SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"Science teachers know better--and science students deserve better," the authors write of Heartland's propaganda. (Photo: UCS Blog)
A few weeks ago, science teachers across the country began to find strange packets in their school mailboxes, containing a booklet entitled "Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming" (sic), a DVD, and a cover letter urging them to "read this remarkable book and view the video, and then use them in your classroom."
A few weeks ago, science teachers across the country began to find strange packets in their school mailboxes, containing a booklet entitled "Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming" (sic), a DVD, and a cover letter urging them to "read this remarkable book and view the video, and then use them in your classroom."
The packets were sent by the Heartland Institute, which in the 1990s specialized in arguing that second-hand smoke does not cause cancer. Even though its indefensible defense of the tobacco industry failed, Heartland now uses the same pro-tobacco playbook--touting alleged "experts" to question established science--to argue that climate change is not real.
At the National Center for Science Education, we have almost three decades of experience helping teachers, parents, and students facing creationism in the classroom. A few years ago, we added climate change to our docket. So teachers know that when issues regarding evolution or climate change come up, NCSE is there to help.
This wasn't Heartland's first unsolicited mailing of climate change denial material to science teachers, and judging from the reactions we've seen, teachers haven't been fooled by this outing. But here is how we're advising science teachers to explain why using these materials in any science classroom would be a terrible idea.
That's a judgment that might seem to call for a point-by-point rebuttal. But I'm not going to offer such a rebuttal, both because every substantive point in the Heartland mailing is a long-ago-debunked canard (see Skeptical Science passim) and because there is already a place where responsible scientists discuss the evidence for climate change: the peer-reviewed scientific research literature.
If Heartland has such a good case to make, why is it spending thousands of dollars on direct-mailing a self-published report to teachers, instead of trying to convince the relevant scientific community?
Of course, Heartland isn't willing to admit its fringiness, devoting considerable effort to trying to dispute the widely reported fact that the degree of scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change is about 97 percent. It's a wasted effort.
Multiple independent studies, using different sources, methods, and questions, have arrived at the same conclusion. And the scientific consensus on climate change is not a mere reflection of popular sentiment or shared opinion among scientists. Rather, it is the product of evidence so abundant and diverse and robust as to compel agreement in the scientific community.
Not content to reject the extraordinary scientific consensus on climate change, the booklet downplays the process by which climate scientists regularly evaluate and report on the state of the evidence, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or IPCC.
Few areas of science undergo the kind of rigorous and comprehensive review that the climate science community carries out every five years. It is a reflection of the seriousness with which world leaders take the challenge of climate change that they support this process and accept the conclusions arrived at by hundreds of generous, dedicated, and meticulous scientists.
K-12 teachers are expected to teach in accordance with state science standards, state- or district-approved textbooks, and district-approved curricula, all of which undergo review by competent scientists and teachers, and thus generally attempt to present climate change in accordance with the scientific consensus. Heartland's materials have not undergone such a review. And teachers who misguidedly use them in the classroom will be, at best, presenting mixed messages, running the risk of confusing their students about the scientific standing of anthropogenic climate change.
Many of the references in "Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming" (sic) are to Heartland's own publications, post on personal blogs, fake news sources, and low-quality journals--the sort of citations that a teacher wouldn't accept on a science assignment.
The booklet itself is credited to the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, NIPCC--likely to be confused with the legitimate IPCC. And the envelope in which the mailing was sent reproduced a New York Times headline about "Climate Change Lies"--the same sort of lies, it turns out, that Heartland is concerned to promote.
In the end, the climate change deniers at the Heartland Institute have no scientifically credible evidence of their own, leaving them with no option but to lash out at the real scientific literature, contributing nothing except vitriol, achieving nothing except confusion. Science teachers know better--and science students deserve better.
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
A few weeks ago, science teachers across the country began to find strange packets in their school mailboxes, containing a booklet entitled "Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming" (sic), a DVD, and a cover letter urging them to "read this remarkable book and view the video, and then use them in your classroom."
The packets were sent by the Heartland Institute, which in the 1990s specialized in arguing that second-hand smoke does not cause cancer. Even though its indefensible defense of the tobacco industry failed, Heartland now uses the same pro-tobacco playbook--touting alleged "experts" to question established science--to argue that climate change is not real.
At the National Center for Science Education, we have almost three decades of experience helping teachers, parents, and students facing creationism in the classroom. A few years ago, we added climate change to our docket. So teachers know that when issues regarding evolution or climate change come up, NCSE is there to help.
This wasn't Heartland's first unsolicited mailing of climate change denial material to science teachers, and judging from the reactions we've seen, teachers haven't been fooled by this outing. But here is how we're advising science teachers to explain why using these materials in any science classroom would be a terrible idea.
That's a judgment that might seem to call for a point-by-point rebuttal. But I'm not going to offer such a rebuttal, both because every substantive point in the Heartland mailing is a long-ago-debunked canard (see Skeptical Science passim) and because there is already a place where responsible scientists discuss the evidence for climate change: the peer-reviewed scientific research literature.
If Heartland has such a good case to make, why is it spending thousands of dollars on direct-mailing a self-published report to teachers, instead of trying to convince the relevant scientific community?
Of course, Heartland isn't willing to admit its fringiness, devoting considerable effort to trying to dispute the widely reported fact that the degree of scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change is about 97 percent. It's a wasted effort.
Multiple independent studies, using different sources, methods, and questions, have arrived at the same conclusion. And the scientific consensus on climate change is not a mere reflection of popular sentiment or shared opinion among scientists. Rather, it is the product of evidence so abundant and diverse and robust as to compel agreement in the scientific community.
Not content to reject the extraordinary scientific consensus on climate change, the booklet downplays the process by which climate scientists regularly evaluate and report on the state of the evidence, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or IPCC.
Few areas of science undergo the kind of rigorous and comprehensive review that the climate science community carries out every five years. It is a reflection of the seriousness with which world leaders take the challenge of climate change that they support this process and accept the conclusions arrived at by hundreds of generous, dedicated, and meticulous scientists.
K-12 teachers are expected to teach in accordance with state science standards, state- or district-approved textbooks, and district-approved curricula, all of which undergo review by competent scientists and teachers, and thus generally attempt to present climate change in accordance with the scientific consensus. Heartland's materials have not undergone such a review. And teachers who misguidedly use them in the classroom will be, at best, presenting mixed messages, running the risk of confusing their students about the scientific standing of anthropogenic climate change.
Many of the references in "Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming" (sic) are to Heartland's own publications, post on personal blogs, fake news sources, and low-quality journals--the sort of citations that a teacher wouldn't accept on a science assignment.
The booklet itself is credited to the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, NIPCC--likely to be confused with the legitimate IPCC. And the envelope in which the mailing was sent reproduced a New York Times headline about "Climate Change Lies"--the same sort of lies, it turns out, that Heartland is concerned to promote.
In the end, the climate change deniers at the Heartland Institute have no scientifically credible evidence of their own, leaving them with no option but to lash out at the real scientific literature, contributing nothing except vitriol, achieving nothing except confusion. Science teachers know better--and science students deserve better.
A few weeks ago, science teachers across the country began to find strange packets in their school mailboxes, containing a booklet entitled "Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming" (sic), a DVD, and a cover letter urging them to "read this remarkable book and view the video, and then use them in your classroom."
The packets were sent by the Heartland Institute, which in the 1990s specialized in arguing that second-hand smoke does not cause cancer. Even though its indefensible defense of the tobacco industry failed, Heartland now uses the same pro-tobacco playbook--touting alleged "experts" to question established science--to argue that climate change is not real.
At the National Center for Science Education, we have almost three decades of experience helping teachers, parents, and students facing creationism in the classroom. A few years ago, we added climate change to our docket. So teachers know that when issues regarding evolution or climate change come up, NCSE is there to help.
This wasn't Heartland's first unsolicited mailing of climate change denial material to science teachers, and judging from the reactions we've seen, teachers haven't been fooled by this outing. But here is how we're advising science teachers to explain why using these materials in any science classroom would be a terrible idea.
That's a judgment that might seem to call for a point-by-point rebuttal. But I'm not going to offer such a rebuttal, both because every substantive point in the Heartland mailing is a long-ago-debunked canard (see Skeptical Science passim) and because there is already a place where responsible scientists discuss the evidence for climate change: the peer-reviewed scientific research literature.
If Heartland has such a good case to make, why is it spending thousands of dollars on direct-mailing a self-published report to teachers, instead of trying to convince the relevant scientific community?
Of course, Heartland isn't willing to admit its fringiness, devoting considerable effort to trying to dispute the widely reported fact that the degree of scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change is about 97 percent. It's a wasted effort.
Multiple independent studies, using different sources, methods, and questions, have arrived at the same conclusion. And the scientific consensus on climate change is not a mere reflection of popular sentiment or shared opinion among scientists. Rather, it is the product of evidence so abundant and diverse and robust as to compel agreement in the scientific community.
Not content to reject the extraordinary scientific consensus on climate change, the booklet downplays the process by which climate scientists regularly evaluate and report on the state of the evidence, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or IPCC.
Few areas of science undergo the kind of rigorous and comprehensive review that the climate science community carries out every five years. It is a reflection of the seriousness with which world leaders take the challenge of climate change that they support this process and accept the conclusions arrived at by hundreds of generous, dedicated, and meticulous scientists.
K-12 teachers are expected to teach in accordance with state science standards, state- or district-approved textbooks, and district-approved curricula, all of which undergo review by competent scientists and teachers, and thus generally attempt to present climate change in accordance with the scientific consensus. Heartland's materials have not undergone such a review. And teachers who misguidedly use them in the classroom will be, at best, presenting mixed messages, running the risk of confusing their students about the scientific standing of anthropogenic climate change.
Many of the references in "Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming" (sic) are to Heartland's own publications, post on personal blogs, fake news sources, and low-quality journals--the sort of citations that a teacher wouldn't accept on a science assignment.
The booklet itself is credited to the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, NIPCC--likely to be confused with the legitimate IPCC. And the envelope in which the mailing was sent reproduced a New York Times headline about "Climate Change Lies"--the same sort of lies, it turns out, that Heartland is concerned to promote.
In the end, the climate change deniers at the Heartland Institute have no scientifically credible evidence of their own, leaving them with no option but to lash out at the real scientific literature, contributing nothing except vitriol, achieving nothing except confusion. Science teachers know better--and science students deserve better.
"Trump's back-to-school message to America's families is crystal clear: Don't expect help, just expect less," said one expert.
Families of students across the United States are facing significantly higher prices for basic supplies as the new school year begins, a cost burden that a new analysis blames on President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs and the massive Republican budget package he signed into law last month.
The analysis, conducted by The Century Foundation (TCF) and Groundwork Collaborative, estimates that prices for supplies such as index cards have surged by more than 40% this year.
Lunch staples have also gotten more expensive, with U.S. families set to pay roughly $163 more on average for juice boxes, strawberries, and other such items this year, according to the new analysis, which characterized the higher costs as a "back-to-school tax" imposed by the president.
"President Trump's policies are forcing families to foot higher bills for back-to-school essentials from binders and lunch-box staples to clothes, shoes, and even laptops," said TCF senior fellow Rachel West. "From his reckless tariffs to his budget law slashing food assistance and federal student loans, Trump's back-to-school message to America's families is crystal clear: Don't expect help, just expect less."
The analysis was released just as new economic data further underscored the impact of Trump's tariffs on prices across the economy, with wholesale prices registering their largest monthly gain since June 2022.
TCF and Groundwork's findings align with a recent survey by the research firm Deloitte, which found that nearly half of U.S. parents and caregivers believe lunch costs on school days will be higher this year than in 2024.
Liz Pancotti, Groundwork's managing director of policy and advocacy, said Thursday that "President Trump's tax and tariff policies have turned the back-to-school season into a budgeting nightmare for hardworking American families."
"From lunch boxes and notebooks to juice boxes and pencils, parents are being squeezed at every turn—paying more for the school supplies and meals their kids need to succeed," said Pancotti. "No family should have to struggle to afford the basics while the wealthy and well-connected cash in on massive tax breaks they do not need."
"Trump's tax and tariff policies have turned the back-to-school season into a budgeting nightmare for hardworking American families."
The budget law that Trump signed last month is set to deliver trillions of dollars in tax breaks largely to the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations while making unprecedented cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Medicaid.
Those programs are used in states across the country to determine eligibility for free or reduced-cost school meals, and cuts inflicted by the Trump-GOP law are expected to leave more than 18 million children across the U.S. without access to free school meals in the coming years.
"President Trump's policies—including his erratic, punitive tariffs—are squeezing families' budgets as they prepare to return to school," TCF and Groundwork said Thursday. "Not only has Trump failed to keep his promises to tackle high prices, but his massive budget law will soon drive costs even higher for back-to-school essentials as its cuts to programs that children, families, and college students depend on take hold."
"The inmates are not only running the asylum. They're bringing in more inmates to help," said one observer.
EJ Antoni, President Donald Trump's controversial nominee to head the Bureau of Labor Statistics, was among the insurrectionist mob that stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, NBC News revealed Wednesday.
Video footage archived from the right-wing social media site Parler and posted online by a Republican-led congressional subcommittee shows Antoni among the crowd about half an hour before the MAGA mob began breaching barricades, attacking police, and swarming the Capitol. He is also seen walking away from the crowd.
The White House attempted to downplay the news, with spokesperson Taylor Rogers saying that "these pictures show E.J. Antoni, a bystander to the events of January 6th, observing and then leaving the Capitol area."
"E.J. was in town for meetings, and it is wrong and defamatory to suggest E.J. engaged in anything inappropriate or illegal," Rogers added.
See the man circled here? That's E.J. Antoni, Trump's Bureau of Labor Statistics nominee, walking through a crowd of Capitol rioters.#ICYMI, we've got an archive of 500+ Parler videos taken during Jan. 6. You can spot Antoni starting at around 1:41 here: projects.propublica.org/parler-capit...
[image or embed]
— ProPublica (@propublica.org) August 14, 2025 at 9:06 AM
Other MAGA figures also defended Antoni. Felonious fraudster Steve Bannon, who pleaded guilty in a border wall fundraising fraud case this year, said Thursday on his War Room podcast: "They came up with a photo of E.J. Antoni in the crowd outside the Capitol on January 6, and NBC went absolutely nuts over it. I think it makes E.J. even more based. I didn't know that about E.J.—makes us want him even more."
Critics, however, expressed alarm, given the important post to which Antoni was nominated.
"We just discovered a Trump [Department of Justice] official was at January 6, telling other traitors to 'kill' police," journalist and attorney Adam Cohen wrote on the social media site Bluesky, referring to Jared Wise, who was pardoned by Trump.
"Now we learn Trump's BLS nominee, E.J. Antoni—apart from being totally unqualified—was ALSO part of the insurrection," Cohen added. "The inmates are not only running the asylum. They're bringing in MORE inmates to help."
The West Virginia Federation of Democratic Women noted on the social media site X that "Trump fired the vetted woman who reported honest stats on job losses. His new guy was in the mob on January 6 and wrote Project 2025."
Journalist Ahmed Baba wrote on X: "So, E.J. Antoni is the chief economist at the Heritage Foundation, a contributor to Project 2025, and was literally outside the Capitol on January 6. This is who Trump wants to be in charge of the BLS data that shapes global decisions and moves markets—an extremist sycophant."
Trump nominated Antoni after firing former BLS Commissioner Erika McEntarfer, whom the president accused without evidence of manipulating employment statistics to discredit him and other Republicans.
"These reductions may cause some providers to stop accepting Medicaid patients," said a spokesperson for the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services.
The cuts to Medicaid contained in the recently passed Republican budget law are already having a damaging impact in multiple states, as both local hospitals and state governments struggle financially to make up funding gaps.
As NC Newsline reported on Wednesday, the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services (NCDHHS) has announced plans to cut Medicaid spending by $319 million starting on October 1, which the publication said "means the state will reduce rates by 3% to all medical providers, as well as cuts of 8-10% for inpatient and residential services and 10% for behavioral therapy and analysis for patients with autism."
NCDHHS spokesperson Summer Tonizzo did not sugarcoat the impact that the cuts would have on services for Medicaid patients in her state. She said that services including hospice care, behavioral health long-term care, and nursing home services could see reimbursement cuts significantly steeper than 3%.
"These reductions may cause some providers to stop accepting Medicaid patients, as the lowered rates could make it financially unsustainable to continue offering care," she said.
The Tar Heel State isn't the only one reeling from Medicaid cuts, as Colorado Public Radio reported that the Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing, which manages the state's Medicaid program, held a webinar this week in which it outlined plans to, in the words of department director Kim Bimestefer, "mitigate the loss of coverage and its catastrophic consequences to Coloradans, providers, and the economy."
This will be easier said than done, however, as Colorado Public Radio noted that numbers reviewed by the department estimate that "hundreds of thousands" of residents in the state could lose healthcare access thanks to cuts from the GOP budget package.
In addition to people who will lose coverage thanks to the work requirements passed in the legislation, an estimated 112,000 people who buy health insurance policies from state exchanges could lose it after the expected expiration of enhanced tax credits passed by Democrats during former President Joe Biden's term.
Taking a look at the broader nationwide picture, Stateline reported that even some Republicans attending the National Conference of State Legislatures summit in Boston this week expressed anxiety about the impact the cuts will have on the people whom they represent.
The publication quoted Oklahoma state Sen. John Haste, who said during the summit that he was particularly concerned about the impact the cuts would have on rural communities. Among other things, he pointed to a provision in the law that will deliver a $209 million cut in Medicaid funds to Oklahoma, as well as the fact that complying with work requirement verifications will cost an estimated $30 million.
"All of those things added together come up to a really big number," said Haste. "We don't know exactly what that is."
Hawaii Democratic state Sen. Ronald Kouchi said during the summit that the impact of the Medicaid cuts would be absolutely brutal, but added that the only thing Democrats can do for now is make sure their voters know whom to blame for what's happening.
"Who's going to be blamed when people are left out, when people are hungry and they lose out on educational opportunities?" he asked during a panel discussion. "If we as state legislators do not convey that it is a result of the decisionmakers in Washington, D.C., they will be at our doorstep as the place of last resort."