the disaster averted Al Gore could now have a government funded carbon credit buy back program. I’m sure Al could milk the reversal just as well and keep that jet in the air.
Chris: If the government would start paying climate change deniers and stop paying the pro climate change crowd…
The only “climate change crowd” the government pays are the scientists doing the actual climatology. Meanwhile, fossil-fuel corporations and their useful right-wing idiots (smile!) outnumber and out-broadcast the ones who actually know what they’re talking about, every day.
You seem to take the corporate clamor for granted like a fish accepts water – toxic pollution and all. Trying to reduce the reports of the world’s scientists to the exaggerated foibles of one politician perfectly illustrates the failure of your (faction’s) comprehension.
Here, I’ll help ya out with my previous question:
“Dark Money” Funds Climate Change Denial Effort
Climate Change Deniers? Follow the Money!
Letters to the editor and fringe websites notwithstanding, there isn’t actually any scientific skepticism around the phenomenon.
PS: Does your preacher know you go around quoting propaganda from a heretical cult which claims Jesus failed in his life’s mission?
Pierce – I think you’re a little delusional. The fiasco surrounding the global warming business has more to do with the establishment of global governance and the hard cash climate than it does with the weather. One example, Elon Musk has pulled in 4.9 billion in government subsidies so far saving the planet. He’s not happy with Trump today, his free cash influx could end. O, I forgot it’s not free cash you and I will be paying it back. Can you tell us how much global warming was reduced for 4.9 billion?
You probably should leave Jesus out of your twisted ideology, even though climate change could in part become a launching pad for the global government described in the book of Revelation.
Chris – C’mon now, you wanna spout that dreck, cite some sources. (No, John the Revelator doesn’t count.)
Pierce, here’s a few.
http://climatechangedispatch.com/5-moneyed-environmentalists-who-profit-off-global-warming/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/16/obamas-77-billion-climate-funds-stash-found-will-be-gutted/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/22/george-soros-al-gores-sugar-daddy/
You’ll like this one. https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/nature/nasa-finally-admit-its-going-to-get-colder/
It will be getting very hot at some point and you might be able to thank Jimmy Carter and Obama for it with their stupid Iran and North Koria peace deals. 2 Peter 3:10
Chris – Gee, a whole panoply of wingnut sources (including those Christ-sneerers-at again).
How about looking at some fact-based sites: https://climate.nasa.gov/ and http://www.climatecentral.org/, for starters?
The National Center for Science Education can help you sort out the truth-tellers from the liars, though I fear you may need more assistance that way than even they can provide.
And you left out the part about the (many) millions spent by fossil-fuel corporations, including that run until recently by our only Secretary of State.
Your feeble attempts to change the subject by more wingnut parrotry contribute nothing but more non-sequiturs. You’d do a lot better if you could address the question(s) raised by the post at hand than by yelling about a giant rabid Muslim Communist squirrel over there!!1!
Pierce, I seriously doubt truth has anything to do with The National Center for Science Education, there not into that.
In the 70’s we had global cooling to kill all of us. Then came Al’s bogus global warming hockey stick to take us out. So with the facts smelling fishy a new disaster needed to evolve. Out of necessity to save the planet came climate change. Now it doesn’t matter if it’s cold or hot it’s all our fault.
I posted a reply to the above on the 6th, but it looks like it got caught in the spam filter and washed down the drain.
So, for the record, here it comes again – split into two parts & bowdlerized to at least give one part a chance of eluding whatever criterion busted it before:
Chris – misspelled comments don’t carry much weight when criticizing pro-educational groups. Flamingly ignorant ones even less.
In the 70’s we had global cooling to kill all of us.
Darn, you don’t miss a single long-debunked wingnut cliche, do ya? Hint: a handful of sensationalist pop news magazines do not represent scientific consensus.
Then came Al’s bogus global warming hockey stick …
You do understand the “hockey stick” metaphor didn’t begin with Al Gore, don’t you? No, probably not. Real scientists worked out those numbers.
Back in the ’60s, a radical slogan proclaimed “Everything you know is wrong.” I’ve always considered that hyperbole – until you and the other teabaggers came along…