This is what Progressive “science” looks like: an inability to look at the material and make an informed decision regarding things that challenge one’s beliefs. Instead, free thought is not allowed
(Missourian) Columbia Public Schools science teachers are among hundreds of thousands across the country who have received a book from the Heartland Institute that denies that Earth is warming and that human activity is causing it.
No, it doesn’t. It says that warming has occurred and that it is mostly/solely caused by natural variation.
Although 97 percent of scientists agree that global warming is caused largely by human activities, The Heartland Institute and its publications argue differently. Those arguments are central to the book the organization sent out starting last spring.
If you’re trotting out the 97% meme, then you’re a partisan activist, not a reporter.
Mike Szydlowski, science coordinator for the Columbia Public Schools district said he received the book from The Heartland Institute in mid-May and promptly recycled it.
“I immediately took a photo of the book and sent it to the rest of the department telling them to also recycle it,” he said.
Apparently, free thought is verboten.
Beth Newton, a science teacher at Oakland Middle School, said she and her colleagues received copies of the book in April.
“I burned the ones that came to Oakland in my fire pit at home,” Newton said.
‘Cause science!
Even backward, Republican, conservative Missouri got it right:
Actually, 97% of climate scientists are persuaded by the data that humans are causing the Earth to warm. Even Science Deniers will admit this in a few years.
The “book” from Heartland is not a scientific text but a political tract. Why inflict this on students? We should expose students to good science, not Science Denier political statements. The nations poised to clean our clocks actually teach science in science classes. We disadvantage our students and our future if we allow anti-science idealogues to contaminate science teaching with their false dogmas.
Here’s what conservative Forbes has to say about Heartland’s political tract: Climate Change Skeptics Are Sending Disinformation To Teachers
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmack/2017/06/12/fake-news-climate-change-heartland-institute-nasa-science/#730e93d13e8a
Is it seriously your contention that trained, professional teachers should teach whatever they receive in the mail? And if they don’t they’re violating some notion of “free thought”. The Heartland political tract was not evaluated by the districts and approved. Is this part of trumpism’s attempt to bypass the “elites” and “experts” that the New Con Men so despise?
If the trained professional teaches receive a Creation Science mini-text from the Discovery Institute should it be taught? Or do you accept the science of biological evolution?
We recycle all of our junk mail.
Yep, little jeffuckery, be a good little fascist and burn books you don’t agree with and shoot innocent people who didn’t vote for bernie.
It’s Hodgkinson Syndrome.
What’s ironic is the so-called middle school science teacher burned her books in an open fire pit at home, thus creating more of that so called man-made global warming.
The stupid, it burns.
The pulp trees used to make paper fixed carbon from the atmosphere, which is then released when burned, so the process is approximately carbon-neutral.
Stay away from ignorant book-burning Conservative Christians – hey, wait!
Uncle Dan,
Do you save all your junk mail and use it to teach others?
Or do you burn it, or throw it out, or best yet, recycle it?
Although it’s counterintuitive to the ignorati, burning paper and wood doesn’t contribute as much to atmospheric CO2 as one might think. Recall that the incorporation of CO2 into wood occurs over a cycle measured in decades or at most a century, not over millions of year. So unless you planned to keep the wood or paper forever, burning it to release CO2 or letting the wood or paper decompose doesn’t impact atmospheric CO2 differently. In contrast, billions of gigatons of CO2 (as complex hydrocarbons) are locked in the Earth, and have been for 100s of millions of years. Our burning of coal, oil and gas has suddenly (in geologic terms) released the CO2 into the atmosphere causing the Earth to warm rapidly.
Sooo, little jeffuckery, where did all of those billions of gigatons of CO2 (as complex hydrocarbons) come from?
drowningpuppies: where did all of those billions of gigatons of CO2 (as complex hydrocarbons)
Primordial carbon is outgassed from the Earth. This is fixed by plants or through scrubbing by silicates. Geological forces then bury the carbon. The amount of carbon in the atmosphere varies due to the a number of factors, but has been relatively stable since humans began to settle into communities.
Could you cite a link that proves your assumption,
little jeffuckery?
drowningpuppies: Could you cite a link that proves {oil and gas has suddenly (in geologic terms) released the CO2 into the atmosphere causing the Earth to warm rapidly.}
Which part are you unclear about? The rapid increase of atmospheric CO2 due to burning of fossil fuels or that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
Soo, little Jeffery, how much of a contibution does one think?
So since little jeffuckery can’t provide any answers to the above, maybe he can answer these:
Have you shot or maimed anyone today because they voted for Trump?
Have you shown that special kind of “love” to your grandson lately?
You know who else liked burning books?
Animal,
The ignorati keep saying the teacher burned a book, but she was really just burning her junk mail.
Our resident climate bed-wetter is aparantly unaware that the “97 consensus” mantra was debunked long ago. And he continues to claim “rapid warming” when there absolute evidence of that. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/13/already-240-published-papers-in-2016-alone-show-the-97-climate-consensus-is-a-fantasy/
Jl: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/13/already-240-published-papers-in-2016-alone-show-the-97-climate-consensus-is-a-fantasy/
So, we looked at the first paper, Jorge Sánchez-Sesma, The Earth’s climate system recurrent & multi-scale lagged responses: empirical law, evidence, consequent solar explanation of recent CO2 increases & preliminary analysis, Earth System Dynamics 2016. It’s basically a curve-fitting paper, but suggests a planetary forcing on solar dynamics. However, this paper in no way undermines the hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change. The suggested solar forcing is significantly less than projected greenhouse forcing, but it would mean some attenuation of expected global warming.
Funny-When you can’t refute the data within a book, you have to burn it. How very scientific
j,
wattsupwiththat is not a reliable scientific source. But you know that.
There is clearly a scientific consensus regarding climate change and it doesn’t accrue in your favor. Almost all professional climate scientists are persuaded by the scientific data that the burning of fossil fuels is causing the Earth to warm. Every scientific organization are on the record that the scientific data supports as fact that the burning of fossil fuels is causing the Earth to warm. Why argue that there is no consensus?
Aside: Do you still deny that the Earth is warming?
Anyway, here’s how the
APIsHeartland Institute’sscience textpolitical screed opens:We understand that you’ve never read a science textbook or a scientific article, but this is not how they are written.
The political tract itself is mostly a collection of quotes from the authors and other climate change deniers. Have you read it? Here it is.
https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/Books/Why%20Scientists%20Disagree%20Second%20Edition%20with%20covers.pdf