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.
…
The following is the sound track from the show;
https://soundcloud.com/the-eric-metaxas-show/penny-nance-jerry-mollen-senator-inhofe
(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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Bernie Babies
Unfortunately, terrifying children is a common tactic of activist politics. Doubly unfortunate, activist politics has wormed its way deep into academia.
The no-growth era is upon them like the plague and they all fall down.
Why “brainwashed” in quotes? Climate alarmists in positions of trust and power brainwash kids. BTW, they might be violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Could someone add Kerry to the captioned photo?
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.
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 . .
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.
Got any comments on what I wrote, sir?
(Questions are fine too … )
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).
(PS ~ I capitalized the word ‘Evolution’ . . and I meant it ; )
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.
(and the kid gloves too ; )
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,
(thanks)
“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”.)
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.
How many in the photo with Stalin survived his wrath?
I mean executive orders.