Climate Change Skeptic Group Seeks to Influence 200,000 Teachers

[KingOrfeo]

Story.

Twenty-five thousand science teachers opened their mailboxes this month and found a package from the Heartland Institute, a libertarian think tank that rejects the scientific consensus on climate change.

It contained the organization’s book “Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming,” as well as a DVD rejecting the human role in climate change and arguing instead that rising temperatures have been caused primarily by natural phenomena. The material will be sent to an additional 25,000 teachers every two weeks until every public-school science teacher in the nation has a copy, Heartland president and CEO Joseph Bast said in an interview last week. If so, the campaign would reach more than 200,000 K-12 science teachers.

Accompanying the materials is a cover letter from Lennie Jarratt, project manager of Heartland’s Center for Transforming Education. He asks teachers to “consider the possibility” that the science is not settled. “If that’s the case, then students would be better served by letting them know a vibrant debate is taking place among scientists,” he writes. The letter also points teachers to an online guide to using the DVD in their classrooms.

The Heartland initiative dismisses multiple studies showing scientists are in near unanimous agreement that humans are changing the climate. Even if human activity is contributing to climate change, the book argues, it “would probably not be harmful, because many areas of the world would benefit from or adjust to climate change.”

The campaign elicited immediate derision from the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), a nonprofit in Oakland, California that monitors climate change education in classrooms.

“It’s not science, but it’s dressed up to look like science,” said NCSE executive director Ann Reid. “It’s clearly intended to confuse teachers.”

This is, you must understand, the Heartland Institute.

The Heartland Institute is a stock-issue conservative/libertarian "think tank" based in Chicago and founded by Joseph L. Bast. It has ties to Richard Mellon Scaife, Exxon, and Philip Morris (the usual suspects).

Heartland concentrates especially on "free market environmentalism," which is Newspeak for denialism. "Smoker's rights" is one of their favorite issues, which comes as no surprise as a Philip Morris executive once sat on their board of directors. They have consistently denied the link between second-hand smoke and cancer. They are also a front of global warming denial, publishing "research" by notorious deniers Anthony Watts and S. Fred Singer. No surprise, once again, that an Exxon exec once sat on their board as well.

Besides anti-environmentalism, they also advocate "school choice" and "reform" (i.e. union busting), lower taxes, and health care "reform" (i.e., total privatization).

The banner on their home page displays, along with libertarian ideologues like Ayn Rand (who underwent surgery for lung cancer) and Ludwig von Mises, a number of historical figures including Crispus Attucks (first man killed in the Boston Massacre), Benjamin Franklin, Booker T. Washington, John Locke, Thomas Paine, and Thomas Jefferson. No doubt they are rolling in their graves.

 

[Ms_Ann]

If teachers are so easily confused, maybe they shouldn't be teaching our yutes anyhows.

 

[Rightguide]

Story.

You could have at least explained the Marxist agenda behind the Climate Change mythology.

 

[Rightguide]

Edited...

 

[Conager]

Imagine that. The left is suddenly worried about "science" being politicized.

 

[Ms_Ann]

Imagine that. The left is suddenly worried about "science" being politicized.

Sometimes I can help but think we evolved from monkeys.

 

[KingOrfeo]

You could have at least explained the Marxist agenda behind the Climate Change mythology.

I'll leave that to you.

[pops corn]

 

[KingOrfeo]

Sometimes I can help but think we evolved from monkeys.

Not exactly monkeys, but let's leave that for another time.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Imagine that. The left is suddenly worried about "science" being politicized.

Yes, we're worried about "science," as distinct from science, being politicized. The consensus of climatologists that climate change is real and anthropogenic is science. The Heartland Institute's denialism is "science."

 

[Ms_Ann]

Yes, we're worried about "science," as distinct from science, being politicized. The consensus of climatologists that climate change is real and anthropogenic is science. The Heartland Institute's denialism is "science."

Doctor's used to think a good pelvic massage would cure female hysteria. Were they wrong?

 

[Conager]

Yes, we're worried about "science," as distinct from science, being politicized. The consensus of climatologists that climate change is real and anthropogenic is science. The Heartland Institute's denialism is "science."

As a former copy-editor, do you want to take another stab at that?

 

[Disgustipated]

As a former copy-editor, do you want to take another stab at that?

Lawlz

 

[Ms_Ann]

Lawlz

We can always count on you for a precise and logical argument.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Doctor's used to think a good pelvic massage would cure female hysteria. Were they wrong?

They were wrong about the existence of such thing as female hysteria, but when did a pelvic massage ever do a lady any harm?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Sometimes I can help but think we evolved from monkeys.

And that somewhere recently we took a u-turn and are headed back.

 

[KingOrfeo]

As a former copy-editor, do you want to take another stab at that?

No, I did it just right.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Doctor's used to think a good pelvic massage would cure female hysteria. Were they wrong?

As a former copy-editor, do you want to take another stab at that?

Notice how the former "copy-editor" missed that one.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Notice how the former "copy-editor" missed that one.

N.B.: "Copy editor" requires no hyphen.

Just don't ask me about "anal retentive." I'll have a breakdown, I swear I will.

 

[Ms_Ann]

Notice how the former "copy-editor" missed that one.

I went to public school. I was taught by crack smoking teachers, just like yourself.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

I went to public school. I was taught by crack smoking teachers, just like yourself.

I don't see what that has to do with anything. Do you have any comments to make that make sense?

 

[KingOrfeo]

I went to public school. I was taught by crack smoking teachers, just like yourself.

My crack smoking teachers weren't too competent -- it still takes me three or four tries to light the pipe!

 

[OldJourno]

Yes, we're worried about "science," as distinct from science, being politicized. The consensus of climatologists that climate change is real and anthropogenic is science. The Heartland Institute's denialism is "science."

What climatologists? Are they real scientists or are they like Bill Nye?
Is this 100 percent of climatologists? If not, why not?

 

[Ms_Ann]

I don't see what that has to do with anything. Do you have any comments to make that make sense?

You're a fucking psychopath. I've dealt with you before.

 

[Hard_Rom]

My teachers smoked pot. Fucking Yanks always have to go too far or at least one up everybody else!

 

[KingOrfeo]

What climatologists? Are they real scientists or are they like Bill Nye?

They're scientists.

Is this 100 percent of climatologists?

Pretty near.

The scientific opinion on climate change is the overall judgment among scientists regarding the extent to which global warming is occurring, its causes, and its probable consequences. The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that this warming is predominantly caused by humans. It is likely that this mainly arises from increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as from deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels, partially offset by human caused increases in aerosols; natural changes had little effect.[1][2][3][4]

This scientific opinion is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these respected reports and surveys.[5]

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report stated that:

* Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[6]
* Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[7]
* Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[8] Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[8] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming.[8]
* The range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.[9]
* The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources).[10]

Some scientific bodies have recommended specific policies to governments, and science can play a role in informing an effective response to climate change. Policy decisions, however, may require value judgements and so are not included in the scientific opinion.[11][12]

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. The last national or international scientific body to drop dissent was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[13] which in 2007[14] updated its statement to its current non-committal position.[15] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.

Or, more succinctly:

Scientific consensus

A scientific consensus is reached when the vast majority of the scientists involved in a discipline broadly agree on the interpretation of the evidence pertaining to a specific scientific question. When this occurs the case can be considered to have been demonstrated and the burden of proof then falls on those who would dispute the consensus. The following national and international organizations are part of the consensus that global warming is a real phenomenon for which humans are responsible:

* National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
* NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
* Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
* The Royal Society of the UK (RS)
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
* UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
* And many more.

Though some have taken non-committal stances, the vast majority of scientific bodies are convinced by the evidence.[19] In addition, those pinko tree-huggers at the Pentagon now rank global warming as a "destabilizing force" (damn enviro-weenies).[20][21]

Despite the clarity of the facts, behavioral/social science science tells us that simply shoving global warming related scientific data into their face simply solidifies their existing beliefs.[22] There's even a college offering free online classes that teaches you both the science of what is going on and how to fight denialism properly.[23]

National or international scientific bodies that reject anthropogenic global warming

[animated images of tumbleweeds]

If not, why not?

Because absolute unanimity is rare on the cutting edge of science, especially if money is involved -- and here, the money factor applies with any relevance only to the denial side, the money coming from the fossil fuel industry and its pet astroturfs/shills/front groups like the Heartland Institute. Any monetary concerns on the serious-science side are only the ordinary grant-funding considerations any scientist has to deal with.