Skip to comments.Democrats protest after schools sent material that questions climate change
Posted on 04/03/2017 1:24:19 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
A group of top House Democrats banded together Monday to condemn a political group for disseminating books skeptical of climate change to public high schools.
"Lying to children about the world we live in to further corporate polluter profits is cruel," said Rep. Raul Grijalva, ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee. "If climate deniers think our public schools are the right place for their propaganda, they need to be exposed in no uncertain terms."
The group in question, the Heartland Institute, is a long-time climate change skeptic, and in recent weeks it has been emboldened by President Trump's proposed cuts in funding for climate change programs within the federal government. The group recently held its annual climate change gathering in Washington last month, with speakers that included former members of Trump's transition team.
"Public school classrooms are no place for anti-science propaganda, and I encourage every teacher to toss these materials in the recycling bin," said Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va., ranking member on the Committee on Education and the Workforce. "If the Heartland Institute and other climate deniers want to push a false agenda on global warming, our nation's schools are an inappropriate place to drive that agenda."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
Make no mistake about these people - they hate your right to worship as you choose, the right to say what you choose, the right to question THEIR government, the right to self defense, and the right to live in a secure, sane country.
They are the enemy and there is no co-existing with them anymore.
When can we expect an end to the fake natural resources committee? I don’t see any reason for that committee to be directing the committee on education when it’s members only understand politics.
Climates change over time.
It is based for the most part on solar changes.
Pollution is not a good thing. Humans have fouled entire lakes and rivers in the past. We can do it again.
Can we foul an entire world of oceans? Theoretically, I suppose. So we should avoid doing that. I suspect it would be some kind of poison/radioactivity.
But I don’t really know.
I don’t get this.
As far as “science” goes, schools should be teaching the scientific method, gathering data, conducting research, how to draw conclusions, compile a hypothesis, etc.
It just occurs to me that “teachable” moments would happen, if schools would study what the global warming skeptics say, vs. what those pushing global warming are saying.
Compare and contrast arguments, evidence presented, data collected, conclusions, etc.
I guess I’m trying to say that, if the global warming agenda were so obvious, then our students in school should be able to compare and contrast what all are saying, and use the minds God gave them to evaluate the information, and get an education in the scientific processes which are supposedly so clearly favoring the global warming activists.
Instead of shutting down and shouting down people, let our school students learn what the evidence is on each side of the argument, not just the liberal side.
Ah, Democrats. LOL. They get angry when they are not leading a riot, a protest or arming terrorists.
Mister Grijalva has a bachelor's degree in sociology, and no identifiable experience or training in science. (And, according to Wiki, he has had ties to MEChA and la Raza).
He has no standing, whatever, to lecture anyone about science, climate and propaganda.
If the people do not believe in climate change then the Democrats will not be able to make money off fake climate protecting industries like Solyndra.
The whole GoreBull warming scam is anti-science.
“Lying to children about the world we live in to further corporate polluter profits is cruel,” said Rep. Raul Grijalva, ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee. “If climate deniers think our public schools are the right place for their propaganda, they need to be exposed in no uncertain terms.”
The fact the people who object to those who properly question conclusions based on climatologists use the terms “scientific consensus” and “settled science” is ironic since those terms DO NOT EXIST IN SCIENCE.
And anyone who knows science also knows that “climate theory” meets exactly ZERO criteria of a Scientific Theory.
Someone should tell these folks they are outdoors in the nude.
The word “sceptical” is merely propaganda. One can only be sceptical in the absence of solid proof that climate change exists as a destroyer of planets. As the planet has supported humankind for thousands of years, I will remain completely confident that man is not capable of destroying what God created. Anyone who thinks otherwise must have a God complex, and is overly confident in his or her ignorance.
Genesis 1:28 confirms your thesis:
“And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”
We have come to subdue the earth and have dominion over every living thing. Our impact is noticeable.
But I do not think that we are having a significant impact on the climate, or that we can reverse that impact.
Now they know how Americans feel about the crpp that their henchmen push in the schools.
Yes. Yes, a million times, YES!
Isn’t there a market, similar to the stock market, where companies buy and sell carbon credits? And then they have paid their penance, so to speak, for all the carbon they produce????
They hate your right to parent your children.
This shouldn’t surprise anyone. Global Warming became a religion a long time ago. Zealots don’t like their dogma challenged.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.