http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/democrats-condemn-climate-change-skeptics-for-targeting-teachers/
>Three top Democrats have urged a libertarian think tank to stop mailing climate change skeptical classroom materials to teachers across America.
>The ranking Democrats on the House committees overseeing education, natural resources and science condemned the group’s mass-mailing campaign and counseled teachers to throw away the materials when they arrive.
>But the Heartland Institute said it has no intention of desisting: It has continued to send books and DVDs rejecting the human role in global warming to public school science teachers in all 50 states. Heartland project manager Lennie Jarratt said packages are also being distributed to science teachers at private and charter schools and to college professors.
>An initial batch of 25,000 books was mailed out in early March, and two additional batches have been sent since, Jarratt said. In total, he said, more than 200,000 packages will be sent, with the goal of getting the materials into the hands of every science teacher in the country.
>The packages contain a book titled “Why Scientists Disagree about Climate Change” and a related DVD; both dispute the scientific consensus that climate change is a crisis. Accompanying them is a cover letter from Jarratt, who leads Heartland’s Center for Transforming Education. The letter points teachers to an online guide to using the DVD in classrooms.
>>131420
>“Lying to children about the world we live in to further corporate polluter profits is cruel,” said Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.), ranking Democrat on the Committee on Natural Resources in a statement released last week.
>Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.) of the Committee on Education and the Workforce told educators, “Public school classrooms are no place for anti-science propaganda, and I encourage every teacher to toss these materials in the recycling bin.”
>“Is this a belated April Fools’ Day joke?” wrote Heartland executive director and CEO Joe Bast in response to the lawmakers’ statement. “If not, it should be. This is hilarious.”
>Distributing materials on matters of public policy is part of Heartland’s mission, he said, “And no, we’re not going to stop because you happen to disagree with us.”
>In an interview, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), the ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, said that besides drawing attention to the issue, lawmakers have few options.
>“It’s unfortunate that they are willing to skew information and put it in the minds of young people,” she said. “But in a free society, you can spread your information as you see fit, so there’s hardly anything we can do.”
>>131421
>Heartland has spent decades promoting doubt about climate change, and it embraces a variety of arguments to that end. At its 12th annual climate change conference last month in Washington, D.C., some speakers claimed that climate change isn’t happening. Others conceded it is happening, but that humans aren’t at fault. Others still argued that even if humans are the cause, change won’t be so bad for the planet.
>The organization has long had allies in the Republican party, but its influence has grown with the election of President Donald Trump, who has called climate change a hoax. Trump chose Myron Ebell, a longtime ally of Heartland, to run his transition efforts for energy and the environment. Trump’s appointed administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, has also expressed doubts about the human role in climate change, and as attorney general of Oklahoma sued the very agency he now runs 14 times, including over a plan to regulate climate-warming emissions.
>Among Heartland’s most influential allies in Congress is Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), chairman of the House science committee and a keynote speaker at Heartland’s climate conference last month.
>Asked about the mailing campaign, Smith’s spokeswoman, Kristina Baum, defended Heartland’s right to distribute what it wants.
>“The Heartland Institute is welcome to send materials to schools, at no cost to taxpayers, whenever they want, just as environmentalist organizations routinely do,” she said.
>>131424
>The executive director of the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), David Evans, said he was not aware of any such mailings from environmental groups. And representatives for a number of leading environmental groups, including Greenpeace, the Nature Conservancy, the Sierra Club and Climate Reality, said that while they have created educational materials, they have never blanket-mailed them to schools.
>Heartland spokesman Jim Lakely said in an email that the organization’s mass mailing campaign is its “attempt to counter the wholly one-sided, alarmist presentation of climate science ” that is currently “deeply embedded in the curriculum of our public schools.”
>Despite the scientific consensus around the human role in rising temperatures, there is no uniform national standard for how to teach global warming — each state sets its own science standards. Some of those guidelines are clear about how to teach climate change to children, while others send mixed messages about it.
>To help guide teachers after Heartland’s packages began arriving in schools, Evans sent a memo to all 55,000 NSTA members reinforcing that scientists do not disagree about the causes of climate change, and referring educators to curricula supported by established climate science.
>Evans said he first heard about the materials on a discussion board for science teachers. The comments were overwhelmingly negative, he said. “One person’s recommendation was to shred it. ‘I would hate for someone to find it and think it was reputable,’” Evans said, quoting a message on the board.
>>131425
>The discussion continued in the hallways of the NSTA’s annual conference in late March, Evans said, where teachers discussed who had received the Heartland material. He said there were several sessions on teaching climate science, and they were “largely standing room only.”
>Bob Farrace, spokesman for the National Association of Secondary School Principals, said principals will tend to advise their staff on how to handle climate change education depending on their political leanings.
>“The lines are already drawn on climate change, and frankly, with last fall’s election, those lines are only becoming clearer and firmer,” he said. “For educators who are skeptical of what the climate science is telling us, this package will likely reinforce their views. But for the vast majority of educators who believe in science, it’s the kind of thing they won’t even give a second look.”
>>131420
>Far Right EPA chief and Fascist President wring hands and laugh sheepishly
But they're right. There's absolutely no way the sharp rise in greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere have anything to do with the billion cars that spew greenhouse gasses. These liberals will say anything to make us look bad.
http://notrickszone.com/2017/04/12/satellite-data-post-el-nino-global-surface-cooling-continues-pause-extends-to-20-years/
>>131424
>some speakers claimed that climate change isn’t happening. Others conceded it is happening, but that humans aren’t at fault. Others still argued that even if humans are the cause, change won’t be so bad for the planet.
So many ways to stick your head in the sand.
Everyone has really gobbled up the 2-3 statistic graph/timelines that came out of studies that were later proven to be cooked. Look up climategate.
That being said, I think it's very plausible the earth is getting warmer. But to what degree humans affect that is still not certain, and no group has nailed the relationship down pat. I think we should, either way, move towards green energy. The issue I have is the governments willingness to involve itself in the free market and disrupt industries based on data that isn't 100% - and regulations that probobly won't do anything. Paris climate agreements? Projected 100 year decrease of the world's temperature of .2 degrees Fahrenheit. And at a net cost of trillions to the US economy from regulatory invasions and tax burdens.
Why not just push green tech? Let coal and oil continue - eventually the market will push them out. Eventually green tech will take over. In the mean time, everyone can stop pretending that cow farts are killing the planet.
>>131448
>cars
Tbh I think those are not really the biggest issue.
As far as I know container ships, trucks and power plants are much more significant.
Maybe that's wishful thinking on my part to justify my love for cars though.
>>131489
Thanks for the lies and disinformation.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2017/04/another-record-but-a-somewhat-cooler-arctic-ocean/
>>131489
Would you like to know how I figured out you're a brainlet by your first line of text?
>Look up climategate
You obviously haven't spent any time "looking up climategate", you just heard somebody else spout something you already agreed with along with that statement, and you've repeated it like a trained ape.
Climategate was a leak of 1,073 emails. One of the emails mentioned a "trick" to correct proxy temperatures in tree ring samples., which, taken out of context, could be considered scientifically dubious. The rest of them are standard uncontroversial mainstream climate science correspondence.
Climategate proved definitively that if scientists are all in on a massive conspiracy to bring about socialism through solar panel subsidies, they certainly don't talk about it in emails.
The rest of your post was also shit.
>>131497
Hahahaha alright buddy. You sound like a cartoon bully or an overdone asshole trope from a 1980s movie.
The emails I'm referring to are the outgoing requests for standards of measure, in which the response is "we don't really have one" and the "the results were getting are more important than the varacoty of our results" because the can " more quickly get society to change".
Just a quick fwi, you don't know (and neither do I ) shit about the actual climate that we aren't being fed by other groups. I'm just a little more cautious and aware of peoples inherent bias. If you're absolutely trusting, then you do you.
Also, try to come off as less of a dick.
>>131539
>Hahahaha alright buddy. You sound like a cartoon bully or an overdone asshole trope from a 1980s movie.
>Also, try to come off as less of a dick.
Good advice pal.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/
>>131539
Not him but you either believe in science or you don't. Oil companies would like to confuse the issue as much as possible.
>Just a quick fwi, you don't know (and neither do I ) shit about the actual climate that we aren't being fed by other groups
Actually we do know this because ice cores don't lie and oil companies can't fake them.
>>131540
>NB4 removal.
>NB4 Heartland Institute did nothing wrong.
>NB4 they just want to kill the fossil fuel industry for their own gain.
The FF shills are getting desperate.
>>131539
Why wouldn't someone want to minimize damage to the environment at all?
I figure if you take the pros and cons of either side of this issue and weigh them together, the obvious choice would still be being environmentally cautious.
It's like choosing to drink poison-tinged water over a clean cup because you reason that "It won't actually kill me like those people say, it'll just make me sick and unhealthy".
needs more luntz memo
>>131539
>you don't know (and neither do I ) shit about the actual climate that we aren't being fed by other groups
To clarify, YOU don't know shit about the climate that you aren't being fed by shills, I don't now shit about the climate except for what's come from the textbooks on atmospheric physics and the hundreds of climatology papers written by independent researchers around the world that I've had to read and critique for my degree.
This perhaps explains my frustration. I fucking know the planet is being cooked, I have spent thousands of hours of my life learning the intricacies of how and when, and then some moron comes along and try's to convince me that it's really not so bad after all and climate scientists aren't to be trusted because of some emails from a decade ago that they never read.
This happens daily, the effect is cumulative, it results in outbursts.
Also, this limp-dicked noncommittal "I'm just a little more cautious and aware of peoples inherent bias" garbage is ignorance masquerading as prudence.
The evidence for AGW is out there. Masses and masses of it, built upon a solid hypothesis grounded in physics you can verify in a high-school laboratory.
The time has come to pick a side. Choose carefully.
>>131484
>Even if change is happening, it won't be that bad
Are they wrong?
>>131684
It depends on whether you think mass extinctions, severe weather events, disease, crop failures, sea-level rise and the creation of a billion or so refugees living in low-lying areas are bad.
But hey, everyone likes warm weather lmao let's all go to the beach amirite?
DEM OYL COMPANIES ARE GOOD BOYZ THEY DINDU NUFFIN, THEY NEED MO' MONEY FOR DEM SUBSIDEEZ
>>131420
Climate change isn't real, buddy. Get used to it.
>>131694
Low-energy bait.
>>131670
Lol "pick a side". You're a parody of political ideology. Take a nap and then go read Hayek.
I never said the world wasn't getting warmer. I said the corellations and data on humans affect on that has never been decided upon or agreed on, and the data keeps shifting and moving and the definitions fluidly change because the people who've sunk their careers into backing it really can't afford being wrong at this point. And it's become so highly politicized that I've lost my taste for it.
Calling humans monsters and wanting to kill off cattle and remove cars and shut factories down makes me sense that the climate crisis is being bred into some sort of ideological movement. It's just not kosher for society. We can do much better.
Go take your "pick a side shit" back to the college commons. I doubt you've ever had to research anything beyond scrolling the highlight reel of msn news
>>131699
>science changes and adapts, therefore it was fake all along!
Because the (((oil companies))) would never lie to you, right?
>>131699
>Calling humans monsters and wanting to kill off cattle and remove cars and shut factories down....
So pick a side:
Anarcho-primitivists or Fascist Oligarchs.
>>131670
I did school reports on global warming too. Its an easy A.
Later i fid my own real research and found my teachers were ignorant
>>131700
Technically speaking? Yeah. Truth is not relative to scientific consensus. But to your point, I don't trust anyone feeding me information that is intended to push overreaching legislation
>>131706
So you would rather have legislation that would give corporations carte blanche to do whatever the fuck they want with no consequence?
>m-muh free market will fix it
>>131706
Where are not arguing about truth in a purely philosophical and semantic way. Yes, scientific consensus can be considered as truth as it will ALWAYS be more accurate than anything else until new discovery are made. Science is "truth for now until we get smarter and research more". It'S always been like this, it work and will keep working.
>>131707
^
>>131709
We're not where... Shit dumb mistake!
>>131706
>overreaching legislation
The legislation may be sweeping but it's only overreaching if the threat is small.
>>131699
I've read Hayek. Why do you automatically assume my political leanings? Is it because you base your beliefs about reality upon your beliefs about politics and assume everybody else does the same?
The correlations and data on human's effect has absolutely been decided and agreed upon (with an error bar that has been shrinking over the years), you just refuse to see it because of your religious devotion to your political ideology.
Nobody is "calling humans monsters and wanting to kill off cattle and remove cars and shut factories down", that's silly and you should feel silly.
AGW isn't opinions based, it's physics based, and as such it's perfectly reasonable to pick a side.
I don't know what msn news is (not amerifat), I prefer economic freedom and despise gibsmedats, and your desperate attempt to shoehorn me into your parody of leftism is pathetic.
>>131711
There is no threat so its wildly over reaching
>>131715
>Why do you automatically assume my political leanings?
Liberals can't grasp how transparent they are.
Sorry, you're not a snowflake after all. Nothing is more predictable than a leftist.
Now youre thinking, "liberals are predictable? That's conservatives!" Good one dude.
>>131692
>disease, crop failures, and the creation of a billion or so refugees
There's 100% no way of knowing that these things will happen
>mass extinction events
98% of every species that has ever lived is extinct, it's inevitable. We're doing what we can to help the environment, and while I think there should be stricter regulations, I don't think we should shut it down, as we don't have any alternatives for power plants right now.
>>131754
You mean corporations prove no threat.
>>131760
I'm just not buying your doomsday scenario you stupid commie
>>131763
>muh peak oil
Gonna run out any day now right? Lol
>>131764
Whatever, shilltard.
>>131765
Like those will last for centuries with evironmental regulations in place.
>>131769
Progress :)
>>131772
The point is this; unless they privitize all of american and Abolish clean energy, Coal have no future.
Oil have a future, Gas have a future.
Coal is the only fuel out of all of the fossil fuels that were under the servere threat of the Paris Climate Agreement.
>>131774
There must be some countries that want coal. Africa, South America maybe? China wants it too.
>>131779
People only want cheap coal. US workers are more expensive than foreigners, once you add the cost of transporting the stuff it isn't good business even without green laws.
>>131763
I think we're far off from the point where fossil fuels aren't readily available. I think that at some point, though, we're going to have to make serious financial decisions about the future of energy, and if it weren't for ecologists working with the fossil fuel industry, the east coast would likely be damned up, as a source of power. Financially, fossil fuels might not be viable in the future, that's what's happening with coal
>>131779
>Countries
>Names two continents
Those continents you mentioned both have oil/natural gas, which is more energy efficient, and financially sound, so no, those areas may use coal, but in the future, they'll likely use oil or natural gas.
>>131779
Not if they're commited to the Paris Agreement.
Face it, they're too late to stop the inevitable. The only places you can built more coal plants is in rural areas; and they'll start a riot once they notice the fucking smog in their farms.
>>131699
>data keeps shifting and moving and the definitions fluidly change because
Science changes. Do you even know how the process works? What do you benefit from by shit in such a manner?
>>131704
Going on the content and quality of your post, your school's education standards and your research findings might not be what is wrong here.
I suggest you watch the history channel for more 'Aliens'.
>>131715
Not the guy you were responding to just curious if you happened to know some good introductory reads since I have i no idea where to begin.
>>131904
I presume you mean about politics and economics?
Mankiw's Principles of Economics is a must-read. Freakonomics is worthwhile. Try any of Orwell's work, especially his non-fiction. Hayek's The Road to Serfdom. Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead. That'll do you for introductory reads.
>>131756
You're mentally defective and should be gassed, not even memeing.
>>131759
>There's 100% no way of knowing that these things will happen
There's no way to 100% predict the future, stop the fucking presses. What a non-statement.
Disease vectors thrive in warmer and moister climates, as does most crop pathogens. A billion people live in places a meter or so above sea level, which is a conservative estimate of the sea-level rise over the next century.
No 100% way of knowing though right? Let's keep burning those fossil fuels, you don't want to be a cuck do you?
>>131912
>Disease vectors thrive in warmer and moister climates, as does most crop pathogens
And, there's no way of predicting which diseases will spawn where, not to mention what areas will specifically be effected, by how much, and the rate of development of said areas.
>A billion people live in places a meter or so above sea level, which is a conservative estimate.
I'd like to know how you came to the foolish assumption that people wouldn't move a few meter back, or that areas wouldn't be physically altered to deal with these challenges, that these people would automatically become refugees.
>Let's keep burning those fossil fuels
They're the best thing we have in many countries, and until ecologists allow environmental destruction in the name of renewable energy, or prices skyrocket, you're going to have to deal with it
>>131912
Sea level is a very serious problem if we do nothing.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
What I think when I see the very straight line stretching back to 1870, is that we pushed temperature above normal right back at the beginning of the industrial revolution.
I worry that it will simply keep rising until we manage to set things back to before any coal was dug up and burnt.
It can be done but the more fossil fuels we use now the longer it will take to reverse.
>>131915
>They're the best thing we have in many countries,
Even if this is true, countries like the US have access to alternatives.
You say you want to opt out. Expect to play catch up or pay some kind of fine.
There is no room form freeloaders on this boat.
>>131919
>Even if this is true, countries like the US have access to alternatives
This is patently false. The US at this moment, for power production has to rely on fossil fuels. Most European countries do as well, spare those that are lucky enough to have geothermal or hydroelectric, and have their governments not object to hydroelectric, as the US government, by in large, has.
I think we should strive towards renewable, but recognize that oil and gas are an integral part of our lives.
>>131921
>has to rely on fossil fuels
Not if we build nuclear plants instead of coal.
Solar panels on houses. Wind farms at sea. There are plenty of options.
You just want excuses not to do something because it is hard and the worst effects come long after you're dead.
>recognize that oil and gas are an integral part of our lives
They have to be eliminated completely as soon as possible.
The US can stick their heads in the sand but if they do they should expect the countries losing land to sea level rise and desertification to come looking for compensation.
>>131926
>reply with an insult.
You showed him, conservatard.
Seriously, let it fucking go.
>>131930
Not that anon but, I advise you do the same and let it go.
>>131927
It's a massive balancing act that is precariously placed between the absolute need for people to be able to live, thrive, and for the economy to continue supporting everyone and everything - and for the shift to green energy to happen.
It absolutely is and already has begun to shift. Coal and oil won't be used as much and within 50 years I can see it being obsolete.
The issue is the government, which is generally run by charlatans, is full of people who put the foot on the gas and never consider the dramatic consequences of the actions in the short and long run. Quelling and over regulating oil and gas and coal is dumb, shortsided, and disruptive and may actually lead to worse outcomes. If the economy tanks - green tech won't be anyone's concern.
>>131927
>Solar panels on houses, win farms at sea
Solar panels on houses won't exactly help industrial or commercial areas, and if there's no sun, they have to buy electricity off of the market, nuclear plants are more expensive than natural gas, which is what is being built instead, not to mention the public's objection to nuclear, which is what is happening in Germany, which led them to build more coal plants, as that was what was the most economically efficient for them at the time.
>Wind farms
Yeah, except for the ecological issues they pose, I personally agree with the wind farms, but good luck actually efficiently getting power to transmissions lines, when you're out at sea. Another issue is the amount of power generated is temperamental with wind, and if the wind subsides, or massively increases, you can have outages/shortages.
>They have to be eliminated as soon as possible
Yeah, and how do you expect to make plastic? What are they going to use for Roads?
What are we going to use for aircraft and oil tankers?
This notion of oil and gas going away overnight is absurd. I do agree we should minimize it, and if you think we're responsible for the desertification of different peoples lands, or the fact that their homes are being displaced by sea levels, that's not happening.
>>131489
Agreed. The free market will fix this. We need to just get rid of all the useless regulations and let everything sort itself out.
>>131670
I feel sorry for you, but you have to accept that educating a fool won't stop the fool from being a fool.
>>132090
But Coal will die.
That's the point, the Coal Industry is dead.
Also, quit it with this Fossil Fuel Shilling; Because that's what we're calling you from now on.
Unless you're shilling for the Kochs, who Funded Heartland Institute to begin with.
>>132107
Same with you conservatard
Go back to your Echo chamber.
>>132089
>Calling Liberfags Hypocrites when Conseratards advocate the same dame thing.
Yep, you're still mad that BernieBros invaded /pol/.
>>132113
They just wanted tell you that You're a fucking Shill to the Fossil Fuel Industry and that Everyone with a fucking Brain knows that HeartLand Institute is a shill organization, and that Coal will die off due to affordability of Gas and Renewable Energy. The only way they will survive is if they Abolish Renewable Energy, but I highly doubt Trump will order that.
As for Climate Change, face it; a huge majority of scholars knows that fossil fuels is the cause along with deforestation. And I high the right to tell conservatives that they're as much of a shill as you are.
>>131420
>climate change is 100% real and irrefutable
>Stop sending information that refutes it and requiring us to prove our claims
I get the argument they are trying to make, but you would think that it should relatively easy to shut down this disinformation campaign were it actually built on falsehoods. Climate change is a complicated issue and by completely shutting yourself off to dissent you are preventing a fuller understanding from emerging. You never learn as much about a topic as you do when you need to defend it.
>>132123
Well, the thing is that Environmentalists spread the notion that Consumerism is bad since it leads to the destruction of the planet through overproductions of goods for the sake of unlimited wealth and economic growth; which is why Trump is aiming to take EPA down a notch.