2 thoughts on “Consistency Lacking In Iowa High Schools When It Comes To Teaching Climate Change

  1. I appreciate the attempt to report on climate change in education in a relatively responsible manner, but as a person who believed in AGW for over 10 years, but then investigated deeper and broader only to become an avowed climate critic, I would like to comment that this article does seem to be biased in the direction of the climate movement.

    The pop quiz question on Antarctic melting is particularly puzzling, because that ice has reached the highest thickness and extent in recorded history; its not losing mass like the arctic, which on the other hand is primarily affected by the Pacific multi-decadal oscillation. Greenland is losing ice due primarily to tectonic activity. The question on the consensus is frankly lagging as it fails to include the glaring and fatal methodological flaws of Cook’s 97% consensus meme, and actually links to an activist website likely funded by the Rockefeller’s.

    The climate movement is an energy policy platform disguised as a scientific revelation. In a democratic system such as ours, and in the absence of scientific evidence, the movement emphasizes appeals to popularity (e.g. methodologically erroneous consensus surveys (Cook et.al)), appealing also to authority (reified government bodies with severely limited scope of inquiry e.g. U.N.).

    Nothing that is happening on this planet is out of the ordinary in geologic history, in fact if anything we are still in a carbon drought, with relatively low levels in the atmosphere. The Climate movement has taken the facts and with its virtually unlimited support in the popular media and international government, inverted the facts and then accused anyone who recognizes this as a denier, with only partial success. It is a relief to know that many high school teachers are wiser than the political lobby groups behind the movement.

    I can’t believe I had participated in climate zealotry myself for over a decade before coming to the opposite conclusion. Its probably due to the fact that I relied principally on NPR and PBS and the BBC for my news. What a mistake! I’d be interested to see a survey that takes into account believers-turned-critics, those of use who have successfully awakened to the biggest scientific fraud in history, without exaggeration.

    The World Bank is not a scientific body, yet its position on causation of mean surface warming of .8 degree over the past century being unequivocally caused by human emitted CO2 is scientifically inaccurate and unsupported. But the facts don’t seem to matter. The U.N.-sanctioned pseudoscience is nothing less than a platform for global wealth redistribution, through regulation of the energy economy, the master switch for all human activity.

    Believers unwittingly defend the pseudoscience as they perceive their legitimate care and concern for the environment to be at dire risk. The movement is not a grassroots movement, its not a scientific movement, but rather a convenient fiction for a planned global economy.

    Even the heads of the EPA in the U.S. and the IPCC in the U.N. have scaled away from the science and are instead emphasize the economic ‘benefits’ admitting the energy policies will have no measurable impact on temperature or a more well preserved natural environment.

    Unfortunately, appealing to the (pre-manipulated) facts as they stand does not sway believers, as their adherence to the doctrine was arrived at through emotion, not the result of rational analysis.

    The war is on for the public mind, as it matters not what is true, but what people believe to be true.

  2. Pingback: Iowa Develops Science Teaching Standards With No Climate Change Judgment | Iowa Informer

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *