By Andrew Follett
Three senior House Democrats asked U.S. teachers Monday to destroy a book written by climate scientists challenging the environmentalist view of global warming.
The Democrats were responding to a campaign by the conservative Heartland Institute copies of the 2015 book, “Why Climate Scientists Disagree About Global Warming” to about 200,000 science teachers. Democratic Reps. Bobby Scott of the Committee on Education, Raúl M. Grijalva of the Committee on Natural Resources, and Eddie Bernice Johnson of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology all issued a statement telling teachers to trash the book.
“Public school classrooms are no place for anti-science propaganda, and I encourage every teacher to toss these materials in the recycling bin,” Scott said. “If the Heartland Institute and other climate deniers want to push a false agenda on global warming, our nation’s schools are an inappropriate place to drive that agenda.”
The book’s three authors all hold doctorates and taught climate or related science at the university level. The book was written by former Arizona State University climatologist Dr. Craig D. Idso, James Cook University marine geology and paleontology professor Robert M. Carter, and University of Virginia environmental scientist Dr. Fred Singer.
Grijalv accused the scientists of “lying to children about the world we live in to further corporate polluter profits” and said that doing so was “cruel.” Johnson stated that the scientists had sent “scientifically inaccurate materials on climate change to public school teachers across the country” at the behest of ominous right wing donors and the Charles and David Koch brothers.
The best way to get adults to act like environmentalists is by brainwashing their children, according to research published by Oregon State University. Talking to kids about global warming caused their parents to use less energy and act more like environmentalists. The research was run on was run on 30 Girl Scout troops in northern California and had a “lasting impact on family energy consumption” for at least eight months after the end of the program.
Based on the study’s success, the researchers are now disseminating the curriculum to Girl Scout leaders around the country and attempting to adapt it to other groups of kids, including schools and youth-focused organizations such as 4-H with the help of other universities, such as Stanford. The research was financially supported by government grants.
Oh, excellent! Show how fascists of the Great Generation did it! What an example!
Burning books is doubly harmful: contributes to global warming by a) release of heat energy and b) adding to the CO2 concentration
Release of heat energy is not harmful; it’s beneficial. Adding to the CO2 concentration is not harmful; it’s beneficial. Global warming is itself beneficial. So burn those books, and why not burn a lot more while you’re at it?
vuk
There appears to be little recognition of
1. any heat created by humans (its incosequential), or
2. the addition of large volumes of gas of many types put into the thin layer of atmosphere we occupy.
Where does all the extra gas go, from digging up the stuff we get from underground and add it into the atmosphere ??
I’m pretty sure vukcevic was being facetious.
by pointing out their hypocrisy.
MarkT
I Know that he was.
However my question is valid, is it not ?
“Burning books is doubly harmful”
They actually recommended recycling.
Want to see a brain washing document found in the official government school curriculum in my country?
https://thedemiseofchristchurch.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/exemplar-3-2008-exam.pdf
I recommend that you all search the website of the school your children are attending. Do a search for “agenda21”, “agenda2030”, “sustainability”, “iclei”, “resilience”, “resilient”
Here is another document from the United Nations that will scare you. See pg 8. The highlighting is mine.
https://thedemiseofchristchurch.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/unitednations-conference-on-human-settlements_habitat1.pdf
Cheers,
Roger
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
Even though burning was not mentioned, book-burning comes from the same irrational impulse as banning and destroying. That impulse is intolerance.
@Nick. Isn’t burning books “recycling”? That’s what they say about DRAX. Burn wood and the CO2 grows more trees.
I just can’t figure out how all those young trees are smart enough to separate the CO2 from burned wood from all the other CO2 sources.
A puzzled retired engineer. 😏
Yah, I always thought that it was hypocritical to recycle paper and plastic as it requires so much energy to make new products from old.
If it goes to landfill, little energy is required and the Carbon is sequestered long term.
Plant lots of trees, bury lots of paper and plastics.
“Burning books is doubly harmful”
Nick “They actually recommended recycling.”
Nick actually that a bigger waste of energy and consumes more fossil fuels than burning the books. Burning our garbage in incinerator that generates electricity make more sense than burning and recycling our solid waste does. To bad the greenies still have not figured that out yet!
Hi there
Thanks for all your comments. I didn’t think that anyone would take it seriously, my reputation as sceptic is in ruins.
@Rogerthesurf: That was a couple of scary links you posted. I was particularly taken by two early points in the NZ schools test paper: They thought one of the ‘world (scientific) views could be ‘The Gaia Hypothesis’, yet left off Communism, Socialism and Nationalism. They then go on to use quotations from Paul Ehrlich as discussion points for students. They might just as well get students to discuss the role of Pol Pot on agrarian reform in Cambodia and its benefits in a sustainable society in NZ.
Sheesh!
“They don’t have to burn the books, they just remove them.”
Nick Stokes April 4, 2017 at 4:25 pm
Thank goodness! Book disappearing is much less tyrannical than book burning!
I agree with Nick. Old books make great cellulose insulation.
Odd. I don’t see, in the original article, any reference to the three Dem’s having read the offending book, nor mention of what specific parts of it were wrong. Almost as if the saw the source of volume and then immediately and blindly condemned it. But I could be wrong.
None of these three can read beyond 5th grade level due to their 2 digit IQ? “Stupid is as Stupid does”
Isn’t the statement that ‘Dems haven’t read the book(s)’ and oxymoron? It is very clear that dems can’t be elected to congress if they were ever known to read. Example – the current democratic legislative population and Pelosi’s famous statement ” You have to pass the bill to find out what is in it”! Reading is definitely NOT a requirement.
…”and..” should be …”an”…
Well, as long as it isn’t my Beatles albums….
Where they burn books, they eventually burn people.
The intolerant LEFT and their Orwellian Dream.
Channeling the Brownshirts?
And just as with the Brownshirts, most people do nothing to stop this. Kids continue to be sent to these public indoctrination centers daily. Some stand up and say no, but very, very few. Sending kids to be indoctrinated is approval of the indoctrination.
Its always been about politics, control, and money. These three are indicative of their type. Keep up the good work Heartland Institute.
Goebels would not do it better. And the communists/Bolsheviks.
Goebbels was an amateur working on a shoestring budget compared to the media apparatus in place today.
A lot of the same values, though.
This would seem to be an excellent opportunity for Dr Tim Ball to talk to these three about science and climate. If they have open minds as you never know they may just have swallowed the cool-aid unthinkingly. It could make good television – or at least a good you-tube video. Could even publish it on TED.
” If they have open minds”
They are Democrat politicians, if they have open minds, chickens have lips.
Well said!
As I recall, Rep Johnson was the one at the recent hearings who could not pronounce ‘meteorology’ from her pre-prepared script. ’nuff said.
Chickens do have lips, they are just extremely hard and scaly. These three are simply a disgrace. Johnson can barely read, as evidenced by her attempt at reading her prepared (by someone else) remarks during the recent House hearing with Curry, Spencer and Pilke Jr. Grijalva wouldn’t recognize science if it were right in front of him, as he has shown many times.
Perhaps they would like to debate the issue. Just to demonstrate how scientifically open minded they are.
Book burning again. By Progressives.
While others stand by and watch.
“Most people eventually get used to living in a fascist country. You can easily see how well we are adapting already.”……..Steve Kates
I believe Raúl M. Grijalva was one of the leaders in the effort to deny Professor Willy Soon funding.
….and the RICO prosecution of those not in lock step with “The Consensus”.
“Democrat” has been made a synonym for “fascist.” And I think it is just nutso, but it appears that “liberal” has been made an antonym for “liberal.”
Yes, and the US “Democrats” are in “good” company as history reveals:
The stalinist rulers of former East-Germany after WW 2 called their country “Deutsche Demokratische Republik = DDR”.
Thus, one should be very skeptical with people who declare themselves to be (the only true) “Democrats”…
“Demokratische Republik”
Something for everyone.
The country was called that, not any of the parties. Also, the DDR was democratic, only less so than other democracies.
Btw, I LOVE how in the country of the christian taliban, people who will let any nonsense in to the class rooms via the “teach the controversy” mantra want to ban something for a change, on the grounds that it is “anti science”… can’t get enough of the schizophrenia.
I find it fascinating how bigots believe that not supporting gay marriage is the moral equivalent to killing gays.
PS: I also find it fascinating how bigots love to lump other people into big groups, to make the hating of them easier.
“Democrat” is only a word. This word can be made to have several meanings under one of which “Democrat” is synonymous with “fascist” and under the other “Democrat” is not synonymous with “fascist.” Thus it is not “nutso” that “liberal” can be a synonym for and an antonym for “fascist” but rather is an element of a fallacy that is employed by some of but not all of the politicians who call themselves “Democrats.” In the philosophical literature this fallacy is called the “equivocation fallacy.”
Terry Oldberg:
You say
As usual, your post is only words that you claim have whatever meaning you think up at the time. This gobbledeygook which you so often provide is the logical fallacy of “failure to define your terms”. In common parlance this fallacy is called idiocy.
Richard
As always, whenever someone equates liberal and fascist, richard completely loses his intelligence and resorts to screaming you’re an idiot at those who dare to believe what richard doesn’t.
richardscourtney:
No. By spending a few seconds on doing a Web search you can confirm the fact that there is a fallacy called the “equivocation fallacy.” Under this fallacy a word changes meaning in the midst of an argument. An argument of this kind is called an “equivocation.” An equivocation looks like a syllogism and is often mistaken for one.
Richard, that was daft.
Burn politicians not books.
Heaven forbid that a science teacher or two might actually read the book and learn something rather than cast it out as heresy. Then again, from what I’ve seen of too many teachers lately anything more complicated than “See Spot run” is going to be over their heads.
I don’t think that’s a fair comment. I was a Science Teacher until the early 90’s and taught of the risk of Global Warming (fraud as we now now).
In a supportive environment, I feel that Science Teachers will return to Science methods & beliefs.
Paul,
Normally, when discussing human characteristics, most people consider only those that occupy the middle of the bell curve, excluding +/- 1 standard deviation. I have to agree with Severian. While we know many excellent K-12 teachers one has to wonder how the majority made it through high school themselves.
I wonder if some warmists have attempted, perhaps with some success, to get libraries to discard climate change-skeptical books like The Deniers, The Delinquent Teenager, etc. Have there been news stories about such activities, either organized or spontaneous?
Roger I have no doubt about that, I have searched for and requested “denier” books but have never been able to get any and my requests have been met with a certain amount of resistance. As well our library has ” books of the week” or “month” displays at the front entrance and at least once a month there is a display of “Climate Change” or related material on full display!
You can request books via interlibrary loan for free. It’s easy if your library has a computerized reservation system.
But only if the book is already in the system. I believe asybot is talking about getting the library to acquire books on the subject.
How does one distinguish delusion from dishonor ?
Well, book burning is a standard (National) Socialist procedure, isn’t it?
Why is it that liberals are so intent to silence differences of opinion? (Whether scientific or not, they are at this point opinions) They will use any means possible – politics, judicial, violence, whatever it takes. The ends justify the means.
It like a big circle – you go far right enough or left enough you meet up at the need for absolute control over people’s thinking.
I am SO in favor of private schools – anything that gets it away from government control.
Give the children both arguments and let them as individuals use their own reasoning skills.
Independent thought will NOT be tolerated.
As Jerry Pournelle pointed out, political viewpoints cannot accurately be described in one dimension.
See
http://www.baen.com/chapters/Axes.htm
As William Briggs pointed out, it’s also impossible to pigeonhole someone accurately on a two dimensional diagram.
http://wmbriggs.com/post/2265/
The reason is quite simple starting with the point that liberals in general, and Democratic politicians in particular, are very cynical about most humans. They do not feel that we can hear both sides of an argument and come to a reasonable conclusion. They also feel a moral and intellectual superiority to the rest of us. Therefore, they feel a moral duty to not to expose us to details over which they have not approved. It is much like telling a 2 year old not to play in traffic. The problem with this is that most of the non- libs are just as smart as they are. If their point of view is correct, a full airing of the facts will lead us to the correct conclusion. But then, God forbid, the correct conclusion might be different from theirs, and that might challenge their premise that we are inferior and they are not our moral and intellectual superiors. Therefore the answer is simple. Keep everyone away from any other point of view at any cost.
“Why is it that liberals are so intent to silence differences of opinion?”
Because that’s the only way they can win the argument. Debating the actual issues is a loser for them.
Three politicians who never read a science text of any kind are telling others what science should be.
Johnson couldn’t even pronounce many of the words in the opening statement she read at The House Science committee. I have no doubt she didn’t understand the majority of what she read.
They would have made good Stasi officers in East Germany.
The Democrat Party as a body must disassociate itself from those three individuals.
Never happen. Their behavior is quite loved by many, many Democrats. Open-minded is just a word with no actions or behavior attached if you’re a Democrat.
While there were a very small handful of liberals who condemned the actions of Berkley students that resulted in conservative speakers not being allowed to speak on campus. The vast majority of the left celebrated their victory over “intolerance”.
“Public school classrooms are no place for anti-science propaganda”
http://s8.postimg.org/ricksngbp/irony_meter.jpg
When, oh when will politicians be required to pass a bullshit detection test before being allowed to politic?
How about a well-administered polygraph?
What is negative irony?
I think if you connect them you get electricity.
‘The research was run on was run on 30 Girl Scout troops in northern California and had a “lasting impact on family energy consumption” for at least eight months after the end of the program.’ I don’t know if the girls showed their parents how to save money or was taught CO2 was bad. But saving money on electricity is a farce just like CO2 is bad.
I disagree. Saving money on electricity is a good thing and directly benefits the family. Imagining that any consequential cuts to CO2 emissions will have any effect on the global temperature is pure religion.
Conservation just seems to lead to higher and higher costs as the power company struggles to maintain lines and equipment with less and less use. I guess we could shut down parts of the grid and maybe the savings would result in less use leading to lower prices, but until that time, less use means prices go up. Same thing with gasoline—less gas sold, less road tax, lousy roads so increase the gas tax and the cost per gallon. The less you use, the higher the price.
Those three are disgusting liars and hypocrites. They are the ones pushing the false agenda, with the intent of propagandizing and brainwashing kids.
They don’t seem to understand that the same book burning principles can be used against them too.
You’d think they would have figured that out after the whole “executive order” thing.
Liberals tend to assume that they will always be the ones in power.
I agree. Consequently, all three of those Senior House Democrats should be fired, as THEY are the ones endorsing “anti-science propaganda”.
Telling someone to burn a particular book usually has the effect of getting them to read it, especially when the one giving the “command” is a politician. I think if it were put on Amazon as an e-book, these kind of comments would stimulate sales.
Obviously they didn’t read the book.
Obviously not. If they did that, they might come to learn something.
Forrest you’re assuming they can read.
“Classrooms are no place for antiscience propaganda.” Riiiggghhht. But we’ll show Gore’s antiscience propaganda movie in every classroom in the country. Hilarious. Do these idiots ever listen to themselves?
Then why are they teaching global warming?