Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
'Climate Deniers' Follow 'Creationists' to Undermine Public Education
The Heartland Institute, a right-wing think tank funded by the Koch brothers, Microsoft, and other top corporations, is planning to develop a “global warming curriculum” for elementary schoolchildren that presents climate science as “a major scientific controversy,” according to a report by Think Progress.
Today's report reads in part:
[The Heartland Institute's] effort, at a cost of $100,000 a year, will be developed by Dr. David E. Wojick, a coal-industry consultant.
“Principals and teachers are heavily biased toward the alarmist perspective,” Heartland’s confidential 2012 fundraising document bemoans. The group believes that Wojick’s project has “potential for great success,” because he has “contacts at virtually all the national organizations involved in producing, certifying, and promoting scientific curricula.” The document explains that Wojick will produce “modules” that promote the conspiratorial claim that climate change is “controversial” [...]
Wojick will receive $25,000 per module, with four modules produced a year. Wojick, who manages the Climate Change Debate listserv, is not a climate scientist. His doctorate is in epistomology.
The Heartland Institute also runs the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, a conspiracy-theorist parody of the Nobel-prize-winning U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Heartland’s NIPCC project “pays a team of scientists approximately $300,000 a year to work on a series of editions of Climate Change Reconsidered.” Their climate-denial work is funded anonymously.
The full excerpt from the Heartland document:

Though troubling to both advocates of quality education and those concerned with the increasingly destructive impact of global warming and climate change, the Heartland's plans are hardly surprising. In fact, they follow a troubling trend among rightwing think tanks and the conservative movement to undermine education by generating and then inserting invented scientific controversy into public school curricula.
The battle to introduce 'creationist' curricula has been a perennial battle throughout the United States for Christian evangelicals, and now many in the "climate denial" industry have adopted similar methods to push their ideology in schools. As author and journalist, Katherine Stewart, wrote recently at The Guardian:
The convergence here is, to some degree, cultural. It just so happens that the people who don't like evolution are often the same ones who don't want to hear about climate change. It is also the case that the rhetoric of the two struggles is remarkably similar – everything is a "theory", and we should "teach the controversy". But we also cannot overlook the fact is that there is a lot more money at stake in the climate science debate than in the evolution wars. Match those resources with the passions aroused by evolution, and we may have a new force to be reckoned with in the classroom.
She also writes, citing specific legislation in Oklahoma and other states, that there are aspects of this new trend that make the "same old story more interesting than usual."
One has to do with the temperature in a less metaphorical sense. The Oklahoma bill isn't properly speaking just an "anti-evolution" bill; it is just as opposed to the "theory" of "global warming". A bill pending in Tennessee likewise targets "global warming" alongside "biological evolution". These and other bills aim their rhetoric at "scientific controversies" in plural, and one of the New Hampshire bills does not even bother to specify which controversies it has in mind. [...]
The other significant twist has to do with the fact that the new anti-evolution – make that anti-science – bills are emerging in the context of the most vigorous assault on public education in recent history. In Oklahoma, for example, while Senator Brecheen fights the forces of evolution and materialism, the funding for schools is being cut, educational attainments are falling, and conservative leaders are agitating for school voucher systems, which, in the name of "choice", would divert money from public schools to private schools – many of them religious. The sponsor of Indiana's anti-science bill, Dennis Kruse, who happens to be chairman of the Senate education committee, is also fighting the two battles at once.
###
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...



72 Comments so far
Show AllFaked,
Your acquaintance with English language idioms is haphazard, at best. A straw man is an easily-ridiculed argument, falsely presented as belonging to the other side in a debate. An ad hominem ("against the man") is an attack on the person, rather than the argument, of the other side in a debate.
It is not an ad hominem to observe that WattsUpWithThat is a fossil-fuel financed propaganda mouthpiece. It is laughable to cite Anthony Watts as a reliable source, when his misrepresentation rap-sheet is a mile long. Any impression this notorious denialist website may convey of being objective is mere fakery.
I have no idea what you mean by straw man, or logical fallacy. I doubt that your meaning is clear to anyone.
If "a little intelligence goes a long way" is an ad hominem, then surely so is the antecedent phrase "a little diligence goes a long way."
In another thread, I've addressed Heartland's unsubstantiated allegation that the Climate Strategy document is a fake. DeSmogBlog is not backing down*, despite explicit legal threats from Heartland. AP has independently confirmed the authenticity of several documents**.
Obviously, the past performance of website editor Anthony Watts is pertinent to the credibility of anything he posts, on any subject. It is neither a straw man, nor an ad hominem, nor a logical fallacy, to point out that Watts is a laughing stock. People who cite Watts make themselves ridiculous.
* Heartland Demands DeSmogBlog Remove ''Climate Strategy" Document
** INFLUENCE GAME: Leaks show group's climate efforts
P.S. Type a <p> symbol before each paragraph to create paragraph breaks in news threads here. (It's confusing that HTML markup is not necessary for paragraph breaks in the threads underneath opinion articles.)
With his contimual published lies about global warming, Anthony Watts has done more irrepairable harm to humanity and all life and truly the life of the planet, than anyone else I can think of in all of human's recorded history.
I personally consider Anthony Watts to be one of the most dangerous humans who ever lived, if not the most dangerous.
His evil work has created so much unfounded doubt and denial in so many, about the truths of global warming, that Watts should be brought to the World Court and charged with crimes against the world and all life on the world and bring out the truth of him for all to witness.
Anthony Watts and his loyal followers could be the cause of Earth someday becoming another twin sister of planet Venus, as Dr. James Hansen warns may happen.
Leave Anthony Watts to Heaven,,, Hell would not have him.
Watts shows two files side by side and shows the difference and so states one is a fake… At the bottom of each file is a comment that the file is not necessarily the same as other PDF files… So because they are different does not signify or prove one is a fake.
Anthony Watts is a TV and or a radio "weatherman", who tells the projected weather forecast, projections he receives from climate scientists… Anthony Watts is not a climate scientist,,, or a geologist,,, or a oceanic bio-chemist,,, or an Earth scientist,,,, or any other type of a scientist. Any ten year old who is able to read and speak, could be a weather announcer on TV or the radio.
But Watts professes to be an expert on climate matters and constantly has derided scientific work and has condemned Al Gore, among many others, such as the NSIDC,,, NOAA,,, CDIAC,,, earth scientists,,, the ISSS team’s scientists, etc.
Al Gore is a person I personally do not trust, he’s a politician, not a scientist… And I don’t favor any type of any carbon taxes, or any other words that actually mean tax… but Al Gore’s film was very accurate, any minor errors used against Gore‘s film, and there were a couple, are nit picking.
Gore garnered his information for his film, “An Inconvenient Truth“, from some of the top scientific minds in the world… And Anthony Watts has for years scorned Gore’s film and has created a tremendous amount of doubt and skepticism about the most deadly serious issue, humanity has ever faced, with millions or billions of people all around the world by doing so… He is evil. Watts is paid to do that, a paid assassin.
Btw, I find ~Aleph Null’s definition of the words or phrases , “straw man tactics” and “ad hominem”, to coincide perfectly with a Webster’s College edition dictionary.
A long, scholarly treatment of this subject from Donald A. Brown, Associate Professor Environmental Ethics, Science, and Law, Penn State University: