National Coalition Against Censorship Criticises the Portland Climate Book Ban

By Helodrgt (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0], via Wikimedia Commons

By Helodrgt (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0], via Wikimedia Commons

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Portland’s recent ban of educational books which question alarmist climate narratives has attracted strong criticism from the NCAC. The National Coalition Against Censorship is a group which normally focusses on issues like Creationism, and other efforts to stifle politically or religiously inconvenient freedom of speech.

The statement from the NCAC:

Portland Resolution on Teaching Climate Change Raises Concerns

NCAC has released the following statement on the climate change controversy brewing in Portland:

On May 17, the Public School Board of Portland, Oregon unanimously adopted a resolution to “Develop an Implementation Plan for Climate Literacy,” which concluded with this recommendation: “The implementation plan should include a review of current textbooks for accuracy around the severity of the climate crisis and the impact of human activities. PPS will abandon the use of any adopted text material that is found to express doubt about the severity of the climate crisis or its root in human activities.”

For all its good intentions, the resolution raises serious concerns:

Most critically, the resolution is dangerously over-broad, potentially affecting a wide range of valuable educational materials. Social studies texts accurately describing the political debate around fossil fuels and climate change, for instance, would presumably contain comments from individuals who “express doubt about the severity of the climate crisis.” If such material is excised from the curriculum, will students be prepared to face – and argue with – climate change denial when they encounter it in the world outside school?

Purging the curriculum of this kind of material will undermine public education, which should equip students for critical and informed consideration of important matters of public policy and controversy. This goal is clearly identified in the 2011 Oregon Social Sciences Academic Content Standards, which state that “Students learn to assess the merits of competing arguments, and make reasoned decisions that include consideration of the values within alternative policy recommendations.”

Even if some scientists questioning the human causes of climate change do so apparently at the behest of the fossil fuel industry, it is still a fact that environmental policy is a subject of ongoing debate. Students should be conversant with, and equipped to address, the various questions and issues that are the subject of public discussion.

The resolution is also unnecessary. Oregon has standards in place to insure that education in science and social studies is consistent with current scientific and scholarly consensus. In March 2014, the Oregon State Board of Education adopted as the Next Generation Science Standards based on a framework developed by the National Research Council. These include as a “disciplinary core idea” the role of human activity in global warming: “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).”

Finally, the resolution is undermined by the appearance that its adoption was driven primarily by political pressure, rather than pedagogical considerations, because it represents the views of environmental groups that have lobbied the school board for many years. Curricular decisions that appear to be a result of political pressure are suspect no matter from which political side the pressure comes. This is especially true when such decisions are made by school board officials who generally lack the subject-area expertise essential to the development of accurate and effective curricula. Under these circumstances, it is incumbent on the board to defer to professional educators and subject matter experts in determining the content of curricula.

Deciding how to approach the existing political debate around the causes of climate change should be left to those who teach about it: science professors, social studies and civics professors may approach the issue differently in accordance with the requirements of their subject matter. Elected officials have an important role in ensuring the availability of an adequate education to all students; they should devote their energies to that worthy goal, and leave decisions about what and how to teach to the people who are trained to do it.

Source: http://ncac.org/blog/portland-resolution-on-teaching-climate-change-raises-concerns

To be fair, the Portland Public School Board are simply progressing a long standing alarmist obsession with attempting to stifle and suppress dissenting views and access to raw data.

I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !

Read more: Climategate Email 1089318616.txt

And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.

Read more Climategate Email 1107454306.txt

If FOIA does ever get used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them.

Read more Climategate Email 1106338806.txt

Plenty more where they came from.

The real question is, why do the Portland Public School Board, and other Climate Alarmists, feel so threatened by alternative interpretations of the data?

I don’t feel threatened by the views of people who think we are on the brink of a climate apocalypse – I spend a significant amount of my personal time researching and publicising their views, so people can see how silly they are.

In my opinion, the reason Creationists and other pseudoscientists frequently try to suppress viewpoints which do not conform to their dogma, is because learning about evidence based science is like a mental vaccine – it tends to inoculate the minds of students against nonsensical alternatives.

Why does the Portland Public School Board feel the need to protect their indoctrination of students with alarmist climate dogma, using the same harsh, anti-freedom censorship techniques which pseudoscientists use to defend their untruths?

Advertisements

139 thoughts on “National Coalition Against Censorship Criticises the Portland Climate Book Ban

  1. The population of non-fiction books culled from public libraries seems to have grown exponentially in the last couple of years, based on my experience in Amazon orders for used books – climate science as well as history.

    • I’d suggest reading the introduction to “Think Like a Freak”. The third book in the celebrated Freakonomics series. They discuss the sheer venom that they encountered due to their chapter on climate change in the second book, including blacklisting in certain bookshops, not because they doubted the reality or effects of climate change for an instant, but because they called CO2 reductions a lost cause and supported geoengineering (which, given they assume explicitly that IPCC extrapolations are correct, I cannot disagree with their logic).

      • The AGW faithful fall into several camps which are often at odds with each other. They differ notably on the use of carbon-less nuclear power, the need to protect wildlife from ‘renewable’ energy systems (the cuisinarts of the air and the solar fowl roasters), all-electric high-speed rail, and the building of the vast infrastructure needed to support fuel-cell cars.

  2. …and so we have the lamenting lyrics from Jim Morrison lurking in:
    What have they done to the earth?
    What have they done to our fair sister?
    Ravaged and plundered and ripped her and bit her
    Stuck her with knives in the side of the dawn
    And tied her with fences and dragged her down
    I hear a very gentle sound
    (When the Music is Over; Strange Days LP)
    The west coast seems to have been at the forefront of yoking mankind to all the
    negative aspects of civilization for going on over 50 years.
    If the textbooks don’t provide clues to divergent views on shifts in climate, then
    the teachers won’t have to explain or deal with exceptions to the “rule” of the
    consensus.
    Pity the Portland student who refers to an “unapproved” source for a science
    paper… or brings up “natural” variations in climate over the past century.
    Strange days, indeed.

  3. “The National Coalition Against Censorship is a group which normally focusses on issues like Creationism, and other efforts to stifle politically or religiously inconvenient freedom of speech.”
    Not sure if help from creationists is help that is really wanted. Is it?

    • Not sure if help from creationists is help that is really wanted. Is it?

      Hey, freedom of speech does not depend upon whether you agree with what the other person wants to say!
      If an alarmist campaigns for freedom of speech that is just a welcome as anyone else who does. So in the unlikely event that an alarmists makes a statement in favour of freedom of speech, that is equally welcome.

      • Roper: So now you’d give the Devil benefit of law!
        More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
        Roper: I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
        More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man’s laws, not God’s — and if you cut them down — and you’re just the man to do it — d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.

      • We must also remember that there are creationists and people who believe in a creator (God). In general, the creationists tend to believe that the earth was created in 6 literal 24 hour days. However, the people who believe in a creator believe that the 6 days mentioned in Genesis is 6 periods of unspecified time, such as when people say “in my day …”. When a person says “in my day” they don’t mean one single day but rather the period of time when they were younger. Same idea.

      • In the 19th and early 20th century maybe, but not now as the Creationism viewpoint is now the minority to Evolutionism. Creationists only want a chance to be heard and to have their belief that Evolution is still a theory. A theory with no legs.

      • Both could apply, Creation and evolution.
        As In,
        We were created perfect in Man’s own image. The perfect creature is one that can evolve and adapt to their surroundings so as Perfect Creatures, we evolve as the world changes to meet the needed requirements of living in that changing world and where we can’t evolve we adapt. It is what we were created to do

    • I think they stand up for people to be able to express their view, not that they support them. In other words, if it was the other way around and people were censoring pro-climate change views, they would stand up for them, even if they didn’t agree with the views.

    • Censoring ANY point of view regarding the scientific pursuit of knowledge is anathema. If you practice such censorship, you then legitimize that practice. Then when or if the Creationists come to power, you could be the one censored.
      Are you so unsure of your own knowledge of the science that you feel somehow threatened by, for example, creationism?
      Or are you one of those people who embraces the idea of “consensus science”? If so, you would fit in well with the CAGW crowd.
      Scientists should maintain a posture of skepticism about all science.

    • Gobal warming believers use the Pope and virtually anyone who will utter one line in agreement with them, no matter what else is said, as ammunition.
      I don’t think you can cut out that which YOU disagree with and not have the same done to you. Aren’t you doing precisely what Oregon is doing?

    • Yours is exactly the kind of thinking these groups are fighting against. Only a creationist would defend the right to free speech of creationists? We can only defend speech that we like?

    • I think you are misreading that. I read it as saying that they normally defend AGAINST creationists trying to get pro-evolution books removed. “NCAC’s mission is to promote freedom of thought, inquiry and expression and oppose censorship in all its forms.” Check their members, which include the ACLU, “Americans United for Separation of Church and State”, the MLA, Planned Parenthood, and a whole bunch of outfits that are certainly NOT creationist fellow-travellers.

  4. The contempt the school system has for its students is obvious. The poor dears cannot ever make any decisions about controversies, so they must sheild the children from them.
    Another thing is the manifest ignorance of the school board itself. The original push against teaching evolution in schools was by people who could not tell social Darwinism from the real thing, notably William Jennings Bryan. The school board here cannot tell real science from political posturing.

  5. Even if some scientists questioning the human causes of climate change do so apparently at the behest of the fossil fuel industry, got your cheque yet Anthony ?
    So how were they going to sensor the Internet most kids these days know how to get around blocks in schools and most have the Internet at home .
    Also wonder what the youngest age is for the many who have logged on to this site .
    That was the funniest video I’ve seen in ages ,when does the movie come out ?

    • I understand the rhetorical technique of “even if you’re right you are still wrong”, and I agree that it’s the right way to go here, but those lines were simply offensive.

    • not if you’re making it a “take it on faith” approach.
      you could ” teach” a 4th graxer to take the 1st derivative of X^3, or X^4. it is after all just subtraction by 1 of the exponent number and putting the original exponent number in the denominator. Thus thet are “doing calculus.”
      Likewise, you can indoctrinate high school students with simple CO2 GHG forcing equations to make them think they are doing climate science. Which is how the field has regressed such that guys like NdGT, Bill Nye, Seth Borenstein act like they know more CO2 will bring thermal catastrophe. They are parrots.

      • I teach Earth Sciences in a small, high-quality college, and I encounter these recent high school graduates in a course which covers climate science. I also teach, by college requirement, critical thinking and the scientific method. Nullius in Verba is inscribed at the top of the whiteboard. When I tell them to “Question Everything” I can see their eyes cross from mental pain.
        I do not know how long my political incorrectness will be tolerated by the college administration. On the other hand, in two years no student has filed a complaint. Probably they do not comprehend what I am talking about.

      • If I recall my calculus correctly (and it was not fourth grade, but still eons ago), the original exponent becomes a factor in the derivative, not the denominator. Hence, the derivative of X cubed is 3 times X squared.

    • Joel, you can teach a youngster about finding the slope of a curved line in a graph and also area under the curve. You could show him the equations, but that would not be necessary to teach him “what it is all about” on a very elementary basis. Just show the graphs and color in the area under the curve. Graph the straight line that is the has the same slope as the “slope at the point” on the curve for a few points and show the zero slope for the max/min and perhaps even an asymptote. As the child develops, we try to teach material appropriate to his developmental stage.
      By the way, a 5th grader I know just passed Algebra 1 on-line with Florida Virtual School, by the Florida Deportment of Education, with a score of 97. He has already mastered Algebra 2 but he had to start at the beginning according to the State.

      Greg, as to teaching climatology, you can teach it to middle school kids. After all, teaching how the earth’s weather machine moves heat from the low latitudes to the high latitudes is not all that hard. We have ocean currents doing that. We have conduction and convection heating the air and then winds move heat all around. We can read charts showing past climate reconstructions that teach us that temperatures have been much higher in the past and that temperature always LEADS CO2 concentrations. Reading charts and graphs with understanding is very “Common Core” for middle school.
      You could spend a week or two on how a real hot-house works and show how only fools the misguided compare our open atmosphere to a hothouse. That alone would be great BS protectant for the youngsters. They would know when they got to HS how to recognize when they were being lied to. And that would be important. Once a man gets fooled by the radiant GHE over the atmospheric GHE it becomes very hard to reach him. Examples of that abound here all the time.
      ~ Mark

      • I’d be interested in knowing whether the class on government included information on how the scientific method vis a vis climate was nearly submerged under the financial incentives to produce CAGW results, per the US Senate’s Report “Environmental Chain of Action”. Information on who really produces most cultural trends through their control of media and much of academia is information which would greatly advance the students’ understanding of how the world works.

    • Depends on what you teach. High school science classes can and should teach *measurement*, and Anthony’s Surface Temperature Project (sorry if I’ve got the name wrong) strikes me as *SUPERB* material for fundamental science classes that practically anyone can get. Again, science classes can and should do actual projects. (Anyone from Oz remember FrogWatch? Still got the kit somewhere.) How about *measuring* the UHI in your district? And if you can’t talk about your first amendment in a civics class, what *can* you talk about? (The equivalent I had back in the early 1970s was the structure of the UN, but then NZ was a progressive country and we didn’t get our Bill of Rights Act until recently.)

  6. So how were they going to sensor the Internet
    That’s why the mainstream media propaganda is so relentless, I figure.

    • Way back years ago the Internet had MUCH greater interactions with major media. The NYT, for example, had this beautiful forum setup where one could introduce a topic and then run it with thousands of readers exactly like this site here.
      And then the NYT trashed it after 9/11 and then after they erased 10 years of postings, they then began ruthlessly eliminating comments to any articles. The WP still allows severely restricted comments to articles and if you annoy the editors at all, they ban you so you have this dumb echo chamber.
      99% of all media outfits have totally forbidden even one comment or if they have them, make the text so tiny, you need a magnifying glass to read them and you can’t enlarge the text, either. This is deliberate to prevent people from chatting about anything.

  7. Should government, and in particular, the government education system, be the arbiter of truth in a free society? I think not. “Diversity” is a megatrend in education at the moment, and that should include diversity of thought. My experience is that people holding “contrarian” positions are often motivated to master conventional wisdom, the better to defend their dissent. Someone put it this way: “It’s important to know what is current, as well as what is true.”
    So I am pleased to see the NCAC take on the Portland school board. However, I must take exception to this:
    Elected officials…should…leave decisions about what…to teach to the people who are trained to do it.
    Teachers are trained to teach, and the “how” of teaching should indeed be left to them. But the matter of “what” should be taught is a value-laden enterprise that is the responsibility of the entire society, and the school board is the proper representative of that public. I wouldn’t turn it over to any privileged class–not teachers, and certainly not climate scientists.
    Ultimately the quality of education depends on the quality of the school board. And Portland badly needs some quality control

    • Parents bear the sole responsibility for the education of their children.
      When they default – no matter what the excuse may be- it’s their fault and nobody else’s.
      Period. End of story.
      Who can not take responsibility gets to whine and blame somebody – and that seems to be a very valuable commodity where victimhood is a virtue, right? Sacrificing one’s children for that is an irresistible bargain!

    • “Diversity” is currently part of the leftist double-speak. They say diversity; what they mean you agree with them, or else. They are saying diversity in an attempt to get you to accept their ideas, but they will never ever accept yours. Nor will they tolerate yours either.

    • Careful with that word diversity. The dictionary definition is one thing, the intended meaning these days is everyone except fit and healthy white males.

  8. What gets me is that schools shouldn’t be teaching conclusions ; they should be teaching foundations .
    First they should be taught that solar energy powers CO2 + H2O in equal molar amounts to build the substance of green carbon based life releasing the O2 we animals use to reverse the equation to supply the energy with which we animate ourselves .
    Those capable of a quantitative highschool education should be taught how to calculate the total solar insolation in our orbit a function of the effective temperature of the Sun’s disk and our distance from it and the corresponding temperature of a gray ball , ~ 278.5 +- 2.3 and understand that this is the temperature of any gray ball in our orbit no matter how dark or light before consideration of spectrum .
    They should learn that the temperature at the bottom of our atmosphere is estimated to be about 3% warmer than that value and has increased perhaps 0.3% rather linearly since the invention of the steam engine .
    Then they might have a little bit of a background to rationally start evaluating the political claims .

    • Thanks
      Bob Armstrong on June 6, 2016 at 7:46 pm
      What gets me is that schools shouldn’t be teaching conclusions ; they should be teaching foundations .
      ___________________________
      And on basis of foundations they should gain trust in drawing conclusions – and take counter as new challenge.

    • “First they should be taught that solar energy powers CO2 + H2O in equal molar amounts to build the substance of green carbon based life releasing the O2 we animals use to reverse the equation to supply the energy with which we animate ourselves .”
      This is taught in biology
      As for th etemperature without GH effect, Dr, Roy Spencer has an interesting article. He says that with no IR absorbers in the atmosphere the surface would reach an equilibrium temperature.
      “The global-average temperature at which this occurs would depend a lot on how reflective the Earth’s surface is to sunlight in our thought experiment. ..it could be anywhere from well below 0 deg F for a partially reflective Earth to about 45 deg. F for a totally black Earth.”
      So Dr. Spencer does not agree that all grey bodies would be the same.
      “So, how is this different from what happens in the real world? Well, notice that what we are left with in this thought experiment is an atmosphere that is heated from below by the ground absorbing sunlight, but the atmosphere has no way of cooling…except in a very shallow layer right next to the ground where it can cool by conduction at night.”
      He concludes that with no IR absorbers in the atmosphere, the whole atmosphere would eventually warm up to the surface temperature through conduction. This would effectively stop “weather”.
      What happens with GH gases?
      “Infrared absorbers like water vapor and carbon dioxide provide an additional heating mechanism for the atmosphere. But at least as important is the fact that, since infrared absorbers are also infrared emitters, the presence of greenhouse gases allow the atmosphere — not just the surface — to cool to outer space.”

      • “As for the temperature without GH effect, Dr, Roy Spencer has an interesting article. He says that with no IR absorbers in the atmosphere the surface would reach an equilibrium temperature.”
        It macht nichts what anybody says . I gave the computations for the temperature of asymmetrically irradiated gray ball and plugged in the parameters for the sun and our distance from it , which boils down to the TSI , and calculated the temperature from it . And these “algorithms” can ( and should ) be experimentally tested at reasonable cost at a high school level .
        We need to start reestablishing settled core of non-optional quantitative physics . I’m sure Roy will agree with my computation of 278.5 +- 2.3 . It is utterly trivial .
        But recognizing the computation importance of that number rather than getting sidetracked by some 255 hypothetical is one step towards returning this debacle back into the honest and progressing branch of applied physics it , in the end , is .

      • You figure is trivial for a totally black Earth. Bob Spencer says 280K (45F) for a black earth, which agrees with your calculation. Yet the Earth is not black. Since we reflect 30% of the energy straight back into space we would be at 255K. Dr Spencer does not agree with you that any ball would be at this temperature.
        I can see Dr Spencers view. The Stefan Boltzman method is based on an energy balance. If some energy is reflected it reduces the temperature of the ball. Only if we absorb all the incident radiation do we arrive at your higher figure for the temperature of the Earth that would emit the same energy as the incoming solar radiation.

      • Bob. I have been thinking about this. I think I have it sorted, what do you think?
        The black body temperature of 278.5 we agree on. We now have to deal with the fact that Earth is not a black body.
        The “standard” approach is to take the albedo of 0.3 and say that the Earth absorbs only 0.7 times the incident energy. I do not think you can disagree with this. It is a fact that 30% of the energy is reflected back at essentially the same wavelength as the incident.
        The same “standard” approach is to assume the Earth radiates as a black body according to the Stefan Boltzman law. So it absorbs 70% of the incident energy, radiates as a black body. This gives us an effective temperature of 255K.
        Hang on, you say, the Earth does not emit as a black body, but due to the “greyness” will emit less energy than would be expected from the Stefan Boltzman law. This would appear at first glance to be a valid point.
        In formulae:
        heat absorbed by planet = (1 – a) πR^2So
        where a = albedo and So is solar constant (incident radiation). R is radius.
        This I think is not disputed.
        IF we assume black body radiation as above, then
        heat radiated from planet = (4πR^2) σT^4
        At equilibrium temperature, these two are equal.
        Solving for T we get
        Te = [(1-Aa)So / 4σ] ^1/4
        where Te is effective temperature at equilibrium.
        This works out to 255K.
        However, real objects are not black bodies. They have an emissivity of less than 1 – that is they emit less energy than a black body for a given temperature. We now have
        heat radiated from planet = (4πR^2) EσT^4
        Where E is emissivity and is between 0 and 1
        So Te = [(1-Aa)So / 4Eσ] ^1/4
        The new Te is higher than the black body Te since we divide by E which is less than 1. So far so good. We have shown that the emissivity could in principle bring Te back to the black body figure if it were a particular value.
        This is where Kirchoff’s Law comes in. This states that
        absorption = e at a specific wavelength
        (1-albedo) = e
        This says that what is not reflected is absorbed. Basically, materials that are good absorbers are also good emitters. Does this mean that as the Earth albedo is 0.3, the the emissivity is therefore 0.7, and the effects cancel out in the equations, restoring us to the black body equilibrium temperature?
        I believe not becasue Kirchoff’s Law applies to a specific wavelength. Therefore the albedo of Earth it the incident wavelengths (mainly visible) is 0.3, but the emissivity at IR wavelengths is close to 1. This means the black body assumption for heat radiated from planet is approximately correct and Te is correctly estimated at 255K.

  9. We can assume that since statistical significance is frequently ignored by the climate alarmists, one can therefore assume that statistics books will be banned in Portland.

    • Oh they’re way, way past statistics. Progressive science relies on ‘confidence level’, measured usually by a sound pressure meter. “All those that say aye”

  10. Sorry, but they lost me at the third paragraph – “For all its good intentions…”

  11. Besides egregious censoring, the government puts out faulty assessments.
    The EPA calculation of the global warming potential (GWP) of a ghg erroneously overlooks the fact that any effect the ghg might have on temperature is also integrated over the “lifetime” of the gas in the atmosphere so the duration in the atmosphere cancels out. Therefore GWP is not a measure of the relative influence on average global temperature of a ghg on a molecule basis.
    The influence on average global temperature of a ghg molecule depends on how many different wavelengths of EMR the molecule can absorb. Water vapor molecules can absorb hundreds in the wavelength range of significant terrestrial radiation compared to only one for CO2.
    A consequence of this is CO2 has no significant effect on climate as demonstrated at http://globalclimatedrivers.blogspot.com

  12. If the people don’t–and the young don’t know how–to ask the right questions, then the answers don’t matter.

  13. Surely not the physical process “evolution” that is a chaotic process. The raison d’etre of the scientific philosophy and method. Evolutionary creationism?
    Outside of a limited frame of reference it is no longer science. Looking back it is not even philosophy, but articles of personal faith supported through emergent patterns (e.g. models).

  14. There a couple of things going on here. Eric states:
    “Why does the Portland Public School Board feel the need to protect their indoctrination of students”
    I do not think PPS feels the need for anything, they are absolute True Believers. As we see more and more, particularly on college campuses, outright censorship is now part of the program. The PPS is just keeping up.
    Now I speculate a bit. Given that the curriculum is already 100% CAGW compliant, why this and why now? As True Believers, they probably did not see it as a big deal, and were just doing enviro or university buddies a favor.
    Now for the really puzzling bit:
    NCAC decries the censorship, but seems to have no problem with the school program slanted 100% to CAGW, anyway, which is de facto censorship. Indeed, they launch into a full throated support of the curriculum, complete with its 100% bias towards CAGW. Including using the D word.
    So what are they really complaining about?
    They say the decision making should reside with the teachers.
    Is this really a turf war between the teachers union and some environmentalist NGO which made the mistake of influencing the School Board?
    If so, buy popcorn. Its politics all the way down.

    • Fact is, we are out gunned by the CAGW lemmings. WUWT is the glimmer of hope for the short term future of say 10, 15 years. The kiddos are being indoctrinated, when a 4th grader comes home upset about a polar bear on a ice floe photo, more and more parents are drawing from the WUWT arsenal. The salvo’s keep coming…teenagers….whether they care or not to follow up…WUWT is there for you.

      • Heh- WUWT won’t save you. If you can’t save yourself, you are doomed. Maybe Tony will share some of his popcorn and you can sit back in the comfy chair and post comments about it. For heaven’s sake, doing anything takes more courage than a devoted victim could ever muster.
        Maybe you can find somebody to tell you what to do? Thinking is not an option, but ‘somebody’ should do everything for you or you’ll have to complain about ignorant 4th graders.
        Oh -wait- it’s the Care Phone! It’s for you- you know who it is? Nobody.

    • TonyL, can’t be read from the NCAC paper :
      ‘NCAC decries the censorship, but seems to have no problem with the school program slanted 100% to CAGW, anyway, which is de facto censorship. Indeed, they launch into a full throated support of the curriculum, ‘
      ________________________
      What they say is ‘open discussion’, no censorship: creationism is not ‘forbidden’, when on the table it has to be discussed.
      They say ‘open discussion’, no censorship: climate denial is not ‘forbidden’, when on the table it has to be discussed.
      They say ‘open discussion’, no censorship: *…………* is not ‘forbidden’, when on the table it has to be discussed.

    • You must be a man, Alexander. Independent thought gives you away. I wish i had neighbors like you.

  15. Er8ic,
    I utterly denounce your (to me) bizzarro claim that it is “Creationists” who are trying to ban things, when it is glaringly obvious that the National Coalition Against Censorship is trying to “stifle politically or religiously inconvenient freedom of speech”.
    From the linked page;
    “. Although the battle to keep creationism out of the classroom goes back decades, it is still being fiercely fought today. Proponents of creationism, sometimes rebranded as “intelligent design”, are trying new tactics in order to get this idea into biology classes across the nation. ”
    I will not pretend that those who do what you accuse others (en mass) of, are the ones fighting for free speech. Your not being even remotely objective or logical here.

    • You are correct – and I don’t mean ‘politically’. Nothing wrong with your analysis there at all.
      The existence of advocates to influence censors is a palimpsest of idiocy.

    • John, there have been some serious attempts to ban the teaching of evolution in American classrooms. That is wrong.
      https://ncse.com/library-resource/ten-major-court-cases-evolution-creationism
      I don’t have a problem with people holding views which could be described as Creationist. For example Dr. Roy Spencer is right when he says that belief that the universe is a Cosmic accident is in some ways as much of a leap of faith, as belief that the universe was created.
      My response would be, until unambiguous evidence of a creator is observed, invoking a creator as part of the explanation for the origin of the Universe fails the Occam’s Razor test. Assuming the existence of a creator doesn’t solve anything, it just leads to a more complicated theory – because the next question is, where did the creator come from?
      http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/01/science-and-religion-do-your-own-damn-google-search/
      But who knows – I don’t overestimate my own abilities. Someone like Dr Roy Spencer would probably tear me a new one if I attempted to debate him on this topic.

      • Eric- your logic is flawless. And Dr. Roy doesn’t stand a chance against it.
        What J Knight asserted, as I understood him, was that the NCAC is not anti censorship as the article says.
        Like the Venezuelan Ministry of Happiness, their existence is part of the sickness, not a remedy.
        This is what they say:
        ” If such material is excised from the curriculum, will students be prepared to face – and argue with – climate change denial when they encounter it in the world outside school?”
        Which is to say that they desire students to be trained to debate the D (see that word? get it?)
        This is not any kind of anti-censorship agenda. It is completely warmunist, top to bottom. It is not objective, unbiased, inclusive, broad minded, open minded, or fair in any way.
        If I’ve misunderstood mr Knight, my apologies. My argument can stand alone.

      • I just read your link to Dr Spencer’s idiotic composition. His irrational belief founded on ignorance or fear and characterized by obsessive reverence for supernatural causality marks him as credulous, uncritical and inept.
        And don’t say John Wayne Gacey was a gifted clown. This is MacGregor and the goat action.
        That’s no scientist. He can’t distinguish between science and superstition, faith and reason. He explicitly confounds these concepts.
        It doesn’t matter if he can perform science, which he may do. Schicklgruber’s grandchild was a painter. What defines him is not that.

      • Gnomish. Many top flight scientists are religious. It appears that people are capable of compartmentalising and I have no problem with whatever they believe in their personal lives – just so long as they don’t bring it to the lab. Dr. Roy isn’t arguing that the Creator is currently directing climatic events so of what consequence is it what he personally chooses to believe about Universal genesis?

      • “fails the Occam’s Razor test.”
        This is not a scientific test. Interestingly, William Briggs has something to say on this topic. [http]://wmbriggs.com/post/19017/
        The Thomas Aquinas view of God, immaterial, unmoved and unmoveable, just sort of “out there” causing this universe from nothing, is not significantly different than a Big Bang that “just happened” for no reason at all. Either there is a cause, or there is not; and all information on the topic starts with the Big Bang itself. Whether anything preceded the Big Bang simply cannot be known by the product OF the Big Bang, and that’s you and me.

      • “Eric- your logic is flawless. And Dr. Roy doesn’t stand a chance against it.”
        Oh horse manure.
        There exists two possibilities.
        1) One, that universe exists from raw random change — which is to say, that matter and energy sprang forth from nothing. (and where did the nothing come from anyway?)
        2) Two, that the universe came into existence via some force unknown to us. My philosophy calls that force “The Tao” but other people use other names for it.
        To claim energy and matter can come forth from nothing would be the biggest violation of Occam’s razor that I can think of. It is almost as bad as claiming a block of ice will heat up the already hot oven.
        Perhaps we can all agree that the “prime mover” is a subject that science is ill equipped to deal with.

      • gnomish
        June 7, 2016 at 4:53 am
        “I just read your link to Dr Spencer’s idiotic composition.”
        Gee gnomish, your pretty harsh on Roy Spencer. I’m not a fellow believer of his but I’m perfectly fine with him believing it. Sir Isaac Newton believed it, too and, once again I’m perfectly fine in believing he was a scientist. Actually this is basically true of virtually all the scientists who have become great enough to have become historical figures, certainly prior to the middle of the 20th Century or so, and as you know, we now have millions of folks in lab coats with horn-rimmed. Is it possible you arrived at your beliefs all by yourself? You may have adopted a disbelief (which, indeed is a faith-based thing unless you have proof) from your history prof, or something. I hope you stop this kind of stuff, it gets me arguing the ‘other’ side!!

      • Eric,
        “John, there have been some serious attempts to ban the teaching of evolution in American classrooms. That is wrong.”
        I have no interest in discussing “evolution”, which means any gradual change. This thread has evolved since I commented last night, for goodness sake . . Either capitalize the word, or specifically state what “evolution” you are referring to, please.
        Then you provide a link to a list of ten cases, most of which do not appear to me to be about banning the teaching of Evolution, let alone “serious attempts” to do so. Look, I grant you can run me around with this sort of tactic indefinitely . . but so what?
        “I don’t have a problem with people holding views which could be described as Creationist. For example Dr. Roy Spencer is right when he says that belief that the universe is a Cosmic accident is in some ways as much of a leap of faith, as belief that the universe was created.”
        On that point, you rest my case ; ) . . so to speak.
        “My response would be, until unambiguous evidence of a creator is observed, invoking a creator as part of the explanation for the origin of the Universe fails the Occam’s Razor test.”
        If you want to worship some guy named Occum, that is your right, but logically speaking, his “test” is just a suggestion, not a scientifically validated indicator of what must ultimately be so in all cases. And, it is a subjective “test”, which in this case, as I see it, places a single extremely complex potential explanation (a Creator), in contrast to several extremely complex potentials (ultra fine tuned Universe just popping into existence, ultra complex living things arising spontaneously from relatively simplistic molecules, extremely consistent behaviors of matter on the smallest observable scales which defy human understanding/reason itself, etc).
        “Assuming the existence of a creator doesn’t solve anything . .”
        It “solves” all sorts of things, obviously, if assumed. It does not solve “where did the creator come from?”, but again, Occum’s test is not itself a scientifically verifiable means of resolving what is ultimately so . . he was not himself a God who Informed us that what seems simplest to us must be true. No matter what is so, there IS immense complexity everywhere we look, carefully . . scientifically speaking, I see no way around the conclusion that; It’s complexity all the way down ; )
        Be that as it may, my contention was not about this stuff, but about the (to me) bizzaro notion that the National Coalition Against Censorship is championing free speech, rather than the banning of what it does not want children to be exposed to. To me, it seems some who believe in Evolution, accepted the concept of “consensus science” when it suited them, and are now (just barely) beginning to realize they helped create a “monster” that is threatening to consume free speech/scientific inquiry. Repent, I suggest, and be consistent.

    • There are huge differences between “intelligent design” and “creationism”.
      Some people like to label everything that isn’t 100% pure random chance evolution as some form of creationism.
      Don’t argue from ignorance.

  16. Ban books?
    Archaic for sure but we all need to be aware of Agenda 21 who create material, such as courses and exams for high school children – including exams that are part of our equivalent of a high school diploma and have to be taken seriously.
    Here is an example https://thedemiseofchristchurch.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/exemplar-3-2008-exam.pdf
    See more at
    https://thedemiseofchristchurch.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/are-we-experiencing-a-communist-infiltration-sponsored-by-the-united-nations
    Cheers
    Roger
    http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com

  17. “I don’t feel threatened by the views of people who think we are on the brink of a climate apocalypse [ … ]”
    Too right, I feel great pity for them.

    • I don’t feel threatened by them. Until they try to use the powers of government to control how I live my life.

  18. Harper Valley PTA?
    the Public School Board of Portland, Oregon probably drive cars, children travel on buses and they all fly away on year end holidays, work in classes powered by gasp a coal fired power station.

    • All the global warmists love to travel all over the planet whining about how travel is evil.

  19. There is a great film which parallels this exactly. It’s called “Inherit the Wind” – an absolute classic film intensely thought provoking and the parallel with today is utterly scary. It deals with the Scopes Money trial in the early 20th century and if you can find it I extremely strongly recommend watching it.
    Maybe we should all start singing “give me that old time religion”.
    Ignorance and prejudice is always hungry always busy striving to take us back to the dark ages.
    What was that comment about “those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it” or something like that.

  20. It annoys alarmists no end when you point out that ‘Climatism’ has a lot in common with Creationism (in its broadest sense) as both are teleological beliefs assuming some purpose or guiding force or principle.
    For instance the fundamental assumption behind IPCC ‘science’ must be that the global temperature around 1950, rather than being an accident of history having no special significance, reached perfection as the list of exclusively harmful effects of the ensuing ’global warming’ is inexhaustible:
    http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

    • That’s not quite right — rather than “perfection” the global temperature ~1950 was the way it was ‘meant to be’ and the alleged ensuing manmade warming is necessarily harmful because it’s not the way it’s ‘meant to be’.

    • Even the term “denier” has religious connotations
      Titus 1:16
      They profess to know God (about climate), but by their deeds they deny Him ( CAGW), being detestable and disobedient and worthless for any good deed.
      Just make a couple of appropriate substitutions and you get a biblical condemnation for not believing in CAGW.

  21. Since the Ptolemaic system was once scientific consensus, Portland must all sensor all text books that indicate that the Earth is in any way not the center of the universe.

    • That is something I often point out: The Academics of the day supported the ‘consensus’ science…. Galileo was a SKEPTIC!

    • Sensor means what you think it means in “american” too. One of the unfortunate side effects of spellcheck is the substitution of wrong words.
      (eg sensor, censor, censer)

  22. The :”Next Generation …” … is political = not educational bunkum, It is proper to read “social studies” and NOT “social sciences”
    What does this reveal ??

  23. Heaven Forbid that we teach young minds to actually think, to be able to perform a critical analysis. Better that they simply learn to parrot back the ‘thought of the day’ like ‘the earth is flat’ & ‘man can’t fly’, or ‘the way to cure any disease is to bleed the patient to get the bad blood out’.

  24. Yes. When indoctrinating the kiddos, it’s important to give them the tools to be able to parrot the ideology back, no matter what someone says. It’s like an innoculation. You inject a small amount of the “virus”, which is actually just a laughable straw man version of what skeptics/climate realists say, and then have the kiddos stomp on it. Good job! Yeah, that’s the ticket. If you are going to produce robots, they should at least be skillful robots.

  25. Enough pandering to the ecobaters with conciliatory phrases like, “For all its good intentions…” Only serves to justify and validate the further imposition of their values on others. Much like the “we need an all of the above energy supply strategy” trope. No, we don’t.

  26. The project is to produce the next generation of Greensheep who will mindlessly follow their dear leaders.
    When dissent is politically suppressed, be very ware:
    – Of course the Iraq war is justified – to suggest otherwise is unpatriotic
    – Ditto Vietnam
    – The ongoing wars on drugs, poverty, cancer, crime – all heavily funded political dogma that no one dares question
    – Heck, the Iron Curtian was a political construct agreed to by both sides in order to prevent the free flow of communication and justify huge arms build ups. Both sides had a field day rooting out and persecuting “traitors.”
    Now we have the War on Climate.
    My liberal, as in supporting freedom of thought, parents would be revolted to find the new McCarthyism taking root in Portland of all places.

    • Joe McCarthy was, in the end, correct. The so-call “victims” of the congressional investigation (McCarthy was in the Senate) are the very same people who are trying to take MY free speech from me…. in 2016.
      He knew that communism, is a hammer that destroys freedom of speech. It is pernicious in it logic and infectiousness. Now the left says, “McCarthy” was against free speech… no, he was against the ills of communism which was the loss of all freedoms including speech.
      So the left paints him with a label. The hypocrite free speech haters on the left use his love of freedom as a weapon to kill his name. I am not a sucker for the leftist inversion reasoning.

      • Mr. Layman here.
        As I understand it, McCarthy was not against Freedom of Speech but rather those who in Government, Hollywood and the Media would seek to control and influence the information behind what others spoke.
        A very thin line to walk.
        “Hollywood” hates him. “Media” hates him.
        He tried to prevent those with power from controlling/slanting the information available.
        How many of those who vilify him today know anything about Stalin and how he operated at the time?
        Believe what you want. Say what you want. But, don’t believe it or say it because that’s what “they” want.

      • Exactly. McCarthy was never against free speech, rather the opposite. This is expressed by Hilton Kramer in his interview with W F Buckley:

        Also, Joe McCarthy reads from the Communist instruction book regarding “McCarthyism”
        Time stamp 20:20

  27. Leftists, socialists, greens, you know, the tyrants that are ruining our world, hate free speech.
    The truth will prevail over their lame attempts to shut you down by labeling you the pejorative of the day.
    White man…creationist, homophobe, …new words to stop you from speaking. I speak anyway.
    The f@scism is coming from the ignorant left.

  28. It is not just local school boards only. Censorship extends, unannounced, to colleges too. I have a book out called “What Warming?” that I once presented to Dartmouth College Library as a gift from a graduate. Two weeks later I received a letter stating that “…our bibliographer has decided not to add it to our collection.” What they did was to donate my book to a charity that gives free books to poor people. Somehow they imagine that this wonderful good deed will make up for censorship. The message is clear: just don’t expect that your Alma Mater cares about your books unless they are in line with her ideology.

    • Another trend is that ou are not allowed to use certain words or language, because it might “offend” someone or some group. Apparently we are raising a generation of emotionally fragile ninnies (oops) who will whine and pee their pants (oops) if someone says something they find “hurtful”.

  29. It’s the left coast censorship is what they do only they renamed it “open mindedness”.

  30. Even though they criticized Portland for banning books, they are no “friend” to science. One example, “Even if some scientists questioning the human causes of climate change do so apparently at the behest of the fossil fuel industry, it is still a fact that environmental policy is a subject of ongoing debate. ”
    LOL. The debate is not first of all about questioning human causes of climate change. It is whether or not humans will cause catastrophic warming or catastrophic climate change such that it is imperative to reduce CO2 emissions to avoid disaster. Nor is there any evidence that scientists are skeptical at the behest of the fossil fuel industry.

  31. It seems readily apparent that inbred administrators and the ring nosed school board members they attract are everywhere, and ubiquitously bent on making horrid decisions about children that boggle the mind and violate even the most basic tenets of administrative common sense. This is yet another example. If their decision about lead in drinking water is a window into their general knowledge of science Portland parents should be very very afraid.

    • At least in the U.S., school boards are elected. Now the residents of Portland got what they elected!
      If the shoe fits wear it!

  32. When are the book burning events scheduled in Portland? They would make for great video moments.

    • Red herring. Common Core States Standards mention climate change exactly 0 times. The Science Standards, which are not in the body of CCSS and was not developed by the group that set forth CCSS, is the set of documents you want to tar and feather.

      • Agreed. But looking at how much the U.N. is imbedded into our scholastic system seems to be problematic.
        thank you for all your insights.

      • Pamela Gray
        June 7, 2016 at 8:05 am
        “Red herring. Common Core States Standards mention climate change exactly 0 times”.
        This may be the usual inertia and lag between what is current and what was. The first intrusion of Agenda 21 is, of course, sugar coated. When you are testing new raw materials in industry, say, for making glass, you start with 100% of your tried and true ingredients. Then you add a few percent and than 10 and so on until you reach 100% new raw material. You can then test resulting finished products throughout the period of the test (they don’t bother with the second half of the test which is to reverse the steps and end up with the old material, a way of not interrupting full production). The first ed stuff is rather benign, but once established it will grow to the limit of credibility in meeting the ‘desired’ goal if it is indeed the propaganda exercise that it looks like.
        I made it a priority to inculcate critical thinking into my children (now grandchildren) as best I could by arguing some of the catechisms they were learning in science, history, and social studies. I hated that I had to tell them that they had to learn the stuff the way it was taught so they wouldn’t get a failing grade, but reserve your judgements on it and discuss it outside the classroom.
        I know Pam would be happy to entertain a variety of views from her students , but this isn’t the norm today. New teachers coming up will whittle away more and more of questioning minds. These folks are probably both ignorant and forceful. They can await the older teachers retirements.

  33. Eric Worrall asks a leading question embedded with a wrong assumption:
    “Why does the Portland Public School Board feel the need to protect their indoctrination of students with alarmist climate dogma, using the same harsh, anti-freedom censorship techniques which pseudoscientists use to defend their untruths?”
    He said just before that:
    “In my opinion, the reason Creationists and other pseudoscientists frequently try to suppress viewpoints which do not conform to their dogma,”
    CAGW advocates do not value truth since they are operating towards an end that cares little of the means to it. To them, the free speech argument is a tool they can use or discard at will, not like what it is to us, a fundamental freedom worth defending. So Eric, your frame of reference is oblique and skewed with a flawed assumption about the rules of the game, so to speak.
    2) I am not comfortable with you use of “Creationist” as a pejorative label to isolate a group. I am not sure what you mean by it and you can use some other of the 400,000 words in the english language to make your point. Do you mean people who accept that the Big Bang started everything? Do you mean people who believe that the universe was created? or created 5000 years ago? Do you mean people who are unhappy with classical dawinianism? or those who believe that darwinianism = natural selection = common descent = mutation = evolution? What ever you mean by it I doubt that everyone else agrees with your flavor of it.
    Or do you simply mean narrow-minded people?
    To label a person as a Creationist is a conversation stopper… just like McCarthyism. These are tricks of the leftist anti-reason mob.
    People use these terms without saying what they mean and that is undisciplined.

  34. About 25 centuries ago the Chinese General Sun Tzu wrote “The Art of War”, which is used to this day as a fundamental treatise on warfare and competition. Understand what Sun Tzu wrote and you can understand the “hows” and “whys” of military victories and defeats throughout history. He stressed the importance of understanding what the other side is thinking, as well as having your own thoughts in order.
    “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
    To follow this advice is to be prepared for every confrontation with the other side, and to ignore it is to be vulnerable with no defense of viable counter assault.
    This is probably the most important reason to NEVER suppress ideas that you may not agree with.

  35. Activists are not affected by such criticisms – particularly Portlanders. You only need look at the half-hypnotized sheen in their eyes – the exultance of a higher cause. They take it as a badge of honor.

  36. I agree with the NCAC on this one. As it says in the article:
    “These include as a “disciplinary core idea” the role of human activity in global warming: “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).”
    Since they have adopted this as an established disciplinary core idea there is no need to further restrict books, but simply to ensure that the core idea is taught.

    • How big of you. Yes, as long as they continue to pound home the core ideology, it’s safe to “allow” other viewpoints. Just as long as they are marginalized, put in the “right light”, and context. That way, you can continue pretending that you are offering both sides.

    • seaice1
      June 7, 2016 at 9:16 am
      “I agree with the NCAC on this one.”
      I agree that it is proper to include an examination of the role of human activity in climate that could stimulate discussion and even give consideration of the CO2 greening of the planet and positive effect on crop harvests to make it interesting. I don’t think a core idea should should include a dogmatic negative conclusion about “major factors” when the jury is definitely still out – mention two decades of no significant warming when over 30% of the increase in CO2 since the advent of the industrial revolution occurred. That would be simply dishonest.
      So what your are saying is the activist lobbying is to no effect?

      • The “core idea” is that human activities are major factors in recent rise in global temperatures. It seems to me that as long as the core is taught responsibly there is plenty of scope for discussion of social and economic effects of that rise in temperature and what steps we should take to mitigate or reduce it. The greening effects you describe are not the core idea.

  37. The real enemy is all the less than useless so called green movement. Windmills ,solar, electric cars (where are all those dead batteries going to go?) Endless gov overreach and unrealistic regulations, the war on coal, gas and oil. How do these nimwits expect to heat their homes? Building regulations which make homes so tight they are unhealthful according to the very people who make the regulations. Lying to kids to make them beloeve agw is destroying the earth. GO TRUMP!
    If hillary gets in we are cooked.rant over, for now

  38. Both the President and Dean of Liberal Arts at Oregon State University have stated that promoting the narrative of global climate alarmists is one of their major responsibilities. Which explains in part the departure of George Taylor and the arrival of Philip Mote.
    And, as one of the larger colleges of education in the state, bodes poorly for the yutes of tomorrow.
    .

    • Gee, surely the Dean of “Liberal” Sciences should be asked to stick his neck out first rather than be led by interior designers, psychologists and English majors. This is the trouble with all this smoke and steam.

  39. In the first place, God made idiots. That was for practice.
    Then He made school boards.
    — Mark Twain

    • “In my opinion, the reason Creationists and other pseudoscientists frequently try to suppress viewpoints which do not conform to their dogma, is because learning about evidence based science is like a mental vaccine – it tends to inoculate the minds of students against nonsensical alternatives.”
      Most creatonists are not pseudoscientists. Their dogma is purely religious.. Some creationists have tried to argue based on science that creationism is supported by science. However, IMO, they have consistently lost those arguments. I’ve not seen anything in the last 30 years or more where a creationist tried to suppress other viewpoints. Rather many religious people have tried to get “creation” presented in school along with Darwin’s theory of evolution. Personally, I am not religious and agree for the most part with Darwin’s theory. I think it is find if views on creation are presented with Darwin’s theories. It is something that is almost guaranteed to spark debate and thought in young people.
      Alarmists are different from creationists. Most alarmists believe in alarmist viewpoints due to philosophical views that are almost religious in nature. Alarmists think that the science is on their side because they have been told this over and over. Only a few alarmists know even the basics about climate change. Alarmists want to suppress other viewpoints because they realize that they are not winning the debate with the average person. Many believe the reason that they are not winning the debate is due to skeptics who they think must be well organized and funded by corporations that sell fossil fuels. They don’t know this is true, they just have heard it in the press. Since alarmists think that science is on their side, but they are not winning with the average person, the only conclusion that they can believe is that skeptics well funded by the fossil fuel industry are lying. The solution – put them in jail and prevent them from being able to present their arguments.

  40. The reason for banning writings which disagree with the argument of CAGW is that the mere presence of the documentation lends credence to the possibility of CAGW being incorrect.
    Example in History.
    It is taught that all the defenders perished in the fighting at the Alamo. But there are some Mexican sources which claim several defenders were captured and executed. No school system bans the discussion of said Mexican sources no matter how unpopular or disagreeable the inclusion of them may be.
    And because they are available the possibility that they are accurate must then be entertained.
    With the CAGW issue it is the same dilemma. By including and allowing the reading of contrary view points you are de facto admitting their validity as a possible alternative. This naturally would bring into scrutiny all facets of the CAGW theory.
    Actions like this short change the students and go against the whole philosophy of education.
    michael

  41. I lived in Portland back in 1980. It was chocked full of unthinking eco-loons and has progressively gotten worse over the years. This whole mess isn’t surprising at all.

  42. RockyRoad,
    I visited the Portland area in 2011. At that time, I visited Boneville Dam.
    The Park Ranger who guided the tour said that the long term plan was to
    remove all the dams on the Columbia.
    I lived in Oregon in the ’40s and ’50s and observed the Columbia in flood,
    before many of the dams were buil.
    Massive flooding, loss of very cheap, “green” electricity, and loss of irrigation
    on large amounts of very fertile cropland would ensue.
    “Sustainability” depends upon your point of view, but is a stalking hourse
    for “One world government”
    http://iotwreport.com/dam-busters/

Comments are closed.