Greens Outraged State Laws to Force Teachers to Devote Less Class Time to Climate Activism

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

New state laws aim to refocus climate activist teachers on providing academic education.

STATES ARE INTRODUCING BILLS THAT COULD PREVENT TEACHERS FROM ADVOCATING FOR CLIMATE CHANGE

A bill in South Dakota would require each school board to adopt a code of ethics that prevents public school elementary and secondary school teachers from advocating “for any issue that is part of a political party platform at the national, state, or local level.” The Arizona legislature introduced a nearly identical bill.

Science education groups are concerned that these bills, if enacted, would limit instruction on anthropogenic climate change, which is a key tenet of state and federal Democratic Party platforms. In the case of Maine, the bill could require teachers to discuss climate change as a disputed theory and present disproven theories for the global rise in temperatures as valid.

Read more: https://psmag.com/news/state-bills-could-prevent-teachers-from-advocating-for-climate-change

The article notes similar laws are being introduced in Virginia and Maine.

Advertisements

126 thoughts on “Greens Outraged State Laws to Force Teachers to Devote Less Class Time to Climate Activism

    • Can you add and subtract? No. But, I do not care because we will all be dead in 12 years, so I want to go on strike on company time to protest the End Days.

      • Last night I attended a public hearing on San Antonio’s (Texas) Climate Action Plan ( chances are your city has one too). A college student was among the public requesting to speak. She identified herself as a geology and environmental science major. She particularly liked the part of the plan that required 100% electric cars by 2030, because (and this is quote): “Every time a car goes by I can smell the carbon monoxide.” Environmental Science major!

        • Well it does make more sense to complain about carbon monoxide than carbon dioxide. At least CO is a toxic gas. Technically it is odourless, so it is probably some other associated combustion gases she is smelling.

          If she wants electric cars to prevent ground level pollution by toxic gases, there is a credible case to be made. It’s a far more educated position than pretending they produce zero “carbon emissions” to “save the planet” as we usually hear.

          • What most people can’t grasp is the difference between smelling something and what you can smell being at a dangerous level. At a chemical plant I was told that should you smell almonds, running was a very good idea. I had spotted the HCN signs and queried them. So you can smell the cyanide before there is a enough to kill you. Similar I suppose to explosive limits where there can be too little gas to explode as well as too much so that there is not enough oxygen.

        • UTSA student per chance? I would question the validity of her degree program, especially if she has already taken the required chemistry portions of her plan. Wasn’t Joaquin Castro the mayor of SA a few cycles ago?

  1. So you can pass a law, but how do you stop teachers talking about Climate. Unless you bring back school Inspectors, banned by the Teachers Union, you will not know what the Teacher is teaching.

    MJE

    • Children’s cell phones. Oh yeah, the teachers have tried everything possible to ban those too … but the kids are too clever. The nutjobs will be OUTED … by MY grandchildren anyway

    • Preacher/Teachers who spend more time proselytizing about Climate will have students that constantly score lower on standardized tests

      • The green zealots want to ban tests so it won’t matter if students can or can’t pass them. There simply won’t be any. The Greens don’t like examination of facts as it gets in the way of their propaganda.

        • Rod here in Oz the pass % grade is now 1% ,so if you can manage 1% you get passed with a “E” grade .

      • Too true. I might have passed the biology SAT if my junior year biology teacher had spent more time teaching us, say, biology, instead of trying to scare us with statistics about how there used to be 300 trees per person in the US, but at the time I was in HS there were only 5…or that he once had friends who were working on a secret project to develop a predator for humans…or telling a class full of 16 year old girls that they could lose weight if they wore less clothing in the winter because being cold burns more calories…

        • Mother of Toddlers

          I have been searching for you.

          Not personally of course, but you are one of the first examples of the backlash starting when our younger generations begin to understand they have been fed a nasty lie.

          You have doubtless begun to recognise that nothing much has changed in your lifetime, 25 – 30 years perhaps? Similarly, in my 62 years, nothing much, climatologically speaking, has happened except that perhaps, in the UK we had a mild winter this year.

          Those living in N. America/Canada/Siberia doubtless wouldn’t notice the minuscule change in winter weather because a fraction of a degree C isn’t much when it’s twenty below, but it doesn’t take much to switch between snow in winter to no snow in winter here. But then we have the Gulf Stream to deal with as well, and an ever shifting jet stream above us, so it’s difficult to predict what seasons will bring.

          On the other hand, we used to cut our grass once a week in the summer 30 years ago. Now we cut it three times a week, but that’s bad…..right?

          Just be reassured that there are many like you, resentful of having green policies shoved down your throat. Our youth naturally rebel against the perceived orthodoxy and whilst the school strikers believe they are the radicals, nothing could be further from the truth because, as usual, they are so busy flapping their lips about ‘their’ plight, they entirely miss the plight of others, their peers. For every one of those sad little schoolchildren marchers there are 100 who resent others wasting their education.

          So keep going. Arm your own children with the facts. Guide them when they are told political lies and, above all, challenge their schools on what they are teaching them. Nothing the civilised world has would have been possible without Capitalism. Not even the comfortable, warm school your biology teacher had the privilege of occupying, doubtless made from the timber of those trees he so lamented.

          Above all else, they are your children, you are responsible for them and schools are granted the privilege of acting ‘In loco parentis’ by YOU.

          I was momentarily banned from my daughters secondary school because I objected to the abusive regime she was subject to, until the authorities realised within 24 hours I was right! The collusive assistant head was compelled to take early retirement because of me and the head teachers contract of employment was not renewed, partially as a consequence of me.

          I am as far from a helicopter parent as one could imagine, but no one f*cks with my children! Expose the intellectual abuse of children wherever it functions. Schools are seats of learning where children should be given the intellectual tools of objective, rational thought, typically through the three R’s, science and languages. Their minds should not be distorted with woolly, left wing green values or having their time wasted by indoctrinating them with social and religious values. That’s your job if you so choose.

          Thank you for your objectivity. There is hope for us all.

          • HotScot, how did you manage to write that lengthy and scathing commentary about the public school curriculum without once mentioning their most grievous act of mandating Political Correctness be applied to all subject matter being taught.

  2. Anthropogenic climate change, is not a valid scientific subject to indoctrinate our children with because it is a far left political agenda, not science, that does significant harm to the students by teaching them a lie.

    • As has this “Safe Schools” thingie in Oz that was “adopted” because it was marketed as anti-bullying. Once accepted it morphed into the gender identity monster. We need to keep leftard policy agenda out of our schools or stop having children for them to indoctrinate.

      The easiest answer would be to put AOC and all her Leftard green followers into a big playpen and have them all try and play by all their own rules.

      Try.

      That means only tofu and carrot burgers, a windmill to make flour with handles to crank when the wind doesn’t blow and no candles (CO2) or whale oil (because land rights for gay whales etc.). Send them back 1000 years and see how they like living how they want us to. let them prove it first.

  3. to discuss climate change as a disputed theory and present disproven theories for the global rise in temperatures as valid.

    In other words, they would be forced to discuss science, and a bunch of unproven theories.

    OOHHH the HUMNITY!

    • They might even get acquainted with the concept of critical thinking. Now that is going just too far!!!!/sarc

  4. Teach kids the three R’s, classic sciences and languages, and they are in a perfect position to make their own minds up on climate change when they are older.

    Objective education is the objective, not subjective claptrap of any nature.

    If climate change, or the arts for that matter, are to be taught, make them voluntary extra curricular activities.

    Professional sport is now an acceptable route to employment these days but I don’t see substantial parts of the school day devoted to them in our UK primary and secondary school education.

    The subjects of climate change, childbirth, social interaction and all the other claptrap taught in schools are unnecessary and diversionary.

    School is tough kids, get used to it, life is a lot tougher.

    • Actually, they need four Rs. The fourth is Rhetoric. Learning how to communicate ideas and objections to ideas effectively, and being prepared for the cheap language tricks a slippery speaker/salesman will try to get crap past their radar.

    • Unbidden, your comment brought up a memory of my 15 year-old self deeply in lust with Doris Mary Ann Kappelhoff singing about those very hills.

    • It shouldn’t. Most jurisdictions have a well specified elementary school curriculum. example Teachers who are doing their jobs shouldn’t have time for much else. How do we know if they’re doing their jobs. Most states have a teacher evaluation system (I would have assumed all states but I don’t know for sure). example

      Folks blame unions for the trouble in elementary education. I think the administrators have a huge share of the blame. They don’t encourage excellence in teaching and stamp it out any time they get the chance. example

      At the height of Escalante’s success, Garfield graduates were entering the University of Southern California in such great numbers that they outnumbered all the other high schools in the working-class East Los Angeles region combined.[12] Even students who failed the AP often went on to study at California State University, Los Angeles.[11]

      Angelo Villavicencio took over the program after Escalante’s departure, teaching the remaining 107 AP students in two classes over the following year. Sixty-seven of Villavicencio’s students went on to take the AP exam and forty-seven passed.The math program’s decline at Garfield became apparent following the departure of Escalante and other teachers associated with its inception and development. In just a few years, the number of AP calculus students at Garfield who passed their exams dropped by more than 80%. In 1996, Villavicencio contacted Garfield’s new principal, Tony Garcia, and offered to come back to help revive the dying calculus program. His offer was rejected.

        • If the unions actually ran the schools, the teachers would not be objecting to the changed sex ed curriculum. link If the unions actually ran the schools, they would just do whatever they want and there would be no necessity for them to complain.

          • These changes are being imposed from the state level.
            The work rules are imposed at the city and county level.

            The fact that the unions run the school can’t stop state level politicians from creating their own requirements.

          • commieBob:

            I strongly commend ignoring all the mutterings posted under the name of “MarkW”.

            Your comment is an observation of reality and the posts of MarkW rarely pertain to reality.

            I used to think MarkW’s posts pertained to the world inside his head.
            Then I thought they pertained to the world he imagined he was inhabiting in his padded cell.
            But I eventually concluded that MarkW is a bot programmed to make daft responses to key words.

            Richard

            (MarkW is a real person with a legitimate IP and e-mail address, has a clean blacklist, with over 5100 comments posted) MOD

          • MarkW – February 19, 2019 at 6:17 pm

            The fact that the unions run the school can’t stop state level politicians from creating their own requirements.

            Richard S Courtney is 100% correct, ….. the above comment by MarkW does not pertain to reality.

            “YES”, the unions run the school and they also control “the vote” of all school employees, their family members and a majority of all their friends ……. and there is not a politician that is not aware of that fact.

            Politicians cater to the teacher’s demands or they lose their bid to get elected or get unelected at the next vote.

          • the posts of MarkW rarely pertain to reality.

            Funnily enough, that’s been my observation about your posts. Could it be that MarkW just has different opinions to you? Nah, he must be bot because he doesn’t lockstep believe the same nonsense that you believe.

          • John Endicott:

            My posts pertain to reality and are capable of factual dispute because of that.

            The posts of MarkW are rarely relate to reality, are always abusive assertions (often of someone who posts here), and usually untrue.

            There is a difference between evidenced fact and opinion. You are claiming to be as ignorant of that difference as is MarkW.

            Richard

          • Richard, you are the one being ignorant here. Mark’s post, despite the acerbic nature of some of them, are often rooted in reality and fact, you just disagree with his view of that reality and you are being hypocritically abusive and untrue by claiming otherwise.

      • Thanks to unions, it is next to impossible to fire incompetent teachers, or ones who only teach what they want to teach. There’s nothing administrators can do regarding unions rules.

        • But the teachers and the unions are one in the same and the ELECTED state legislators are the ones that pass the Laws that the school administrators have to obey.

          • But the teachers and the unions are one in the same

            Yes and no. While the unions rank and file are made up of the teachers, it’s the union bosses, not the rank and file teachers, that make the rules. What an individual teacher wants and what the union wants are not always the same thing.

            the ELECTED state legislators are the ones that pass the Laws

            Yes, and if they have a D next to their name, chances are they’re beholden to the teachers union (what, you think the teachers unions give them campaign cash for no reason?) and pass laws that the teachers unions approve of.

    • actually it said anything political..so theres a huge swathe of the current agenda issues that would be canned as well
      Yay sth Dakota and others;-)

  5. If it takes a law (coupled with fines, incarceration, and union decertification) to get teachers to teach basic science principles rather than political indoctrination, so be it.

  6. I can see both sides of the argument here.

    I fully understand people’s frustration with teachers who use their position to advance their political agenda. I was subjected to that as a impressionable yute.

    On the other hand, the controversial issues are the most interesting, and afford great learning opportunities. Good teachers can use such issues to demonstrate the complexity of the real world, perhaps organizing a debate between the students.

    • The problem is that there are few “good” teachers of the type you mention.
      Most will just lecture from one side and punish any student that dares to disagree.
      Thanks to union work rules, about the only way to get rid of a bad teacher is for the teacher to do something that will put them in jail.

  7. In doing so, they fully admit that this is a political and not a scientific movement, because only political activism would be curtailed.

  8. Excellent! If the “teachers” don’t like it they can quit and jump into the non-profit Enviro sector. Or better still for our kids future would be VOUCHERS.

  9. When I was in school I was taught things like “2=2=4”. An “XX” chromosome made one a “female”, an “XY”chromosome combo made one a “male”. Two H molecules plus one O molecule equals “water”.
    Just the facts.
    Today kids are taught that one C molecule plus two O moleculses (or anything else) equals “The Doom of Mankind!”
    It’s about time taking a science class meant you learned something about science and not “political science”.

    • Absolutely wrong, a science class should aim to make children ask questions about the natural world. There is nothing more pointless than rote learning.

      A good science class will leave children asking questions like:

      1. How we design and test a good thermometer?
      2. How do we decide where to site a weather station?
      3. Why are our local reservoirs sited where they are?
      4. How often do major mudslides occur in Southern California?
      5. Why does California get more rainfall in el Nino years?

      Rote learning creates mindless circus acts.

      Curious children ask interesting questions.

      Big difference.

      • However, it you do not teach the basics how would a child even know what to ask? If a child does not know what a thermometer is and what it does they cannot ask anything about it.

  10. Teachers aren’t supposed to be advocates for anything other than learning.

    The fact that so many want teachers to focus on propaganda rather than learning is just another example of what is wrong with socialism.

      • Certainly not the fact that you can’t “spend” $3 billion that would have been tax breaks when the entity that would have been taxed doesn’t come to your city/state to be taxed. Any amount of tax break on a tax bill that doesn’t exist equal $0 to spend.

    • Poor Simon, he actually thinks he’s being clever.

      When CAGW has 1/10th the evidence behind it as does evolution, please let me know.

      Anywho, isn’t that the kind of drive by snark that Mosher has trade marked?

    • Although I don’t subscribe to the belief I would have no objection to state-funded schools impartially explaining intelligent design alongside natural selection theory.
      Climate science education should be equally bipartisan.

      • Intelligent design is an inductive inference, not a scientific theory. It does not belong in a science class. Better taught in sociology of religion.

        I’ve published on it, here: “On the Assumption of Design.”

        If you’d like a reprint, email me.

        • Scientific theory is inductive inference. But a special sort of inductive inference.

          One that is capable of refutation, and one which is then rigorously tested and pared down to be no more extravagant than it needs to be to fit the facts. And when deliberately tested still fits the facts.

          Intelligent design fails two of these tests. Firstly it’s irrefutable. It cannot be tested. It is a metaphysical theory, not a scientific one. Secondly it is not parsimonious. Adding purpose and intelligence to the world itself, is wildly extravagant and anthropocentric and adds no predictive power to the picture.

          The world of science has no purpose, no meaning, no consequence. The world of science gives no especial place to humanity. The world of science is a narrative about what is, not what should be. It is amoral, and it is atheistic. but it is very successful at predicting some aspects of the future.

          Some people need there to be a Purpose and Meaning in existence in order to be able to continue to live. Intelligent design is a narrative that provides such. Gaia style religion is also a suitable crutch in this respect, and we can see in the end that socialism is another moral narrative that provides emotional comfort to those who hold to its tenets.

          In short there are narratives that assist species survival because they eliminate falsehoods from themselves by rigorous testing. They are in essence reliable narratives.

          Other narratives assist species survival by generating a sense of purpose and duty and self importance to the human species. They control social behavior by establishing a set of objective moral standards that are laid down by a supernatural entity.

          Truth content is not a necessary adjunct to these narratives. Only that they are believed.

          • There is a fascinating thing about the mind as regards reality and truth that I think gives us a structure and propensity for exploring science and other realms of thought. I believe to deceive the minds of the young in the way they do so unmercilessly should be a crime.

            It struck me that the epidemic known as the Climate Blues that terminated the careers of a number of climate scientists several years ago in the wake of the “dreaded pause” in global temperature rise that agonizingly extended itself over ~2 decades until in desperation they Karlized it to death. The doubt the pause sewed in the minds of hitherto global warming theory stalwarts who had invested decades of their lives in formal study and postgrad careers was met with classical psychological d*nyal, a pushback against the mind’s effort to steer its owners toward reality.

            Amazingly, the mind would not back down on its mission to restore reality, and the battle too quash this instinctive drive wound up making these people seriously sick! This is amazing. They rationalized that they were depressed because in their studies they came face to face with planetary disaster and no one would listen to them!

            I recall experiencing a short period of this type of d*nyal when my younger brother passed away many years ago. I had a repeating dream where we would be out having beers and laughs and afterwards we were walking home along a barbed wire fence and at some point he said I’m taking the short cut and he ducked through the barbed wire and I went to follow . He said oh no, you can’t come this way. A few of those repeats and I got the message.

          • Inductive inference is just linear extrapolation of the past, Leo.

            Scientific theory is a generalization made to account for accumulated facts, and is logically irrational. But it is nevertheless analytical, detailed, and as you point out critically falsifiable.

          • Finding chicken bones in a Cretaceous layer, Mark.

            Failure to find something like homeobox genes would have done it.

            Homeobox genes are at the base of phenotypical development, and are the likely source of macro-evolution. And most of that process happens in utero. Failed genetic experiments are never born.

          • Macroevolution is an observed fact of nature. We have scene macroevolution of fruit flies, plants, and bacteria. Not sure how scientific theory is logically irrational.

          • Dinosaur fossils with traces of soft tissue.

            Objects of obvious human artifice found in coal beds.

            Every coal sample ever tested having measurable amounts of C-14.

            Pyroclastic flows from volcanoes e.g. St.Helens, forming multiple layers of distinct strata in a matter of hours instead of eons, right in front of human observers.

            All of these have taken place, and at the very least they call the orthodox darwinian timeline into question and deserve honest appraisal. But I won’t hold my breath on that. In few other areas are there so many open minds already made up.

        • Fair enough, ironically the climate alarmist assumption that there is some ideal global average temperature of 14C (?) and any increase or presumably decrease is detrimental to the biosphere is, like intelligent design, teleological.

    • Poor Simon. The remnants of anti-Christian bigotry. As a Christian, I don’t care HOW our Lord did it, just that he did. Argue with somebody else. Yes, Darwin had a very elegant theory. And it might even be accurate. Or not. Even Darwin admitted that it did not explain the Cambrian explosion. The problem is that it has become a cult belief of cultists with no skepticism permitted or you will be burned at the stake. Too bad.

  11. Hark! What’s that sound?
    That loud, grinding noise you hear is the sound of the grit of truth and reason getting into the well-oiled gears of the CAGW machine. It won’t be long now.

  12. Science is the new religion. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

    Why not formally adopt hedonism as the official religion of the Democratic Party. How is that any different that making man-made Climate Change a policy plank? Both are beliefs, neither is a proven fact.

    • Facts cannot be proven.

      Facts just are.

      Scientific theories are not facts.
      Neither can scientific theories be proven.

      Scientific theories are what are left when we have disproved all the others.

  13. This can never happen in Vermont. The schools are closed on Town Meeting Day.
    That is when the annual school budgets are voted on.
    Guess who doesn’t have to show up for work that day?

  14. …and the sons and daughters of 1930’s Germany would turn their own parents in to the Gestapo when they heard them disagreeing with the Nazis, because everyone had sworn an oath of allegiance to Adolph Hitler.

    They were then given a lollipop by the Gestapo.

    How is this different from the fantastic lying about anthropogenic climate change that the children hear in today’s schools?

      • Yeah the USSR. But remarkably, with all the propaG they still taught math science, engineering to an excellent standard and still do today. They place a high value on education. If you can find a Russian school in your neighborhood in North America, it would be a big improvement over the corrupted, designer-brained incubation your child is likely to get at our own public schools.

  15. If we spend more time teaching math and science, who is going to be uneducated enough to believe the climate change scam?

  16. …….present disproven theories for the global rise in temperatures….
    You would hope any rational person would immediately see the bias in that statement.

    Let’s teach “climate change” in schools; let students know that at a relatively recent time in the earth’s history Chicago was under two miles of ice, and since then we’ve had warm periods and cool periods. Tell them are several theories about what drives that change; and explain the science behind each.

    But just like questions such as “what causes the spark of life in animals and people” or “how did the universe come into being”, we have not yet accumulated the necessary information to come to a definite conclusion.

    Today’s youth assumes not only that we (OK, “they”) are currently the most advanced that ever existed in human intelligence, but have also reached the apex; and as a result, every question raised must have a definitive (and correct) answer.

    A little humility might forestall a lot of arguments.

    • Sorry for the formatting error!
      I’ll pile on with those hoping for an editing feature.
      Once more with feeling:

      …….present disproven theories for the global rise in temperatures….

      You would hope any rational person would immediately see the bias in that statement.

      Let’s teach “climate change” in schools; let students know that at a relatively recent time in the earth’s history Chicago was under two miles of ice, and since then we’ve had warm periods and cool periods. Tell them are several theories about what drives that change; and explain the science behind each.

      But just like questions such as “what causes the spark of life in animals and people” or “how did the universe come into being”, we have not yet accumulated the necessary information to come to a definite conclusion.

      Today’s youth assumes not only that we (OK, “they”) are currently the most advanced that ever existed in human intelligence, but have also reached the apex; and as a result, every question raised must have a definitive (and correct) answer.

      A little humility might forestall a lot of arguments

      • P.S.
        Who has “proven” that natural variation is not the cause of changing climate over thousands, hundreds or even decades of time?!?
        By what means has natural variation, or even the influence of the sun, been “disproven”?

        As far as I understand, one can only establish that one’s theory is possible; that does not preclude alternate hypotheses.

        • Alternate hypotheses can be disproven by replicable experiment and/or observation. For example, sperm cells do not in fact contain a homunculus.

      • “what causes the spark of life in animals and people” ?

        What causes intelligences to think that they are people, and that their intelligence is a function of their being such.

        Rather than the other way around.

        I.e. why would an intelligence construct a physical reality and clothe itself in materiality?

        The questions you ask, the questions you CAN ask, are a function of what you already believe to be the case.

        THAT is what is not being taught at schools.

    • Re-read the sentence, this time in context as well.

      He’s not saying that the theory that the world has warmed is disproven. He’s stating that certain theories as to why the world has warmed have been disproven.

    • “we have not yet accumulated the necessary information to come to a definite conclusion.”
      ____________________________________________________

      The universe is not there to be understood, the universe does not understand itself.

      The main thing is that it works properly.

      Nobody will ever “know and understand everything.”

      and that keeps science exciting, interesting.

      a teacher who considers his material to be exciting, interesting can motivate the whole class.

      Otherwise, arguments ad teachers, unions, socialists etc. are  argumentum ad hominem.

      not that exciting.

  17. Journalists love to report bills submitted to State legislatures. Exciting! These cost nothing and mean nothing.

    Report back to us when one of these is approved – and signed by a governor.

    • It serves as a warning, that their strategies are being noticed. Perhaps nothing will come of it, but free reign is not assured either.

  18. It is a great start, however, we are decades to late.

    CAGW (the set of crazy ideas) is growing like a dangerous mental condition with lots of help from rich individuals/fundations who are true believers.

    https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/green-new-deal-tour_us_5c326a4fe4b0d75a9831d845

    It’s been a whirlwind two months since the youth activists of the Sunrise Movement staged protests in Democratic leaders’ offices, bringing into the mainstream calls for a Green New Deal ― a sweeping federal policy that would mandate 100 percent renewable energy and provide good-paying sustainable jobs to millions of Americans.

    Now the Sunrise Movement, likely the nation’s fastest-growing climate advocacy group, is planning a 14-stop tour meant to drum up grassroots support for a Green New Deal across multiple states, HuffPost has learned. It’s the first leg of the group’s effort to make the policy the defining issue of the 2020 election. ”

    http://westernwire.net/new-reporting-sheds-light-on-who-is-funding-sunrise/
    Institutional funders are responsible for more than half of Sunrise’s annual budget, at 55 percent. The rest comes from individuals and non-profits.

    Both the Rockefeller Family Fund and the Wallace Global Fund provide substantial financial support to EarthRights International (ERI), the Washington, D.C.-based non-profit representing Boulder County, Boulder City and San Mateo County in their lawsuit against ExxonMobil and Suncor. In their lawsuit, the localities are alleging that the two defendants are liable for damages resulting from climate change. The lawsuit is a part of a national campaign where local governments are teaming up with non-profits and plaintiff attorney firms to file suit against large energy producers in state court.

    Among Sunrise’s most prominent priorities is the adoption of a “Green New Deal,” which, in represents a push for massive investment in renewable energy and a shift in the economic status quo away from one dependent on fossil fuels. The end-goal is to achieve 100 percent renewable energy and create “millions” of jobs through new infrastructure projects.

    Sunrise is also focused on the political game. During the 2018 midterm elections, the group released a targeted list of states where they hoped to sway the outcome. Sunrise also offered a “Sunrise Semester” where participants would be deployed for six months

  19. This seems like a dangerous road to go down. After all if I don’t want something taught in schools then all
    I would have to do is start a political party even at a local level that campaigns against it. Teaching about vaccinations, evolution, fluoridated drinking water etc could all easily be outlawed by this.

    • Percy, teach them to read, write and calculate. Teach them to think for themselves, teach them to think critically. Don’t indoctrinate them.

      No one is worrying that a 4th grader isnt learning Maxwell’s equations, or the Chain Rule in calculus, or DNA sequencing. Percy, you seem like an honest btight fellow. Suspend belief for a moment and ask yourself why ACTIVISTS think there is a desperate need for a 7yr old to learn catastrophic climate change theory blamed on his/her parents and the need to throw open our borders and have Eurocentric global governance and regulation to fix it? Hint: Its the same reason they cant wait to learn about the sex lives and vicissitudes of a dozen different genders and thelack of diversity of bathrooms.

      • Oh yeah, Percy. Is it okay to tell the kids that climate has always changed and we’ve had periods of no polar ice, periods of continental ice sheets 3 miles thick over many of the cities they live in, we’ve had a green productive Sahara that is a desert now, but its starting to green again? And this is also the шнутемаиs fault.

        Is there any of these statements that you can point to that are not facts. Is their any D*Nile of climate in these paragraphs? The truth about climate is a lot messier a subject than is supposed by the consensus. It it all unequivocal to you?

  20. Evidently Great Britain has required its public schools to present both sides of the man-made climate change theory, so it would be a good idea if parents in North America demanded the same from their curriculum makers. This would prevent the teachers who don’t know the pros and cons of the argument from sticking too closely to the one-sided views espoused by the Leftists.

    • Trouble is, we would not get a balanced view. In fact it’s clear that neither teachers nor activists nor most of their supporters who comment on this blog have any understanding of the official proponent scientific position or the scientifically literate sceptic position. If a teacher thinks sceptics are “climate d*nyers” from all the hype and fake news the left cranks out, what case are they going to present for the sceptic side. And don’t forget, most teachers are activist or at least southpaw politically. They’ve had a double dose of it by education and their training.

  21. The “teacher” should be teaching history and why governments fail and how “money works”. How much do we owe the government. I haven’t looked at the “debt clock”lately \.

  22. William my advice is get out while you can.
    There’s no stopping this because the population is more than half genetically pre-disposed to believe based on emotion, particularly when the ’emotional message’ is delivered by an authority backed with monetary might.
    There’s some good literature on spending and winning in USA politics (at a State/regional level).
    USA’s ’emotive cognizance’ profile is now similar to that of Venezuela or Brazil’s populations.
    People with money know this and know how to profit from it.
    But it’s worse than that . . .
    In the USA, you’re sandwiched between the green mafia and the cartels.
    They have the same objective but naturally they’re approaching it very differently.
    They’re patient, sophisticated, generous and non-threatening in the halls of power (the opposite on the street).
    They own (at arms length) most of the Dems and some of the Repubs.
    You’ll get your socialist utopia; nothing is more certain.

  23. Poor little dearies-not being allowed to brainwash the children with propaganda. Boo-hoo. In Australia, it is against education department policy for teachers to push their personal political/ religious agenda. Teachers who complain that they are no longer allowed to push propaganda to impressionable children should be more than just sacked, they must be forced to de-brainwash all the children they have plugged their lies to. If they refuse, then it is regarded as treason.

  24. As a former (now retired) high school social studies teacher, I embraced the opportunity to challenge my students on many supposedly “settled” issues. When studying global climates in World Geography class, the school textbooks included the “many scientists agree” CAGW argument. I simply couldn’t let that go without including a class lesson on objectivity and how to recognize bias in textbooks. We would discuss climate change as factually being a natural and ongoing process. Then we would investigate and discuss arguments regarding CAGW/Climate Change from various perspectives. Most students had not been made aware of the anti-CAGW position. Yet, although I do admit I utilized a fair amount of information from WUWT, I did not overtly press my personal views upon the students. Once the lesson was concluded, many of the students had refreshingly different viewpoints regarding climate change.
    U.S. Government class (Seniors) and the objective lessons/perils of socialism was yet another subject matter that I thoroughly enjoyed!

  25. The usual two extremes in US arguments in these comments. Rote learning vs brainwashing.

    Any half decent teacher will achieve the following:

    1. Raise an interesting question/issue.
    2. Provide an historical timeline of what has already been discovered.
    3. Highlight what is still not known.
    4. Discuss approaches being taken to address current unknowns.
    5. Invite class to dream up ideas to solve specific problems.
    6. Discuss some of those ideas, encouraging class to drill down deeper and learn more.

    Here are things that can easily be taught about weather and climate:
    1. Solar Cycles and Hale Cycles.
    2. CMEs and effects on earth weather.
    3. Effects of solar and lunar perigee/apogee on weather events.
    4. The el Nino/La Nina phenomenon and their role in Us West Coast climate.
    5. The Mediterranean Climate, seasonal rainfall and the challenges of living for six months without rainfall.
    6. The Gulf of Mexico as a source of tropical storms and hurricanes, how such storms can track and the effect they have if they make landfall.
    7. The use of radiosonde balloons and satellites to gather atmospheric temperature data.
    8. The major oceanic currents and how they affect coastal climates.
    9. The major wind patterns on earth (jet stream, trade winds etc) and how they affect global weather.
    10. Major oscillation parameters identified (PDO, Amo, AO, NAO, MJO etc) and how they explain alternative weather scenarios in certain parts of the world.

  26. I hope the Law applies to the Colleges as well, as that’s where all these teachers (indoctrinators) came from – the Teacher’s Colleges.

  27. “…prevents public school elementary and secondary school teachers from advocating for any issue that is part of a political party platform…” In other words,stop brain washing our kids with your own political beliefs.

    This should be a requirement taught in every university department of education and enacted as law in all states and territories. But, good luck. One party in the U.S. relies heavily on it to generate future members.

  28. In the news today, 2/20/19:
    Dianne Feinstein Pushes Funding for Climate Change Indoctrination
    Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said Tuesday that climate change poses an “immediate danger,” while decrying the lack of school teachers equipped to educate students concerning its perils.
    Ms. Feinstein spoke as part of her push for the “Climate Change Education Act,” a bill that would allocate resources to prepare teachers to promote the climate change agenda in schools.

    https://www.breitbart.com/environment/2019/02/20/dianne-feinstein-pushes-funding-for-climate-change-indoctrination/

Comments are closed.