INFLUENCE GAME: Leaks show group's climate efforts

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by futurecurrents, Feb 16, 2012.

  1. WASHINGTON (AP) — Leaked documents from a prominent conservative think tank show how it sought to teach schoolchildren skepticism about global warming and planned other behind-the-scenes tactics using millions of dollars in donations from big corporate names.

    As detailed in the papers, Heartland's plans for this year included paying an Energy Department consultant $100,000 to design a curriculum to teach school children that mainstream global warming science is in dispute, even though it's a fact accepted by the federal government and nearly every scientific professional organization. It also pays prominent global warming skeptics more than $300,000 a year and plans to raise $88,000 to help a former television weatherman set up a new temperature records website.
  2. Lucrum


    So? There IS plenty of skepticism on the topic. Why wouldn't we want school kids to know about it?

  3. Because corporate propaganda is not what we want to teach the kids?

    And yes it would be good for them to know that a whole 3% of all the world's climate scientists are skeptical.
  4. ignl


    Well I think you should teach children all point of views so they would have proper critical thinking and could choose themselves. How do you know if you are not victim of global warming cult propaganda? I dont know the truth, but the thing is this kind of scaring people about the end of the world is most common and basic propaganda used for thousands of years by all kind of religions, cults and sects and other leaders (good book extraordinary delusions and the madness of crowds - highly recomended;). BTW I remember some facts - one vulcano eruption can realease more CO2 that human kind produces per year, also I know there are natural cycles when average temperature is higher or lower, and that animals we grow for food release significant part of CO2 by farting :) Anyway Im not scientist, and I dont know what is truth and what is not just saying that if you are looking at issue just from one perpective you are similar to some muslim fundamentalist who are 100% sure that his view of the world is the only one possible :)
  5. Lucrum


  6. Brass


    And so the science and biology curriculum should include the study of unicorns and how there is no real evidence that smoking is bad for you? Because a number of the very same "scientists" who now dispute global warming also disputed the health consequences of smoking:

    Are you even remotely familiar with the concept of false equivalency?
  7. Ricter


    If you do this they're just going to end up scientists or some other kind of evidence-based thinking type. You sure you want that?
  8. Tsing Tao

    Tsing Tao


  9. " BTW I remember some facts - one vulcano eruption can realease more CO2 that human kind produces per year,"

    Wrong, not even close. But in your defense Steve Forbes said the same thing on CNBC some years ago.

    Basic point...virtually all the world's climate scientists and science organizations agree that AGW is real and a real problem. If someone had a a good supportable counter-argument they could make a million on it. The fossil-fuel companies would pay dearly for it. As it is, even Exxon (publicly) agrees with the fact of AGW
  10. Eight


    Appeal to the majority is not a valid argument.. I could point out that all the world's climate scientists and science organizations will get more research money if GW is considered to be a valid issue.. Besides, the polar ice and all that is actually increasing.. not to mention the story about the guys that retrieved a WW2 aircraft from under nearly three hundred feet of ice.. I'm telling you that nobody can be more STUPIDLY WRONG than scientists.. they are still looking at intraday changes in ice cores and insisting that they represent hundreds of years.. such completely useless asses..
    #10     Feb 17, 2012