Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- When You're Cutting Social Security, 'Wealthy' Begins at $25K
- With Little More Than a Note, Obama Deploys US Troops To Niger
- Stripped of 'Country of Origin' Label, US Agrees to Sell Tear Gas to Egypt
- The 'Land of 10,000 Lakes' Is Running Dry
- In Blind Poll, Republicans Choose Progressive Budget Solutions Over Their Own Party's
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 AllSure the climate extreming is controversial. The controversy is over how, or at all, to stop it escalating.
When humanity finally gets our act together on the issue, let's just hope there's enough of us left to both survive as species and change our style to the ecologically continuable - with some recognizable remnants of the clever parts of civilization remaining.
The Koch brothers and some others of that order will soon make Adolph Hitler and his type appear to be Saints... And I am totally serious about that.
It is more than likely global warming will be totally out of control within a few more years and there then will be absolutely nothing that can be done to prevent a world wide catastrophic disaster of such a horrific magnitude, it will be unknown in human's recorded history... There most certainly will be a Hell and we and or our our children will be in it.
If the "free" press, the MSN, was not controlled by rich corporations, none of this global warmng denial lying propaganda would have ever happened.
At what point do the idiots just get laughed off the planet? Over the last decade we have seen historic, floods, heat waves, droughts, blizzards and cold snaps. How much look-out-the-window reality can/will people ignore?
Diane Ravitch points out that national educational standards focus exclusively on reading and math. History and science have always been regarded as too controversial in the the US.
Something more profound than the Christian fanaticism of Scopes trial days is going on in the US, where the modern secular religion of PR now has such an absolute grip that it's feasible to dispense with reality altogether. Like religious fanaticism, this is impossible to understand from a rational perspective - the essence of US totalitarianism is overt opposition to rationality.
Rational people are not to be trusted. Intelligent questions are shouted down. Candidates for public office are required to best their rivals in their ability to believe six impossible things before breakfast.
Right now we're watching the onset of permanent drought in the Southwest US. Simultaneously, we're watching the ruling class go completely insane. This doesn't look good.
Joe Romm's take on this story is worth a look:
Also of interest, a recent RealClimate article about an initiative from the National Center for Science Education to support and defend the teaching of climate change science:
I do not wish to be critical, but as much as you stated how dangerous the Arctic methane releasing is, you have an opinion we will in 100 to maybe even 50 more years find, it will be a very different world.
I am afraid it will be much less than 50 or a 100 years, probably by 2030 or possibly less when it will be a very, very, very, different world, as far more methane escpses from the rapidly thawing Arctic permafrost than already is escaping now.
There are an estimated 4 (*trillion*) tons of methane frozen in Arctic permafrost and when the permafrost melts, the methane releases into the atmospher.
None of the methane, CH4, is sequestered by plants as Co2 is and it is 105 times mor potent as a greenhouse gas than Co2 is... Therefore; if only a billion tons, a tiny fraction releases from thawing permafrost, it will be very bad for everyone.
When the Arctic becomes ice free in 2015, only three more years, we will see vast amounts of methane releasing... How much and how fast is the question?? .. Two or three billion of the 4 trillion tons releasing will be catastrophic... A trillion? So long... By 2030? __ Indeed, that will be very, very, possible with an ice free Arcitc Ocean. Maybe 2020? __ We'll see.
Here is the BIG problem... None of us, including myself, really wants to believe it can or will ever happen. It is depressing and frightenng,,, or it should be frightening. It would be frightenng if we were strapped to a stick of dynamite with a burning 100 foot long fuse.
We,,, us,,, scientists,,,, world leaders, (*must*) find a way to prevent that from happening, cut the fuse to a "ticking time bomb" and do so very soon, or it (*will*) most certainly happen.
My entire argument boils down to one paragraph and is based upon the following... If we have a cubic foot block of ice and safely locked in that ice is a cup full of gas and we allow the ice to melt, the gas is no longer trapped in the ice... Same as trapped methane in ice or permafrost.. When the permafrost melts, the methane is free.
That is all of the very basic science we laymen need to understand to realize we do not have very much time to act on it. And first we have to believe it is very possible.
Finally; if there were no methane in the Arctic's permafrost, global waming would still be a most serious issue... Buttt, there are an estimated (4 trillion) tons of that gas up there ready to escape and it will kill us,, all of us.... What is more serious than that?
Any one of us could die tommorow, be struck by a bolt of lightening, hit by a concrete truck, in a plane crash, a heart attack, hit in the head with a hammer by a pissed off wife ... But that won't kill all life on Earth, perhaps leaving some bacteria and roaches. The Arctic methane releaing from melting ice will.
So we have two options or choices.. One; we allow it to happen, or two, we act to try to prevent it from happening.
I will sign off with ~~Kem Patrick~~.. For very personal reasons I prefer to use that screen name,,, But; I screwed up here a few years ago and Kem Patrick was banned.
So I am trying to be good and not be banned again... But if I am zapped for using my chosen screen name, there are far more serious issues.and the Arctic permafrost and methane is the most serious issue.. And anyway; there are enough others talking about it now and I am not needed here.
Yes indeed; everything dies, from the ocean's phytoplankton, to coral reefs, to fish, to animals, birds, insects, humans, even planets and stars eventually die... Not sure about black holes, the science for those dying is not as yet established.
However; in spite of the fact that all humans die at some time, it is not necessary for humans to commit suicide.... And our continuation of polluting the planet and atmosphere with excess use of carbon fuels is suicide... It is causing the plane to become to warm, or global warming... Global warming causes dramatic climate changes.
The most serious thing global warming is doing is causing a very dramatic climate change in the Arctic region of Earth. The Arctic's sea ice dramatically recedes and the sub-sea permafrost melts and vast amounts of methane gas escapes into the atmosphere and that is going to kill all of us,,, all is (everybody),, not just Whitney Houston or Joe Blow or Flight line Shirley,, EVERYBODY.
Everybody includes you, me, all of the innocent children of the world, children who have had no say on the issue of us committing suicide and taking them along with us.
Why does this sound familiar?
Trylon
The Koch Klowns "think tank" (sic) similarly discredits its position by dismissing "climate science" philosophy as being nothing more than "alarmist" reaction and by promoting material that takes a "que sera sera, whatever will be will be" view that encourages everybody "don't worry, be happy" (and very conveniently makes the world safe for the laize faire predatory capitalism favored by the two very wealthy and very boorishly stupid and selfish funders of the think tank,
It all makes for entertaining street theater and doesn't add anything useful to the discussion of more exactly what ought to be the human response to such dangerous change in the climate.
yes, on the prismatic cosmic space/time continuum each human life exists in a flash less than a bug’s life as compared to ours. from a robert silverberg story i paraphrase, “ all Time, past, present and future converge on one point, NOW!”
ooh, ooh, call on poet!"gee, it's high Time we take advantage of of knowlege. after all, unlike diminishing natural resources, knowledge grows by the sharing!"
*****************
The growth and sharing of knowledge over the past century and the concomitant growth of problems, suggest that neither are a solution that has not (and is not) being tried and whose results leave much to be desired.
hummingbird warbles:
"does anybody really know what Time it is?" ooh, ooh, call on poet!
*****************
"does anybody really care?" Hummingbird does!
doubt you'll return to read this, butt...what i infer from poet's great post is that although our special species has learned a whole lot about how things work, we yet have so much more to discover. the very nature of politics promotes image over truth. too many people believe owning "tech toys" proves how smart they are, but a monkey can use a remote control. "it's so fun! why learn more?" none of these toys would exist, if a very few high-i-q scientists had not discovered Nature's laws of heat exchange, aerodynamics (if birds fly over the rainbow, why, o why can't i?) the majority just accept the "magic" as some sort of personal achievement.
last night i told my sons, "you got dishonorable mention on a common dreams article." they went to school in oklahoma. one day my older son showed off a test he's aced that day.
oops! teach had failed to catch a wrong answer:
"name the first man in space." he had written "alan shephard"
even my husband--a really smart guy--agreed with that erroneous answer! well, he went k thru 12 in ok. so, i dragged out the encyclopedia to prove yury gararin's name should have filled in the blank. so, you are correct that sharing information doesn't always lead to better things--especially when our kids have to stumble over so much fabricated misinformation.