Guest post by Steve Goreham
Originally published in The Washington Times
Man-made global warming must be taught in our schools, according to the latest release of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). The January draft release of the NGSS by the National Research Council is a recommendation for concepts to be used by states in kindergarten through high school. But the recommendations are filled with ideology and unproven assumptions about climate change.
The Next Generation Science Standards are based on the Framework for K-12 Science Education (Framework), established in 2011 by the National Research Council, which is a staff arm of the National Academy of Sciences. A look at the 401-page Framework reveals efforts to instruct students on man-made climate change ideology. The Framework mentions on page 43 that humans need to “address climate change” and on page 166 that humans can “stabilize” the climate. But there is little empirical evidence that humans can control weather or climate in any detectable way. For example, in 2009, the mayor of Moscow claimed that the Russian air force was able to “keep it from snowing.” Five months later, Moscow received 21 inches in a single storm, exceeding the February average by 50 percent.
The NGSS and Framework use the term “theory” many times. These documents refer to the Big Bang theory, Newton’s theory of gravity, the theory of plate tectonics, the atomic theory of matter, the germ theory of disease, Darwin’s theory of the evolution of the species, and the quantum theory of matter. But the recommendations never refer to man-made climate change as a theory. Man-made warming is to be taught as science fact.
The NGSS recommends that 5th graders be taught to “construct explanations for how humans and other organisms will be affected if Earth’s temperature continues to rise.” Much more serious would be a period of global cooling, as was wrongly predicted by the scientific journal Nature and other publications in the 1970s.
By Middle School, the NGSS recommends that students be taught that “Human activities, such as the release of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels, are major factors in the current rise in Earth’s mean surface temperature (‘global warming’).” But the fact that global surface temperatures have been naturally rising for the last 350 years as Earth recovered from the Little Ice Age, long before any significant human greenhouse gas emissions, is not mentioned.
Indoctrination on energy is to be taught to even younger students. Fourth graders are to be taught “the differences between renewable and non-renewable energy.” By Middle School, they are to be taught that “renewable energy resources (e.g., hydroelectric, geothermal, biomass fuels)” and “inexhaustible energy sources (e.g., sunlight, wind, tides, ocean waves)” are good and that “non-renewable energy sources (e.g., coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear fission)” are frowned upon. This despite the fact that the world has centuries of proven reserves of hydrocarbon and nuclear fuels and that these fuels power more than 90 percent of our modern society.
Both the NGSS and the Framework recommend further injection of value judgments into the science curriculum. By the end of 12th grade, the students are meant to learn that “overpopulation” and “overexploitation” are being practiced by humanity. Further, students should be taught that Earth’s “natural capital” must be preserved.
Both documents praise the global climate models that have been used to create alarming forecasts of global surface temperature rise by the year 2100. The Framework states “Global climate models incorporate scientists’ best knowledge of physical and chemical processes and of the interactions of relevant systems.” These are the same climate models that have failed to predict the hiatus in global temperature rise over the last ten years and the 30-year expansion in Antarctic sea ice.
In a 2012 assessment of education systems by the Economist, the United States ranked 17th of 50 assessed nations. Suppose we return to instruction in empirically-based science, rather than climate change ideology?
Steve Goreham is Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of the new book The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania.
Related articles
- Why America’s Kids Need New Standards for Science Education (blogs.scientificamerican.com)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This could have a silver lining. If they are going to teach this subject then surely the science and lesson content will be able to come under close scritiny
The Green Movement calls itself Progressive. Yep – about as progressive as the Creationists. Let’s all head back to the Garden of Eden. You know – the time before the Original Sin – when Man started despoiling Mother Nature
It is hard enough to teach science in schools with the fights over evolution/creation, now this?
Clearly the 1970s predictions of a mini-ice age were based on a complete lack of understanding of oceanic oscillations at the time.
If they had understood that, they would have seen that PDO was about to flip into warm mode and that the world would start warming up again.
If they had looked at solar activity, they would have seen high output in cycle 19 and 20 – no sign of cooling from that source.
What that wrong prediction tells us is that people didn’t understand climate in those days.
Where we are now is that people who DENY the known science are imposing their religion in a manner similar to Christianity in the Middle Ages.
There is still plenty of uncertainty in the science now.
But the understanding now as compared to the 1970s is orders of magnitude greater.
As a result, whilst you could be charitable about mistakes in the 1970s, there is no leeway now.
The people doing what they are doing know what they are doing, know they are in an endgame situation and that whoever loses will be out for good.
Decisions will be made on how the rich can get richer.
No other reason.
They won’t die and couldn’t care two hoots if 5 billion others did.
Brutal but true.
Holy F……………..It’s madness. Next thing you know, deniers noses will be shaped like the numeral “6” just like at another period in time when children were indoctrinated. These people are mad. Completely mad.
Who needs science when you are a religious zealot? In fact it gets in the way.
Intelligent design, CAGW, unsustainable population (according to Paul Ehrlich), what next?
Didn’t Mao and his buddies practice this kind of “education” in the 1940s and beyond??
I demand equal time for phrenology. I mean they had journals too…
Wow indoctrination perhaps? Whats the next step, have children turn in thier parents for using too much energy? For leaving a light on overnight?
I certainly hope our school teachers are smart enough to see through to the agenda being proposed and actually teach science. With our education system being controlled to a great extent by our Federal government, that may be wishfull thinking. Look what happened in Germany that led to WWII.
My nine year old is in 4th grade and I’m just waiting for the day they try to push this crap out on her class.
It won’t be pretty !!
Makes me sick…This is indoctrination, pure and simple. “Klimatejugen”..
pure and simple…
There is nothing particularly new here. When I was in grade school in the 1960s and 1970s, we were taught (indoctrinated) about Paul Ehrlich’s “population bomb” and the imperative of population control (“Zero Population Growth”) in order to prevent certain Malthusian collapse before the year 2000. The swill that activists pour into the “professional development” of public school teachers under the guise of “science” has not changed much since then.
Hmmm, Too funny. Half the comments show the influence of the Marxist propagandists of an earlier age who distorted their schooling, training them to hate Christianity. And they don’t even know that their views on the subject were designed for, and implanted in them using the very same techniques now being used to push CAGW.
I hesitate to mention Nazi and Soviet school indoctrination in ‘science’ courses.
One bright spot is that children who are taught that something is irrefutably true in school have a tendency to react later if they find it’s very well refutable. However, most won’t discover this from the MSM.
Dr. David E. Wojick was developing a K-12 climate education package with Heartland. I can’t provide a link as everything on Google seems to be a tirade against him. Sigh.
Who can stop this perversion of young minds?
I can’t see how this indoctrination is distinguishable from subversion, in that the end game is the usurping of national governments in favour of a one world government (UN Agenda 21).
Aren’t our security agencies meant to protect us from this sort of thing?
Aren’t current elected leaders who allow us to progress down this route without a mandate impeachable?
Our schoolkids get a lot of it. They just had an assembly celebrating the fractional reduction in electricity use by the school last month…meanwhile, in the last few years they’ve installed smart boards in all the classrooms, grown into a second building, and are part of an “environmental” study exchange program with a school in Australia which seeks to find ways to reduce energy consumption–a dozen of their kids come here once every three years, and a dozen of our kids go there once every three years. I’m sure we weren’t the first to point out that a great way to cut down energy use would be to stop flying kids and chaperones across the Pacific every couple of years.
The worst was the science fair assembly where the kids were forced to sing a bastardized version of John Lennon’s “Imagine”, which went: “Imagine no pollution, it’s easy if you try,” and then went downhill from there.
benfrommo says:
February 6, 2013 at 10:02 am
Wow indoctrination perhaps? Whats the next step, have children turn in thier parents for using too much energy? For leaving a light on overnight?
___________________
“If you see something, say something.”
When Robin shows up, pay attention. There is a quiz in the morning.
============
Hey Kids!
“According to NOAA scientists, the average temperature for the contiguous U.S. for 2012 was 55.3°F, which was 3.2°F above the 20th century average and 1.0°F above the previous record from 1998.! http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
Hey teachers! Visit official US government guaranteed sites for well prepared, ready to heat and teach lesson modules. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/index.html
You can learn about CO2, the “colorless, odorless greenhouse gas..produced..when dead animals or plants decay… People are adding carbon dioxide into the atmosphere…the main cause of climate change”
“http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/glossary.html#c
EPA, NOOA, NASA etc. etc. produce huge amounts of monotone materials in house but also outsource to sort-of non govs like PBS: http://www.pbs.org/teachers/stem/professionaldevelopment/
The school system has always followed the political view of those who pay. The dominant paradigm in UK is immigrant families should protect their culture, and it will enrich Britain. Muslim kids can dress as suits their parent’s roots. The dominant paradigm in France is that immigrant families should adopt « Republican» values –(laic French). Kids are not authorized to dress to show religious or cultural origins. In both cases kids grow up pretty normal.
The problems comes when exam grades depend free format “understanding” questions rather than facts. Imagine if the question is about home heating. In the UK wood burning is not permitted in most areas for air quality reasons. Outside of the Île-de-France, wood burning is eco. In France wood it is a renewal fuel which is carbon neutral, as the wood used is replaced with new trees. The gas is not renewable, is a net carbon source and so not at all eco.
who will pay for this indoctrination of children?
who will hire the intellectual assassins?
who will cry for sympathy and blame others?
hypocrisy – the new kind of love parents show their kids!
Cui Bono
The David Wojcik K-12 “Heartland” indoctrination protocol came out a year ago. It was the one part of Gleikgate that neither Peter Gliek nor Heartland claims. It was the document that upon further review was shown to most likely have been created by Gleik because the documents he procured/defrauded from Heartland lacked enough “umph” to make his subterfuge worthwhile.
Somebody will need to explain to me how what has been proposed in the article above differs from the faked article. Indoctrination is indoctrination. Is Gliek in charge of the ethics of this? I wonder.
The only upside I can see is rebellion. Once the current generation feels it’s been lied to, they will learn to investigate on their own. That is a side show I can’t wait see.
OMG. I hope the turn around happens soon enough to reject this stupidity. Kids will be taught that consensus is the right way to do science. They will be taught not to question. They will be taught not to pry, not to look, not to wonder. They will be taught that the scare is “fact” and that only the High Lords have the data (which no one must look at). “All bow down to the High Lords, and purge our societies of evil deniers.” These recommendations MUST be rejected!