Inhofe: Kids are "brainwashed" into Worrying About Climate Change

The victors of the 15th Congress; Rykov (left), Mykola Skrypnik (center) and Stalin (right)

The victors of the 15th Congress; Rykov (left), Mykola Skrypnik (center) and Stalin (right). By Unknown; photo retake by George Shuklin – State museum of political history of Russia, Public Domain,

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Senator Inhofe, a steadfast climate skeptic, has raised concerns about “brainwashing” of kids to convince them to worry about climate change.

In his grandchild’s question — ‘Why is it you don’t understand global warming?’— Sen. Jim Inhofe sees ‘brainwashing’

The senator, speaking last week on the syndicated Eric Metaxas radio show, said his granddaughter once asked him, “Popi, why is it you don’t understand global warming?”

Here’s the full quote:

You know, our kids are being brainwashed? I never forget because I was the first one back in 2002 to tell the truth about the global warming stuff and all of that. And my own granddaughter came home one day and said “Popi — see “I” is for Inhofe, so it’s Momi and Popi, okay? — Popi, why is it you don’t understand global warming?” I did some checking and Eric, the stuff that they teach our kids nowadays, you have to un-brainwash them when they get out.

Read more:

The following is the sound track from the show;

(Senator Inhofe joins the show around 30 minutes into the sound track)

I have to say I agree with Senator Inhofe. I have seen plenty of examples of children repeating harmful social conditioning – nonsense about not defending yourself against bullies, and of course, lessons about the alleged dangers of “climate change” – saying things like “if you drop any plastic on the ground the animals will die, it has to all go in the recycling”.

For parents, trying to undo this damage is a nightmare. If they push too far, and their child starts disagreeing in public with what is being taught, the child just receives more bullying to conform. But doing nothing is also not an option.

The people who traumatise our children also publicly wonder why so many turn to drugs. It should be obvious. I mean, if authority figures convince a child the world is about to end, that it is all their parent’s fault, that there is nothing they can do to avoid a horrible death, what do you say to those same children, to convince them to do their homework?

Not every teacher is participating in this harmful brainwashing – according to a recent study, many teachers are courageously risking their careers and livelihoods to try to lead the children in their charge towards a more balanced view of the world.

197 thoughts on “Inhofe: Kids are "brainwashed" into Worrying About Climate Change

  1. I’ve noticed the same in various young kids I know and talk with. It is worse than criminal to brainwash 5 year olds.

    • Brainwashing at school from the UN? Check this out!
      Agenda 21 has entered the education system in my country.
      I came across the curriculum when browsing my governments education website. It is headed “Environmental Sustainability, Education for Sustainability”.
      If one searches just a little you will find the source texts include the Brundtland Report and UN Agenda 21.
      This includes global warming but takes it back to the nth degree with the doctrine of “Sustainability”, which believe me does not mean financial sustainability in any shape or form.
      Read my blog at
      Will blow your mind. Parents do not know about this, no one voted it in and there was no publicity or public debate. It just appeared as far as I know.
      Check out this exemplar and you will get what I mean.
      Check out your country’s education website. Search for the key words “sustainability”, “Agenda 21” or “Our Common Future” aka “The Brundtland Report”
      This is where the real brainwashing is in full swing!

    • yeah – people should stop all the antics with snowballs to convince people there’s no problem…

      • What Problem, Griff? There are children leaving school this year who will not have experienced any significant ‘global warming’ in their life-time. OK, climate changes, always has, and over time it may be that it’s warmer (somewhere), just as, over time, it may get to be colder (somewhere). In the real world it is pretty well impossible for anyone just going from life experience to say whether the climate is better or worse, warmer or colder, but on balance, warmer is better.
        So, I ask you once again, what problem?

      • I deprogrammed my two kids as soon as they mentioned climate change.
        They’re still skeptics today and grown up.

      • Or antics such as stopping the air conditioning working in the room so that everybody is boiling hot when you tell them the world is going to fry.
        Do you mean those kind of antics Griff?

      • Hey Griff, did you mean that the IPCC ,a few published reports ago stated there would be LESS Snow and more Freezing rain,sleet and plain rain in the winter,when the reality of INCREASED Snowfall and extent has happened instead?
        Gee when will you learn to pay attention?

      • Griff, there is a reason why the cult of CAGW will not debate/defend CAGW. The entire IPCC scientific basis is incorrect. The IPCC ignored and hide the piles and piles of observations that disprove CAGW.
        There is of course a difference between CAGW (Al Gore’s silly propaganda movie) and LAGW (Luke warm global warming where no action is required and which is what occurred before the 18 year ‘pause’ in warming. An end of warming is a paradox.). The warming that has occurred has been high latitude warming which is the same region that has in the past cyclically warmed and cool. The biosphere expands when the planet warms and contracts when it cools.
        There is no CAGW problem to solve. There is not even observational support for LAGW. Observations support the assertion that the majority of the warming in the last 50 years is due to solar cycle LSGW changes rather than the increase in atmospheric CO2.
        1) Latitudinal temperature paradox (Strike 1)
        The latitudinal temperature anomaly paradox is the fact that the latitudinal pattern of warming in the last 50 years does match the pattern of warming that would occur if the recent increase in planetary temperature was caused by the CO2 mechanism.
        The amount of CO2 gas forcing is theoretically logarithmically proportional to the increase in atmospheric CO2 times the amount of long wave radiation that is emitted to space prior to the increase. As gases are evenly distributed in the atmosphere the potential for warming due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 should be the same at all latitudes.

        Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth
        The atmospheric CO2 is slowly increasing with time [Keeling et al. (2004)]. The climate forcing according to the IPCC varies as ln (CO2) [IPCC (2001)] (The mathematical expression is given in section 4 below). The ΔT response would be expected to follow this function. A plot of ln (CO2) is found to be nearly linear in time over the interval 1979-2004. Thus ΔT from CO2 forcing should be nearly linear in time also.
        The atmospheric CO2 is well mixed and shows a variation with latitude which is less than 4% from pole to pole [Earth System Research Laboratory. 2008]. Thus one would expect that the latitude variation of ΔT from CO2 forcing to be also small. It is noted that low variability of trends with latitude is a result in some coupled atmosphere-ocean models. For example, the zonal-mean profiles of atmospheric temperature changes in models subject to “20CEN” forcing ( includes CO2 forcing) over 1979-1999 are discussed in Chap 5 of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program [Karl et al.2006]. The PCM model in Fig 5.7 shows little pole to pole variation in trends below altitudes corresponding to atmospheric pressures of 500hPa.
        If the climate forcing were only from CO2 one would expect from property #2 a small variation with latitude. However, it is noted that NoExtropics is 2 times that of the global and 4 times that of the Tropics. Thus one concludes that the climate forcing in the NoExtropics includes more than CO2 forcing. These non-CO2 effects include: land use [Peilke et al. 2007]; industrialization [McKitrick and Michaels (2007), Kalnay and Cai (2003), DeLaat and Maurellis (2006)]; high natural variability, and daily nocturnal effects [Walters et al. (2007)].
        An underlying temperature trend of 0.062±0.010ºK/decade was estimated from data in the tropical latitude band. Corrections to this trend value from solar and aerosols climate forcings are estimated to be a fraction of this value. The trend expected from CO2 climate forcing is 0.070g ºC/decade, where g is the gain due to any feedback. If the underlying trend is due to CO2 then g~1. Models giving values of g greater than 1 would need a negative climate forcing to partially cancel that from CO2. This negative forcing cannot be from aerosols.
        These conclusions are contrary to the IPCC [2007] statement: “[M]ost of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.

        As the amount of warming is also proportional to amount of long wave radiation that is emitted to space prior to the increase in atmospheric CO2, the greatest amount of warming should have occurred at the equator.
        There is in fact almost no warming in the tropical region of the planet. This observational fact supports the assertion that majority of the warming in the last 50 years was not caused by the increase in atmospheric CO2.
        2) The planet cyclically warms and cools with the majority of the temperature change occurring at high latitudes. The cyclic warming and cooling correlate with solar cycle changes which provides support the for the assertion that the solar cyclic changes caused the change rather than the increase in atmospheric CO2 (Strike 2)

        Davis and Taylor: “Does the current global warming signal reflect a natural cycle”
        …We found 342 natural warming events (NWEs) corresponding to this definition, distributed over the past 250,000 years …. …. The 342 NWEs contained in the Vostok ice core record are divided into low-rate warming events (LRWEs; < 0.74oC/century) and high rate warming events (HRWEs; ≥ 0.74oC /century) (Figure). … …. "Recent Antarctic Peninsula warming relative to Holocene climate and ice – shelf history" and authored by Robert Mulvaney and colleagues of the British Antarctic Survey ( Nature , 2012, doi:10.1038/nature11391),reports two recent natural warming cycles, one around 1500 AD and another around 400 AD, measured from isotope (deuterium) concentrations in ice cores bored adjacent to recent breaks in the ice shelf in northeast Antarctica. ….

        Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper. William: As this graph indicates the Greenland Ice data shows that have been 9 warming and cooling periods in the last 11,000 years.

      • Will,
        You missed something in your presentation. You forgot to splice onto the end of your record, the current temperature measurements and current rise in CO2 levels. For CO2 your chart stops at around 280ppm but current levels are just over 400ppm. And your temperature stops at the level below average when the Cool-Aid drinkers have already adjusted the current measured temperature anomaly to +1.2C.
        It’s OK though just grab a cup of Cool-Aid and splice away

      • Griff July 28, 2016 at 1:06 am
        yeah – people should stop all the antics with snowballs to convince people there’s no problem…

        “yeah – people should stop all the antics with air-conditioners to convince Congress there is problem…”
        (Fixed it for ya”.)

    • My friend came to stay with me at the weekend, and she brought her two kids. One is 6 and the other is 8. They told me that their primary school is running classes on how to stop global warming. It sounded like something out of ‘No Pressure’.

  2. My kids are not brainwashed but they see it in school and ask the right questions so far, so far! A lot of kids don’t know ANYTHING different. in Indiana. I am sorry to say!.

  3. My next door neighbour is a primary school teacher. She has to toe the “party line” regarding “climate change” but tries to introduce proper scientific methodology into her teaching, although with little success regarding climate due to the prevailing CAGW meme current in the British educational system at present.
    What is she supposed to do?
    Lose her job?

    • That depends. If she’s okay with just introducing proper scientific metholdology and hoping for the best, at least she’s doing that. It depends on how much one can take playing ball with people who are out to destroy people’s lives and make them miserable. It’s a very individual thing.

    • Tell her she is doing what she can. I’m familiar with Britain, they are downright authoritarian when it comes to school curricula, so I sympathise with your friend’s predicament. Teaching proper scientific methodology is a lot better than nothing – with a solid understanding in evidence based science, the kids will eventually see through climate lies for themselves.

    • goebbels probably had the same exact rationale
      what is she supposed to do, sacrifice her integrity for a dollar?
      what is she supposed to do, damage innocent children out of cowardice?
      she made the call.
      she’s committed a defining act.
      she is what she does.
      so are we all.

      • It’s not just a “dollar”. It could be the end of her career.
        Cut her some slack, please

      • Yep. There were plenty of “good Germans.” To put Gnomish’s point in other words, what if we had doctors being pressured to treat their patients so they would come down with diabetes? Treat them to health? That could be the end of their careers! Why would they then think their “careers” had any value or honor?
        It prompts one to ponder whether ignorance is a better condition for children than to be maliciously misled.

    • What’s so provocative about inserting a little content on prediction error evaluation as an aside from statistics, or have the expensive measurement systems like satellites and buoy systems gone dark because they don’t follow party line? Of course that is not possible in the U.S. with each 5 minute block of time in the classroom locked and beyond the control of the teacher.

  4. Sadly, schools through most of the West have become ideological madrassas churning out children devoid of critical thinking.

  5. I think it will take some time, if even possible, to undo the current propaganda campaign on climate change and other green issues. That is no reason not to try.

  6. It is likely that this brainwashing will backfire horribly on the Left in 20 or 30 years, when the kids will be adults facing real problems – economy, jobs, family, etc – and will suddenly notice that the world *didn’t* end, contrarily to the litany of doomsday predictions recited over their childhoods.

    • Hey, we can see this NOW, as the millennials are clearly incapable of functioning in life. They were coddled and lied to their whole lives, now most of them are dumb as posts.
      [Please do not insult any perfectly functional fence post by comparing it to today’s college graduates and tomorrow’s snowflake-enabled students. .mod]

    • Global Warming and all the rest of the whole package of leftist ideology has been taught of thirty years now. Let’s see how it is going.
      Is it backfiring horribly on the left?
      Is the hard core Left enjoying unprecedented political popularity among the younger demographic?
      Just consider the impressive performance of Bernie Sanders. What should have been a fringe candidate became something of a national sensation.
      I would say that the Left is doing very well reaping the rewards of their control of the public education system.

      • “I would say that the Left is doing very well reaping the rewards of their control of the public education system.”
        I would agree. We have a delusional ideology within striking distance of gaining control of our lives. We should work hard not to let that happen.

      • Didn’t Obama say he was going to “fix the economy” back in 2008? Did he really mean ” alter the economy”?
        Young people think you can have things both ways.All kinds of electric gadgets with no electricity supply.
        And all kinds of green jobs with poor wages.

      • As my mother said today, when you are young, getting everything for free sounds great, so why think further?
        I am old enough to remember some of the “edutainment” that was used to promote environmental “virtue”. Captain Planet and Ferngully seem cute and innocuous when you are little or if you do not think too hard about the intent/signalling of the makers. Kids’ movies and shows seem like they are “safe”, either educational or a kiddie infomercial, but if you look at the ideas being promoted, they are not necessarily what you want your kid to learn/believe/absorb. It is also kind of creepy that these messages of “you gotta save the planet, omg, the rainforest fairies, stop the deforestation NOW!!!” were being shoved at kids who literally could not do ANYTHING about these issues. How exactly is an eight year old supposed to stop clear cutting in the Amazon?
        I still know the Captain Planet theme song decades later, so the brainwashing sort of worked. “Gonna take pollution down to zero!”

      • AllyKat July 27, 2016 at 6:51 pm
        I still know the Captain Planet theme song decades later, so the brainwashing sort of worked. “Gonna take pollution down to zero!”

        Wow! So were Captain Planet episodes all about killing bears so they stop doing what they “doo” in the woods?

    • The progs are prepared for any event. When CAGW doesn’t happen they’ll say it is because they prevented it through their awareness programs and warnings (see their Ozone hole and population bomb/food shortage extinction explanations) and (like seat belts and air bags) there’s Obamacare – that $2500 per family savings is how much more we’d be paying if they hadn’t pass it.
      Progs have their propaganda ready for anything and, unfortunately, simpletons are conditioned to believe it.

      • We did prevent the Ozone hole expanding by successful world wide action…
        We did prevent overpopulation/famine by contraception/family planning and the ‘green revolution’.
        what, you think the Senator fixed that?

      • ” We did prevent the Ozone hole expanding by successful world wide action…”
        Thanks, I needed a laugh.
        ” We did prevent overpopulation/famine by contraception/family planning and the ‘green revolution’.”
        I think you mean more wealth and better health created by capitalism results in a declining birthrate.
        As for the “green revolution”, that’s just a bunch of leftys in Lenin hats convincing themselves that buying the over-priced organic stuff in their local deli is helping to solve world hunger. In reality, worldwide crop levels have incresed because of mechanisation, effective chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and rising CO2 levels.
        Get in the real world Griff

    • oh? the ones of today have solved their problems by making them other people’s problems.
      obviously this is not an innovation and has been going on for at least a couple thousand years – so what makes you think it can’t go on for another couple thousand?
      slavery is sustainable, isn’t it?
      especially when the slaves have negotiated their own submission.

    • When I was a kid it seemed an absolute certainty that the world would end very soon in a nuclear holocaust. Im still a little bitter about being manipulated in a needlessly negative way about something I had no need to worry about.

    • It will backfire when this thing collapses. At that point we will have a Teachable Moment to end all teachable moments. That’s the great thing about AGW – and even better, the warmists can’t see it coming.

  7. I posted at the Daily Wire where I first saw it and re-posted at the Post :

    Inhofe is too kind . The failure to teach the most basic , experimentally demonstrable at a highschool level , quantitative physics of planetary temperature is criminal malfeasance .
    You can teach AlGoreWarming or you can teach the mathematics of heat transfer ; you can’t teach both .

  8. The solution is to stop voting for Democrats and gain control of the school boards. Teachers must stop teaching far-left propaganda.

    • As Voltaire said:

      God is not on the side of the big battalions, but on the side of those who shoot best.

    • Gaining control of the local school boards will not help solve the problem.
      The federal Department of Education, State School Boards and State Legislatures are a major source of revenue that County Public School Systems and their employees are highly dependent upon for their existence and if they don’t do and act as they are told then said revenue or revenue requests will be withheld, reduced, terminated or ignored.
      Local school boards really have no say-so or control of the selection of Textbooks or other Teaching material and therein is a major problem because the lefty liberal PC “junk science” is in the “books” and Teachers are mandated to “teach” to the book.

      Study finds errors rife in science textbooks
      RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — Twelve of the most popular science textbooks used at middle schools nationwide are riddled with errors, a new study has found.
      Read more @

    • It’s gone beyond climate now; the new indoctrination even at the K-2 level is promoting “transgenderism” as a normal, healthy choice. Last I looked it was a psychiatric disorder with a 45% suicide rate!

      • Add into that the latest “Gender fluid” and we are creating problems for our offspring that will comeback to bite us. Special toilets for the transgenders, parents encouraging gender reassignment from a silly young age, we are all going to hell in a handcart!

  9. Understanding the limits of the scientific domain should be sufficient to dispel any beliefs in scientific prophecies. Unfortunately, the corruption of science progresses with social causes and the establishment of “secular”, quasi-religious churches.

    • I could use the same logic and say ‘much like mathematics, start them early’. Because something is organized and/or starting at an early age, doesn’t make it wrong/bad. The problem is not how (being organized) or when (an early age), it is what they are teaching (an unproven theory) that is the problem.
      ‘Organized religion’ has many benefits, including the fact that if you are not organized you will be unable to obtain, or realize, the benefits that ANY religious teachings offer. In fact, if you are NOT organized for just about ANYTHING you will not realize the benefits. Would people prefer DIS-organized religion? No. I tend to think that ‘organized religion’ is a redundant phrase…’religion’ implies ‘organized’. If it didn’t, then it probably isn’t ‘religion’ and just a hobbled together system of beliefs. True religion, by it’s very nature, and by the way it has been presented and revealed to us, is organized.
      Essentially, religion-haters have hijacked the word ‘organized’ to make religion seem like it’s ‘not supposed to be’ organized, as if being organized is dangerous or somehow contains nefarious elements. It doesn’t.
      Back to the topic. Teaching children that CAGW is a ‘fact’ is like giving them a fish and telling them that is the only fish you will find in the river worth eating. Teach them how to fish and we’ll have children who will be able to catch the fish we need.

      • It would be closer to giving them an octopus and telling them it is an iguana, in my opinion.

      • ” the word ‘organized’ to make religion seem like it’s ‘not supposed to be’ organized, as if being organized is dangerous or somehow contains nefarious elements. It doesn’t.”
        Radical Islamism is well organised. That bunch are definitely nefarious.
        All religion is a medieval attempt to explain the world around us and subjugate the masses with spurious rules about “sin”. We don’t need fairy-tales anymore as we have science to help us understand the world (although we will never understand it all).

      • @David Smith – “Radical Islamism is well organised. That bunch are definitely nefarious.”
        The nefariousness doesn’t come from them being organized, is comes from the ‘radical’. Don’t confound the two unfairly. A useful tool (being ‘organized’) used by bad people (a radical) doesn’t mean the tool is bad.
        Religion is not a spurious attempt, it has actually worked to make the world better. A review of history will easily inform anyone of this fact; societies have always improved after adopting the religion revealed for them at that time. Not to be confused with made-up (man-made) religion.
        Science still needs to be guided by your conscience. You can’t have one without the other. Science and religion must agree. Religion without science is superstition, science without religion is materialism.

    • “DUH”, …… all Public School Systems are in essence an “organize religion” ….. that is based in/on the belief that an educated populace is necessary for a well function and productive society.

  10. “For parents, trying to undo this damage is a nightmare. If they push too far, and their child starts disagreeing in public with what is being taught, the child just receives more bullying to conform. But doing nothing is also not an option.”
    There are options:
    Point out the benefits of warmer climate for reduction in burning oil or gas for heating, benefits of increased plant growth and food production not only in the temperate climate zone but further north, thus creating abundance of food to be made available to poor countries of the world.
    Point out the benefits of warmer climate for the large proportion of elderly population which may be susceptible to hypothermia.
    Point out the fact that CO2 is not harmful but a benign gas that all of us exhale.
    Point out the fact that with the increase of CO2 the world is a much ‘greener’ place
    Finally suggest that all prediction of the catastrophic warming may actually not happen and if it does it may take many decades and by then the advancement of science and technology may find way of either averting or even reversing it.

    • vukcevic – I tried to tell that to the Washington State Department of Ecology, regarding their use of the ‘Social Cost of Carbon’ (SCC) as an excuse to impose new CO2 regulations on industries in Washington State, USA. A de-facto back door carbon tax, the Holy Grail (another Python reference, two in one day!) of current Gubnor Jay “I’ll pass a carbon tax on my watch” Inslee:
      Comments were closed 22 July, and now I cannot open them. However, the gist of my comment was that not enough positive costs of increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, regardless of the source were given in their SCC calculations.
      It’s about to get pretty expensive to live a modern life in Washington State.

  11. Fortunately my eleven year old has better critical thinking than many adults regarding this subject and many other themes, with very little help from me (my wife is a liberal through and through). I recently met another boy about the same age who’s mother told him we’ll all be under water in a few years even though we are 80m above sea level. You should have seen the smile when I told time otherwise.

    • Kids know that some adults will lie to them, and the ones that do will do so all the time.
      I vividly recall being a school kid, and how easily I took to the notion that I was being fed a bunch of malarkey.
      I do not think kids have changed much, if at all.

      • Kids just need to get both sides of the story. They will figure it out from there.
        The problem is they are only getting one side of the story many times.

      • Fortunately in Canada, while the liberals have bought the TAX the climate debate to death, I have not had feedback that the schools are pushing this yet in schools. I have had my ear to the ground and nothing yet (grade 6). While I have my beliefs, both my wife and I are reserved on persuading (forcefully) any argument while “Kids just need to get both sides of the story” is the best advice – agreed.

      • Do not get me wrong, I agree that kids in US schools are subjected to attempted brainwashing, and many of them are buying it.
        I just do not think they are necessarily permanently indoctrinated.
        When the things that are being warned of fail to materialized in their lifetime, they will know the truth.
        And they will know they were lied to, and who did it, and many of them will understand why.

      • “I do not think kids have changed much at all” is right, there is way too much hand wringing over what the kids are being stuffed full of. So long as they get down the reading part and modern technology requires way too much mathematical competence to divert humanity from seeking to understand the “laws of the universe” To the extent that the spark of humanity that insists on knowing does so …. CAGW is doomed.

  12. “Social engineering” now commonly refers to tricking someone into providing access to something which would otherwise be confidential. A convenient redefining of a useful and relevant term.

    • Kids do not need to be taught both sides of the argument at all , just taught real science and from there they will work out if CAGW is crap or not .

    • PiperPaul
      July 27, 2016 at 3:11 pm
      ““Social engineering” now commonly refers to tricking someone into providing access to something which would otherwise be confidential. A convenient redefining of a useful and relevant term.”
      Hello PiperPaul.
      In my opinion and understanding, in principle you have got it right.
      In principle “Social engineering” means engaging “tools”, “methodology”, “knowledge” and ‘teaching” (pedagogy) in an actual technical way to better the society and civic way of life.
      The problem is that “social engineering” and coning seem to be similar, when the later has nothing at all to do with teaching and the bettering of society, but more with an extreme exploitation.and victimization.
      Yes in my understanding the “social engineering” lately is set to “operate” in a way as you describe it, to accommodate and inspire a new move, a move from a world that basically runs in the concept of ” too many secrets”, a “cold war” mentality,. to a new one, a world that moves in a new direction of no misinformation, relying in a new concept of “no any secrets”…
      Teaching based in thick ideology, propaganda and demagogy it simply is misinformation, indoctrination and an extreme and dangerous “brainwashing”……… teaching at all in reality but an orchestrated conning and a deception.
      The world is trying to move on, in a new way, but “man” is still too stiff and stubborn to acknowledge it.
      The Als of this world have a lot to hide, more than you and any one else, that is why so much “energy” and struggle put forward by such as to maintain the “cold war” mentality and the misinformation.
      It basically threatens their firm and stubborn belief in the absolute power, which actually absolutely corrupts regardless.

  13. There are two fundamental issues here. Most kids will soon enough figure it out for themselves, so long as they are taught to think for themselves. That happens more around the dinner table than at school, IMO—and both my kids went to one of the best public school systems in the US, and then to Harvard. Sheeple kids won’t. Part of the problem is sheeple parents at the dinner table, part of the problem is poor schooling. That includes Oreskes at Harvard.

  14. It’s about time the truth is spoken. My two children are now adults, when they were coming up I would talk to them about this climate BS, today they don’t swallow the lies.They know how to think for themselves.

    • congratulations. you were a parent who did it right.
      and by way of contrast- anybody whose kid did not turn out as yours did are the result of failed parents.
      parents with excuses, lazy parents, stupid parents – and how do i know this?
      because if you can do it, so can anybody else.
      and if they didn’t – they suck.

  15. “I have seen plenty of examples of children repeating harmful social conditioning – nonsense about not defending yourself against bullies”
    Been ‘processed’ through that one, and I would say it sucks for worse than any climate change dogma. Fact is, a lot of teachers ARE bullies, and the idea of a regime where no-one can defend themself would seem like nirvana to these scumbags. Basically a form of grooming, rather like that done by pedos, but in this case to ensure that bullying, not sex, can be engaged in with impunity.
    It’s time that the proponents of this kind of sick regime are treated the same way as the child sex abusers. They deserve no less. Point out their gravestones to me and, as was done to Mr Savile’s, I will supply the sledgehammer and effort until no memorial remains to their sorry existence.

    • Many, many years ago my son Mike was taught by a flaming liberal democrat in NJ. She professed that the rebels were always proven to be right. Mike made no points with her when he responded “Like the Confederate states?. Last I heard, she was a legislator in Jersey. And now we choose between Hillary and Trump. God save the United States.

  16. Thirty years ago, a question was posed. The children were getting a horrible education, light on facts across the board, heavy on leftist politics and ideology. The question was “How will these kids be able to tell that their own children are getting a terrible education?” It only took a generation.

  17. It’s no coincidence that Barry’s good buddy and probable ghostwriter Mr. Ayres and all his Weather Underground cohort that are still upright and taking nourishment are all firmly ensconced in American academia. Indeed Mr Ayres, murderous traitor though he may be, is considered the leading light in Education policy and through his leadership has succeeded in moving the prime goal of modern American education from instilling the capacity for critical thought to instilling the proper “revolutionary consciousness” in all our young skulls full of mush.
    Sadly, we are probably now into our third generation of students who have moved or will move through their entire educational experience without hearing one positive thing about their extraordinary national culture that has enabled every bit of the fantastic life they are still able to enjoy, for at least a brief future interlude.
    Luckily for myself. I am an old enough old crock that even my grand children are moving beyond the reach of the American indoctrination machinery. I feel very sorry for young people who have to face the choice of turning their offspring over, although, at this point, they’re mostly all products of that machine themselves and thus have little idea of the evil they are inflicting on their children.

    • Thanks, Dave W, …… my thought exactly and worth repeating, to wit:
      Sadly, we are probably now into our third generation of students who have moved or will move through their entire educational experience without hearing one positive thing about their extraordinary national culture that has enabled every bit of the fantastic life they are still able to enjoy, for at least a brief future interlude.

  18. Part of the problem is that the teachers themselves have been indoctrinated also. Some outgrow it but many do not.

  19. The Washington Post had a hissy over this one.
    I do notice WAPO doesn’t seem to be adhering to the new journalistic standard (announced earlier this year) of avoiding the word ‘denier’ – especially in reference to Inhofe.

  20. It is up to us, each parent to make sure this does not happen.
    I have 3 kids, one 20 one 5 and one 3
    The 20 year old, some years ago there was a wee bit of trouble because he disagreed with a teacher in class. I simply told him that it is up to him to learn, and not to be taught.
    I still stick by that, question everything assume nothing. Family rule of thumb.
    For the many that just hand their kids off to school and dont take an interest in what they are being taught.. this will happen.
    My two younger ones dont start school until 7 here in Finland (20 year old started at 4 in Ireland). As such I got to start the education this time. The 5 year old is fluent in English and Finnish with some Irish and Swedish. Not because he’s a genius, but because he learns, he is not taught. I only assist, not direct. It’s more fun for him. We play language games.
    As such he is going to school already developed to a certain extend, I will never let the state model my kid on their view of what education is, ever. Look at society, tell me most of the new generations are not mouth breathing morons, they are. Thinking is soo 1820 to these idiots and the funny thing is the less they know the more certain and smug they are and believe they know more.
    When they do start school I will be talking to the school to see what they will be taught and if any political ideological or advocacy stuff is afoot, he has to leave the class, I will not stand for programming.
    I am more than willing to take it to the courts to make sure this does not happen. I am more than willing to leave the country. Ireland now will start brainwashing kids with this junk.
    All insidious, advocacy groups and movements and of course religions always target the young. It is disgusting.

    • It’s actually mental abuse. How long before a case ends up in court where a parent sues a school for making their child depressed?

    • Technically it is a form of terrorism, fearism, making kids live in fear in order to push a political ideological or religious agenda.
      What is next, getting kids to report of their parents believe, and if not the feds show up and arrest you for “abusing your kids” that is, telling them CAGW is bollocks

      • “…authority figures convince a child the world is about to end, that it is all their parent’s fault.…”
        Who is painting a dark picture of America and the world? It’s in the democrat party platform. Climate change is worse than ISIS – who is really scaring Americans?

    • Mark-H, I wish there were many more like you! I hope your good sense spreads. I would love to see hundreds like you turn up at every school and keep an eye on them. The propaganda has to stop and it will – with people like you to make it happen. More power to you.

  21. It is absolutely happening and it’s not just climate change every form of social justice as well. The most harmful aspect is that they are making our children guilt ridden, girls take the worst beating because not only do they have to deal with all of the climate/ environmental issues but they also have to question every feeling they have, if they have any traditional feminin feelings they are made to feel like there is something wrong with them. Girls are taught to view masculine behaviors as bad but then are expect take on all the those same behaviors. Girls being more social in nature are pulled every which way and are not able to just be who ever they want to be. The numbers of girls in schools with anxiety problems because of this is staggering.

    • you are right, but anyone who leaves the future of their kids to some people who actually hate their jobs after working it for 30 years, needs to get their heads checked.
      State education is rubbish. State history is almost all entirely fabricated.
      Ideological baggage is always brought into classrooms, even unintentionally.
      Always be away of what shite these people are putting into your kids heads, and for the love of god keep kids away from soul destroying TV, TV and media are one way programming tools

      • Mark
        The problem is the social pressure that is constantly put on the children create anxiety, counter acting the bs is easy but the social pressure is a whole different issue, my daughter faced these issues and being strong willed found herself in constant battle with teachers and students in almost every class. I told her just to ignore it and win small battles when she could but it became so oppressive to her sense of indiviality that she just couldnt

      • Fair points marko agree, though if my kids are anything like me.. I am most path of resistance kind of guy, always have been 😀

      • I never did social pressure, and I still suffer the consequences, which usually means exclusion from echo chambers.
        The main reason I lose faith in the average human is the aggressive reaction to different opinions on key issues today, as I said, education produces followers to look for that herd to belong to
        Gotta say it, I most times cant even get my 5 year old to agree with me, and I get trolled by the 3 year old.
        I say “ohh sweety look at that lovely river” and she says “that’s not a river” and I say “oh really what is it” and she says “its water” as if I am stupid bahahahahahaha

      • Mark
        I Have always kind of enjoyed being the thorn in the side type but I am pretty anti social. Kids that aren’t have a much harder time
        I like “the path of most resistance” can I borrow it?

    • Not to mention the way the schools are now policing kids on every mouthful of food they eat, under the rubric of the fictional “obesity epidemic.” Like we don’t have ENOUGH girls with anorexia nervosa?

  22. I used to get annoyed at the rebellious nature of my son, now I realize that its whats necessary for a new generation to survive, i.e. its ingrained. So if your teens are rebelling it shows we are not as doomed as we think 😉

  23. It’s good practice to respond to claims by your kids with “is that true?” You make them think about that

    • If a child of mine learns nothing else, it will be these four words:
      “Truth fears no question.”
      The honest and the truthful will either give you a straight answer, or admit they don’t have one to give you. Any other response should set off your BS detector, and make you think “Why is s/he afraid of my question?” It will go a long way towards keeping the propagandists and indoctrinators of the world from getting a hold on your brain.

    • Had a read, that is pretty scary and amounts to indoctrination, that teacher should be arrested

  24. What is scary is Finland is top or near top in education in the world, and I still wouldn’t just allow the state to imbue them with someone else’s principles and beliefs.
    In the US.. given what is going on in many states for years and what is happening now, I’d flee the country, absolutely no overstatement there, it was one of the reasons I left Ireland, education there has plummeted.

  25. Can we lose the labels ‘climate change denier’ …… ‘climate change skeptic’ ? Neither is accurate these days. Almost no one is denying that the climate changes.
    What is denied is that: (i) we live in a Mary Poppins world – ‘practically perfect in everyway’ and (ii) the earth’s climate system is on the brink of instability, a tipping point. There is no evidence for either of these assertions.
    How about ‘climate change proponent’ making habitable the vast northen land masses in Asia and North America (Go Canada!). How about the greening of the earth (Go plants!). I like the positive vibe.

    • Well, I’m afraid that we can’t, because the Oxford dictionary definition clearly sets out the definitions – e.g. it states for denialist:
      “A person who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence:
      ‘the small minority of very vocal climate change denialists’”

      • Hey Griff,when will you notice that the hundreds of climate models to year 2100 is evidence of pseudoscience?
        Go look up the SCIENTIFIC METHOD in your precious dictionary.

      • Here it is from your own dictionary:
        Scientific Method,
        “A method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses: criticism is the backbone of the scientific method [in plural]: the process is based on presently valid scientific methods”
        Climate Models to year 2100 are worthless since they can’t be tested. The entire AGW conjecture is highly dependent on these unverifiable modeling runs which as loaded with assumptions and has gaping holes in them on various parts of climate phenomenon.
        Wake up Griff,drop the warmist babblings and get rational on this topic.

      • I recommend that if you ever meet myself, my wife or my children and grandchildren in person Griff you refrain from referring to us as ‘deniers’ or ‘denialists’, with their known connotations of Holocaust denial and support for Naziism.
        [rest trimmed. .mod]

    • Mischaracterizing and misrepresenting your opponent with no objection is easy when the main stream media is effectively your own PR firm.

  26. Yes those ads are brought to us by the true believers in the Ontario Government, a government that claims that ads are paid for by them instead of by the people of Ontario at the behest of the true believers.
    I for one don’t need some 8 year old being trotted out to tell me about the world when all they are doing is spouting what they have been told by the fruit fly PHD.

    • That Suzuki piece was part of a long program held remotely with many school children. This man is killing our children – and getting very rich doing it!

  27. I sort of saw this coming when my daughter was little, and I essentially taught her about brainwashing as a defense . . lots of classic stories are useful for this.

  28. For parents, trying to undo this damage….
    In my experience the kids bring it home…and the parents start to believe it too..
    But one good thing… warming is so yesterday…most of the kids are over it

  29. I grew up on “The Population Bomb” and “Silent Spring” and the rest of the doomsday propaganda and it definately negatively impacted my life–why bother to plan for the future when there isn’t going to be any? Since then I have seen this same lone fed to my children in school and it infuriates me.
    I once saw my oldest daughter have a panic attack at the sight of clouds of steam arising from a power plant on a chilly morning. She was convinced that all of the plants and animals were going to die and crying hysterically. I spent a long time calming her down and explaining that water vapor is not pollution and the biosphere is actually much healthier now than it has been for a century.

    • Don’t be deceived. Water vapor is a first-order cause of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.
      That said, the real threat to flora and fauna are windmill and solar farms, and other low-density energy conversion solutions, that occupy large tracts of land thereby corrupting the environment and displacing Bambi on unprecedented scales with marginal energy returns. However, the green[backs] are good.

  30. A liberal orthodoxy that denies individual dignity (e.g. [class] diversity), denies human rights and evolution (from conception), and denies dabbling in scientific mysticism (i.e. conflation of logical domains). Whatever happened to “separation of Church and State”?

    • The concept of individual human dignity has intellectual roots in monotheism. Be wary of blanket criticisms. 🙂

  31. It could be worse.

    ”We are still getting shocks from what we find,” says the film maker Klaus Wendler, a spokesman for an East German Government committee that is now sifting through the Stasi’s five million files. ”Musicians were forced to spy on fellow musicians, students were coerced into spying on friends, and children were duped into spying on their parents.” link

  32. “The people who traumatise our children also publicly wonder why so many turn to drugs. It should be obvious. I mean, if authority figures convince a child the world is about to end, that it is all their parent’s fault, that there is nothing they can do to avoid a horrible death, what do you say to those same children, to convince them to do their homework?”
    I was trying to imagine a teachers response if some of the kids would ask the teacher who just told them that the world was burning up, why should they bother learning anything if they were going to die soon.

  33. We have a solution being discussed by Trump: School choice.
    When parents are allowed to choose how to educate their kids, they will vote with their feet.

    • Exactly! Smart parents don’t send their kids to Marx-O-Crat indoctrination camps. (RE: Public schools)

      • It’s in high priced private schools too at least as invited speaker zealots collecting contact information from students while spouting warnings that have already been dis proven.

  34. Sorry to say, I lived under Nazism, then Communism, where both regimes required that children not be present when parents talked against the party line. Brainwashing of the ultimate sort, for a child’s utterance could cost a parent’s life. Sorry again to say that this adopted country, USA, seems progressing in that direction. One must be careful speaking to a child, adolescent, young adult, or young parents; they think one is stupid, uninformed about global climate change. A whole generation brainwashed, lacks the understanding the difference between climate and weather, never mind “global.” The environmental education strains relationships among generations. Even an innocent question such as “when did the climate stopped changing?” is perceived as an insult. I guess the teachers’ unions take care of keeping the teachers in-line.

  35. I remember doing air raid drills in elementary school. All part of the fear campaign against the godless communist Soviet Union. Even at that age I was intelligent enough to know that “duck and cover” wasn’t going to save me from a nuclear blast.
    There has to be a boogeyman and right now it’s climate change.

    • It depends on how close the blast is. Duck and cover may very well save your life. Lots of people lived after the Hiroshima blast because they had something substantial between them and the fireball. Even close in to ground zero.
      I read the book “Hiroshima” when I was ten years old. It was eye-opening.

  36. It clearly is specific issue brainwashing. There is little doubt that the child not would have any grasp of the physics involved. Therefore the only reason for the child to query grandpa is that the child is brainwashed. Scary.

  37. I find Inhofe’s granddaughter’s wording interesting;
    ‘Why is it you don’t understand global warming?’
    As though it is just a simple matter of clearing up Popi’s confusion. That Popi is simply ignorant of the facts.
    The source clearly does not understand that Inhofe has been educating himself on this subject for decades and could probably teach the child’s educator a thing or two on the subject.
    What does it also say about the “educator’s” level of intelligence?

    • “‘Why is it you don’t understand global warming?’
      As though it is just a simple matter of clearing up Popi’s confusion. That Popi is simply ignorant of the facts.”
      That’s pretty common among alarmists. Many of them are so sure of the rightness of their position, that they rationalize the attitudes of skeptics as just being ignorant of the facts.
      Or they go to the opposite extreme and think skeptics are deliberately trying to undermine a valid scientific theory.
      That there are valid questions about the CAGW theory doesn’t even enter their minds. They don’t question it, so noone else should question it either, they think. Noone that knows anything, anyway. It’s what deluded people do to rationalize their positions: what doesn’t fit, is wrong.

  38. Teachers tell students to resist peer pressure and make up their own minds… except regards climate change. then they tell kids they must listen to the consensus

    • I was going to say something students being told to resist peer pressure but you beat me to it.
      It seems times have changed.
      Now kids are being told to conform to the peer pressure (As long it is the Politically-Correctly formed peer pressure.).

  39. I home-tutored my kids. Perfect? No. But better than being taught defuses. Let’s see. “Dumbes kid in mah in the class.” Given a C- by his 4th grade teacher. After home-tutoring, got an 800 on SAT II, tutored calculus at age 17 and went to the IvyLeague.
    Ask your children’s math teacher, “Did you take College Algebra in college?” It yes, that means your child’s teacher is a math cumbo.

  40. What it needs is a class action against climate science organisations for the entire cost of renewable energy the day the hundred months expires and we have not reached tipping point as claimed. They should also be made to use data that has never been modified after the date the first public claim had been made the science was beyond question as clearly if the science was beyond question on that date than any subsequent data changes have to be knowingly fraudulent.

  41. That’s why the socialists / progressives have been taking over the school system. They have been working this angle since the 50’s.

  42. When I was at school, they taught us how to think.
    Now, they teach them what to think.

    • and many of them know that. I said to one of my classes (college level) last semester “you want self-driving electric vehicles and small houses, right” and the students replied “No! No one asks us what we want, they tell us what we want.”

  43. The un-brainwashing must start at home. Let the children be taken in by some scam when they’re young – something simple and harmless like sn over-hyped toy. Then when it breaks, strategically remind them that you can’t believe everything people say without suffering the consequences. A few episodes like that will inoculate most of them for life. The current generation has been protected from suffering the consequences of their naivete — something that will bite them big time in the near future.

  44. I hope he had a snowball easily accessible to prove to his granddaughter that there is no climate change.

  45. Unfortunately, terrifying children is a common tactic of activist politics. Doubly unfortunate, activist politics has wormed its way deep into academia.

  46. My three are out of the system, graduated college. When they were younger i took classes to be LEED certified as a design professional. I was the laughing stock of the family, Oh look dad’s going Green whenever the books were on the table. Raise them right and they know right from wrong.

  47. Scaring the children is right in line with the public brainwashing our president gives every time he makes wild, scary claims that are not backed by facts from the IPCC, and often conflict with IPCC reports.
    The left cannot lead by example, so they must lead by fear of the enemy within and the enemy from outside. Skeptics and Mr. Trump are presently the “enemy within” and of course, the root of all external threats has to be CAGW.
    Such a neat package for the upcoming election as one again, we vote for who scares us least.

  48. My youngest son attended a respected Catholic HS. The English dept held a global warming debate and my son and a couple of friends took the denier side. They won the debate by a landslide because the opposing team thought their case was self evident and offered no real evidence. My son was punished by a couple of teachers after that in his class work not because of his position but because he won. Education is a serious issue…

    • The evidence for alarmism is only semantics, emotionalism and authoritarian bandwagoning. However, get in the way of it and the MSM mesmerized will trample you in herds.

  49. This is evident in Canada now quite clearly I’m sad to report. It was largely missed in the early years, but high school geography has it as a major component now and unbelievably they uncritically watched The Day After Tomorrow. I nearly wept.
    The danger for parents is two fold:
    one, you need to teach your child to think critically and in doing so you directly contradict the message the teacher/system is putting forward. You therefore undermine the system, which while good in this instance isn’t always good overall.
    two, you run the risk of your child’s grades suffering. Rarely does a high school (or primary school) teacher wish to be challenged in school. This sets your child up to be a target for the teacher if they make the teacher look bad. It also means if they don’t simply regurgitate the party line, their grades will suffer and subsequently their opportunities for scholarships down the road.
    The solution, IMO, is to have a solid discussion of what the realities are based on supportable facts. At the same time you have to explain the “game” to the child and make them duly aware of the consequences of challenging any system and whether it’s worthwhile to do so at that moment in time. I’ll challenge the system once my child is out of the system, but not before. I’ll educate my child to think critically but also teach them how to play the “game”.
    As an aside I find it fascinating that “climate science” is taught out of geography. I’m not certain if it’s the case everywhere but in my parts geography is clustered under the umbrella of the faculty of arts aka the social sciences, which aren’t sciences at all. In fact the arts students typically take science-lite courses to meet their quote of science credits (used to be 12 credit hours, I believe it is now 6 sadly). My niece is taking geography at university (UBC) and has been thoroughly brainwashed as a believer, through grade school and the plethora of media proclamations in British Columbia. So she’ll come out of school with a B.A. but will likely be considered a climate scientist. The worst aspect of it is that she won’t have taken any statistics courses whatsoever. The best aspect is that she is able to think critically and I’ve seen doubt in her when I’ve challenged her. But not surprisingly the discussions are always lite on data, heavy on rhetoric and belief. That’s not science, that’s philosophy, something else that is taught in the social sciences. Just calling yourself a scientist does not make you one.

    • Progressive science is actually the religion of man’s omnipotence over nature and the sinfulness of industrialized societies.

  50. A clas of 8 year-olds in the Greater Victoria school district was tasked with writing letters to government asking them to act on climate change. The letters did not include substantiation.

  51. Well, Warmists – and frankly Progressives in general (please do not try and describe the current crop as liberal) – have followed the fascist model everywhere else – why not here? After all, this bit of junk science called AGW is their soul – their way of corrupting and co-opting morality. Had to fill that void of Catholic guilt with something, right?
    It’s funny – I’m from the generation where profane rap-lyrics were first replacing Heavy Metal as the youth rebel music – and I remember laughing at the time – each generation seems to get a little more raunchy than the next, so where do you go after a ‘Too Short’ album? I suggested in the early 80’s that the next generation might go the other way – total religious piety.
    Turns out, in a way, I was right. Except that it is PROGRESSIVE (pseudo) religion – enforced with puritan authoritarianism.
    Really, your modern Progressive moralist – no matter what the subject – reminds me of nothing so much as Dana Carvey’s hyper-tight a$$ed ‘Chruch Lady’ character.
    It’s the same crop of control-freaks, repainted day-glow green.
    Talk about becoming what you beheld.

  52. A few of the commenters in this thread would appear to think that it’s OK to brainwash children about religion though. Even if that involves teaching them stuff that makes CAGW look like well documented fact.
    (how not to win friends……… )

    • I had the Creation/Evolution discussion with a young woman I used to work with. After a bit of back and forth she told me, “I can see where YOU came from a monkey. But I’M a divine creation of God!”
      It settled nothing, of course, but I think that line alone won her the debate.

      • That pretty much sums up my impression of debates—useless posturing and presentation style for an acting award.

    • Thread jack attempt, stage left.
      Big difference. Try and even mention to a child in a public school here in the US that there even might be a God or (heaven forbid!) somebody named “Jesus” and the lawsuits will fly.
      But tell a kid they should bow to a Statue named “Clima…”… er … Model named “Climate” and all is A-OK.

    • The irony is that religion should be teaching that the very idea of man having any control over climate change should be heresy to those who trust God.

      • Well, Pop, there’s nothing I am aware of in the Book (you know which one ; ) that rules out humans mucking things up . . in fact, this is from Revelation (11:18);
        “And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.”
        Obviously “control over climate” is not implied, but something like the CAGW hypothesis can’t just be ruled out because one trust’s that God. It sure seems unlikely to me that He would have provided us all that cheap energy stuff only to have it destroy the earth when we used it, though . .

      • John, I seriously doubt that the Gospel’s tips for living a Godly life should be sought in Revelations, you should consult the writings of St. Paul and St. James for guidance in dealing with present day reality. Particularly the book of Acts. That is all I will say on this since we are off topic. Maybe Anthony will find another charade by the Pope on this issue so we can discuss further.

      • It says what it says, Pop . .
        “… destroy them which destroy the earth.”
        I said nothing about getting tips for living a moral life based on that . .

  53. Children are taught that Evolution is a fact, and the money of people who don’t believe it, is used to do this indoctrinating of their own children, Smarty . . . You got no freaking argument at all in this realm, that I am aware of, other than you believe there is no God . .

    • John, you apparently have a narrow evangelical view of religion and evolution. I was raised Catholic, and that church has no real problem with evolution, so calling Catholics atheists is at best ignorant.
      I am fairly religious, if skeptical that any person can accurately know the ineffable mind of God. Enforced orthodoxy is what many people confuse with religion, and you have some tendency to conflate your particular faith with religion per se.

        • My thought was along the lines of the famous exchange between Neils Bohr and Albert Einstein, when Bohr made a comment to the effect of “Albert, stop telling God what to do.” on quantum mechanics.
          There is no evidence one way or the other on the existence of souls, so the subject remains pure theology, despite a widespread belief across most religions. I shall know soon enough (or not).

      • There is a natural realm and there is a spiritual realm.
        Science is and can only examine the natural realm. That is all it is capable of observing.
        It can’t put soul (life) or spirit in a test tube and analyze it.
        That does not mean none of them are real.
        Their effects in the natural realm? Sure, they can be observed.
        Medically, when is a body actually “dead’? Not when they can no longer detect its actual “life” but when they can no longer detect any “signs of life”.
        “Spirit” brings everything to another, higher level.
        “God”? “Science” can observe what He’s done. Some will deny He had anything to do with what they can observe. Some will take what they observe and theorize a way to leave Him out of it.
        The theories may sound good. But that doesn’t mean He’s not real.
        (That also means Man has Someone to answer too. And He’s provided the only answer.)

      • Tom,
        I still don’t understand how what you’ve written relates to anything I wrote . .
        “John, you apparently have a narrow evangelical view of religion and evolution.”
        Mysterious stuff to me . . I don’t know why you said that . .
        “I was raised Catholic, and that church has no real problem with evolution, so calling Catholics atheists is at best ignorant.”
        I just don’t get it . . and I don’t understand why what Catholic folks believe would not be a “narrow’ view, whereas an “evangelical” view would be . . Who is doing the measuring of the the “width” of these views, to your mind? I suspect (owing to your later comment) that you are referring to how/who will be kept around (forever) by God . . but that seems to me to contradict the comment about not telling God what to do . . but I’m unaware of any impact that what any of us think/believe God will do in that regard, might have on what He actually does in that regard . .
        So, are you referring to some Catholic teaching about me (a regular person) needing to accept/echo what the Pope makes of such things? And/or evolution theory? . . and THAT is not a narrow view . . because . .? He said so? This is all very mysterious to me . . TV talking head stuff, perhaps, but I don’t take TV talking heads seriously . .
        I take the Book very seriously, because when I (what we used to call a ‘strong agnostic’) asked whatever God might hear me ask, to convince me if It wanted me convinced, many amazing things started happening, and that Book was clearly being “used” in the convincing process. To me, that Book is an actual communication from a Creator God . . the Word of God.
        (And that Book “gives” me zero pull in terms of who gets saved and who does not, as I read it, so I don’t understand how my (or anyone’s) thoughts on such things could do more than ruffle (or smooth ; ) some human feathers . . He does as He pleases, as far as I’m concerned. If that’s seen by some as a “narrow view”, so be it . . )

        • John, it is entirely going off your casually calling non-biblical literalists “atheists”. While Biblical study has a long history as a basis for religion, it is not identical with religion.

      • I give up . . I don’t have any idea what you’re even talking about . . I was responding to something ‘Smart Rock’ wrote (Smarty) . . The rest just seems like you making crap up, and then getting offending by your own crap . .

      • PS~ This is what I believe (tentatively) you are . . proposing;
        It’s OK to force people who don’t believe in Evolution to pay for there own children’s indoctrination regarding Evolution, because some religious folks do believe in it.
        If that ain’t correct, feel free to correct it . . but be forewarned, I am taking the kit gloves off as of now. Y9ou are just some guy on the internet to me.

        • I think we need to lighten up a bit. William Jennings Bryan had a point on the then current teaching of evolution, as it tended towards conflating social Darwinism/eugenics with natural selection. Avoiding teaching some subjects to avoid offending someone is the current hobbyhorse of the politically correct left. I just believe that treating the kiddies like idiots is insulting to the kiddies. Failure to explain the uncertainties of life, and preaching are dangerous endeavors, and should be approached with due caution. Overt preaching should be limited to churches and family, not government enforced institutions.
          I do not mind orthodox religious of any flavor, as long as they have no willingness to coerce me, or coerce anyone I care about.

      • I need to lighten up? . . ??????????????????
        “John, you apparently have a narrow evangelical view of religion and evolution.”
        “Enforced orthodoxy is what many people confuse with religion, and you have some tendency to conflate your particular faith with religion per se.”
        “My thought was along the lines of the famous exchange between Neils Bohr and Albert Einstein, when Bohr made a comment to the effect of “Albert, stop telling God what to do.” on quantum mechanics.”
        “John, it is entirely going off your casually calling non-biblical literalists “atheists”. ”
        None of that has been related to a word I wrote . . and I practically begged you to.
        I feel like I got ambushed by a judgmental robot . .

      • So . . I goggled up belief in the Evolution. . Roughly half the people of the US believe in Evolution (apparently, I don’t accept such things as “Gospel” ; ) . . It seems to me that many who believe in Evolution seem to think it is their right to force the “other half” to allow and/or pay for their children to be indoctrinated into the Evolution belief . . which is, as far as I can determine, an utterly unproductive theory, which has resulted in no useful discoveries/technologies, no inventions, no patents . . nothing . . (I mean other than “social science” type stuff)
        So, why is it so important to indoctrinate all the kids?
        Sure looks like collectivist brainwashing to me . . and history seems to reveal a disturbing tendency for genocides and such to crop up when people in power see us as . . just animals. And why not? What exactly is the rationale for not tailoring/culling the herd (eugenics), if one believes the Evolution only origins story? The greatest good for the greatest number seems kinda hard to argue against . . if there is no Creator involved.

        • The origins of life is unfortunately a different field of endevor than biology per se. Life of some sort is found in the oldest rocks capable of leaving fossils. How that occured has multiple theories, none of which are quite adequate.
          “Intelligent design”, if that is what you believe, is one of those theories. “Young Earth Creationism”, which you have not advocated, is yet another. Teaching any unproven/untestable theory as fact is what I object to.
          It is a fact that most members of most societies believe in a God or Gods, and most associate their ethical standards with their religion. Religion is a different field of study than biology, and should not be taught as biology. That is not to state I object to teaching about religion and ethics as religion and ethics. I just don’t think the “Gods wrath” model proved very productive in medicine. Similarly, the theory that climate is determined by CO2 levels is equally unproductive to date.
          I could go on an extended rant about the inadeqacies of the public school system, but that would be even more inteminable than discussing religion.

      • Teilhard de Chardin had no problem with evolution – just as Lemaitre had no qualms about proposing the Big Bang.

      • Tom,
        “The origins of life is unfortunately a different field of endevor than biology per se. Life of some sort is found in the oldest rocks capable of leaving fossils. How that occured has multiple theories, none of which are quite adequate. “Intelligent design”, if that is what you believe, is one of those theories. “Young Earth Creationism”, which you have not advocated, is yet another. Teaching any unproven/untestable theory as fact is what I object to.”
        But you have no objection to (only) teaching the unproven/untestable theory of (just) Evolution? . . ‘Cause you believe in it, that makes it OK to indoctrinate all the little kids into believing in it? . . (but only ’cause some Religious folks believe it too??)
        Show us the proof, if you want to claim Evolution is proven, please. I don’t do blind faith in bone gazer’s imaginations (though I confess I did when I was a kid) . . anymore than in CAGW pusher’s.
        Or at least give some reason why you feel it is ever so important to teach only that origins story to all the little ones . . to the point of fo9rcing half the population to pay for their own children’s indoctrination into that belief. please? Is there some harm done if the “collective consciousness” is not uniform in that belief?
        Why is it so important to indoctrinate all the kids?
        (I never said word one about government (taxpayer) funded indoctrinating into any form of Religious belief, so please refrain from using that as a “red herring”.)

  54. Just blame climate change on the 1 percent and then follow it up with a payroll deduction on the 99 percent. That’s how it works historically.

Comments are closed.