Re: Brock Ervin’s editorial “A fighting chance” of
Sep 23, 2019
I’m old enough to remember when global warm-mongering
Chicken Little’s were warning that we were all going to die from a new ice age,
then acid rain, then a population explosion, then ozone depletion, then
world-wide famine, then global warming.
In 2006, I recall AlGore telling us we had only 10
years to save Earth. In 1988, I recall
Ted Danson telling us the oceans as we knew them would be gone in ten
years. In early 2000, I recall global
warm-mongers telling us that children would never see snow again. In the late 1980s, I recall warm-mongers
telling us the ice caps would disappear causing world-wide flooding of coastal
areas.
There is a single spaced list in 8 point type as long
as Kareem Abdul-Jabbar’s leg of “scientific” doomsday predictions from supposed
“scientific experts” on climate change that have never come close to fruition –
yet they persist.
The warm-mongers are alarmist spreading fear with no
scientific proof for anything. They are
so desperate for a cogent argument that the main talking point among the global
warm-mongering fear merchants has become AlGore’s pathetic refrain, “The debate
is over.” That reminds me of George
Will’s response, “when someone says ‘the debate is over’, you can be sure of
two things, the debate is raging, and they are losing the argument.’”
So it is with today’s global warm-mongers. They have manipulated data, hidden data, made
fantastical and false claims about the end being near and just plain lied about
the “science” of climate change, that no thinking person believes a word of
their hysteria anymore.
So what to do when your claims about Armageddon due
to climate change have become nothing more than white noise for thinking
rational people? Well you get into the
schools and demand to teach, nay, indoctrinate the youth to your warped way of thinking.
Ervin as much as admits to “the debate is over”
warm-monger approach to indoctrinating America’s youth. Ervin cannot have
students research “climate change” and arrive at their own conclusions. No. The debate is over. It’s time for critical thinking to stop. Any student who arrives at a different
conclusion, no matter how well supported fails, is ostracized on social media
and their all their accounts suspended by the weak-minded masters of the
universe who tolerate no deviation from the liberal orthodoxy.
If the student stumbles upon quotes from organizers
that prove the Green New Deal and Paris Climate Accords are nothing more than
means to destroy capitalism, or East Anglia’s admission that warm-mongers
routinely lie about, manipulate and hide data to support their positon or call
out the warm-monger glitterati for their shameful hypocrisy, they will be
failed and sent back for re-education until they get tier minds right.
Global warm-mongers are like Internet pedophiles. They can’t get to first base with adults who
see through their garbage, so they prey on unsuspecting children. The warm-mongers are a fragile uncertain bunch. They cannot hold up their end of a scientific
debate with other scientists so they simply declare, “the debate is over” and
set their sights on indoctrinating a more vulnerable group – our youth.
By what means are the warm-mongers targeting the youth? Fear.
Reference the testimony of high schoolers during the School Strike for Climate. These teen agers actually believe that there’s
no need to study because the world will end and there will be mass extinction
within ten years.
Given the bleak outlook being preached by the
warm-mongers, how long before one of these high schoolers loses all hope and
commits suicide? When that happens the
warm-mongers will, no doubt, blame climate change. What the warm-mongers are engaging in is
child abuse pure and simple.
Ervin argues for teaching climate change “based solely
on scientific consensus.” “Scientific
consensus” is the, “the debate is over” non-argument argument in disguise. Scientific consensus is actually the absence of
science. Science does not rely
consensus. It abhors group-think. If consensus ruled we would still believe the
600 BC notion that the Earth is the center of the universe. We’d never have stumbled upon the theory of
continental drift. We would still be clinging to the notion of a flat Earth.
Only the weak-minded rely on consensus to avoid defending
their theories. The warm-mongers are the
turtles and ostriches of scientific community.
Instead of seeking out rigorous inquiry to help substantiate their
theory, the warm-mongers hide from it. Ervin’s ridiculous model for climate
education is a good example of why the public education system needs to be
turned on its head.
Here are some ideas for Ervin to consider. Of course he won’t, because don’t you know,
the debate is over and nothing will penetrate his closed narrow mind.
Earth’s climate has been changing since Genesis. Indiana
was under a mile of ice at one point.
While humans may be affecting the Earth’s climate, there
is no accurate way to measure to what degree.
America is not a planet. Ruining our economy will do next to nothing
to effect climate change.
Outlawing fossil fuel will lead to deaths of 10s of
thousands of Americas due to heat and cold exposure.
Does anyone know what the correct temperature for the
Earth is? How do we maintain that temperature?
Ervin’s editorial is proof that these warm-mongering
child predators shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near K-12 public education.
Monday,
September 23, 2019 1:00 am based solely on scientific consensus
A fighting chance
Without
proper climate change education, next generation can't fix mess we've left it
Brock
Ervin
Brock
Ervin, a Crawfords-ville resident, grew up in Churubusco.
“I personally don't think climate change is a man-made problem
as much as people say it is,” the Earth science teacher told me. What research
is that statement based on, I asked? “Nothing. It's just my opinion.”
I couldn't believe what I was hearing as the teacher explained
his approach to teaching climate change. I, too, went to college for Earth
science education. Aside from the absence of scientific thinking that it
reflected, his opinion certainly didn't align with the evidence or the
established understanding of climate science that I was taught while at Purdue
University.
As a father of three children, a climate change advocate and a
former science teacher, I've spent the past several years taking both a
personal and professional interest in trying to understand what kids are
learning about global warming and climate change.
The teacher explained, “I teach the basics and then let the kids
do research to figure out what they think about it.” I would hear similar
versions of this statement from two other teachers. One explained, “I give
students a research project on climate change. As long as they support their
position, they'll get credit. Usually they get it right.”
I asked why he doesn't teach climate change like other sciences.
He said, “It's political and some parents don't like it. Some people don't
accept it based on religious grounds, because they are taught at church that
the Earth is only 6,000 years old. I don't feel I have the right to insist
otherwise.”
When I discussed it with a high school administrator, he
responded, “We live in a conservative area, and this is a way we avoid
confrontation.”
Some textbooks take the same subjective route: Provide a
three-paragraph summary of global warming and climate change; ask the students
to do a project weighing data that support and refute it; leave room for doubt
with a statement such as, “Some scientists say that global warming is just part
of the Earth's natural cycle.”
It seems that opinions are being given the same validity as
established scientific understanding.
In my experience, the most damning assessment of Indiana's
teaching of climate science probably comes from students themselves. Over the
period of a couple of years, I've asked numerous students about the topic. Most
knew it by name only. Some of the more informed students said they didn't learn
it in school.
To address the climate crisis, students need to have confidence
in climate science. While the evidence and models were not nearly as robust as
today, the foundations of the science have been established and confirmed for
more than 100 years.
Students should be learning about climate science milestones and
the foundations set down by Joseph Fourier, Eunice Foote, John Tyndall, Svante
Arrhenius, Hans Suess and Charles Keeling.
Students should be learning about the scientific organizations
doing the research, the consensus of scientists and the pressure that they have
been putting on governments to take action for the past several decades. It
certainly shouldn't be taught as a Choose Your Own Adventure.
The American Meteorological Society attempted to directly
address how climate change is taught in the classroom. They issued a policy
statement in May 2013 titled, “Climate Science is Core to Science Education.”
In part, it states, “Efforts to properly teach climate science
are regularly challenged by those seeking to frame it as somehow different from
other scientific subjects, often with claims that it is either 'uncertain' or
'controversial.' They advocate the need for a special approach to its teaching,
such as added effort to balance perspectives. With this statement, the AMS
seeks to confirm the solid scientific foundation on which climate change
science rests, and to emphasize that teaching approaches different from other
sciences are not warranted.” The statement continues, “Climate literacy in the
next generation of U.S. citizens will ensure a firm foundation of knowledge and
discourse as society faces decisions on how to best deal with a changing
climate.”
That was more than six years ago. Indiana apparently didn't
take notice.
The certainty and seriousness of climate change has been understood
for more than 50 years, and arguably much longer.
We have again kicked the can to the next generation, but we
haven't given them the tools to deal with it.
The fossil fuel industry and politicians have shaped the
narrative to block action, and we need to give kids a meaningful way to
counteract such forces through education.
Fixing climate education is long overdue. I'm asking all Indiana
schools to teach global warming and climate change proportionally to its
significance. It should be taught throughout K-12. It should be taught based
solely on scientific consensus. Teachers should be given training, resources
and a curriculum to teach it effectively.
I am asking our schools to equip all graduates with the level of
knowledge needed to deal with the climate change crisis that we've passed down
to them. And we need to start with the class of 2020.
Given the hole we've dug for our kids, this is the least we can
do.
No comments:
Post a Comment