The Los Angeles Times has a story this morning about the push-back in some states, including Louisiana, against global warming classroom indoctrination.
It’s not hard to discern the reporter’s opinion—this is The Los Angeles Times, after all—of the “skepticism concerning the broad scientific consensus” that has “seeped into classrooms.”
The article references the Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA), signed in 2008 by Gov. Jindal. The Louisiana law requires the state Board of Education to assist school administrators in promoting critical thinking on scientific theories to school kids, singling out “evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.”
The story also mentions similar laws in Texas, Tennessee and Oklahoma, as well as resolutions against mind-numbed acceptance of global warming theories in South Dakota and Utah. Interestingly, the newspaper doesn’t mention laws that mandated teaching a one-sided global warming agenda in California schools that was passed by that state’s legislature a few years back and vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
The Louisiana law is designed to get both sides of the argument into classrooms—an anathema to progressives. The story mentions a school board in Los Alamitos, Calif. passing a measure for balanced instruction that was later rescinded.
Progressives need not fear an opposing argument making, because help is on the way to assure that critical thinking about a controversial scientific topic is never allowed to “seep” into the classroom.
The National Center for Science Education, an Oakland-based pro-global warming advocacy group billed as a “watch-dog” organization, announced on Monday that it will start to monitor global warming teaching to “evaluate the sources of resistance to it.”
And why is the Louisiana law the right way to go in instructing kids on global warming—now called climate change by progressives, in a thinly veiled attempt to save face after being confronted with evidence that the world isn’t really getting any warmer?
It’s because there is a whole lot of division in the scientific community over global warming, despite The Los Angeles Times story telling us, “Climatologists say man-made climate change is not scientifically controversial.”
If there weren’t, you would have around 31,000 signatures of scientist on a petition with these words:
“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
Canada, Japan and Russia are backing out of Kyoto because growing evidence like the uncovering of emails exchanged by scientist, showing that information had been falsified to support the agenda of global warming alarmist that–in many cases–work to keep government money flowing to their research.
And there is big money to be made by those who push global warming, another reason for healthy skepticism. There is no reason to doubt these scientists’ integrity, according to Al Gore, who has gotten super-rich from global warming hysteria. They are nothing like the scurrilous scientist who took money from tobacco companies to spread lies:
To me, this whole man-made global warming thing should really never be too hard to debunk if you use a little common sense.
It’s obvious why politicians and others push it for power and money and it should be just as obvious how silly it is to believe that laws can be passed to stop the climate from changing on this revolving sphere we call home.
Here is a quick visual history lesson for those who might be confused.
This is what the whole planet pretty much looked like around 60 to 90 million years ago. Kinda reminds me of present day Louisiana—even the critters do:
A few years back, a guy I know was walking along a creek not far from where I live and stumbled over a mastodon skeleton that had been there since the world looked about like this—some 10,000 years back:
And here is what the earth looked like about four-billion years ago:
Got it? The point is that the earth’s climate has never been static and will never be—no matter what stupid laws are passes.
Things are going to change.
They always have and always will. Animals die off if they can’t adapt. We will have to adapt, as well, to survive. It’s the height of human arrogance to think that we can change the weather and all industrializing we do to feed our hubris will only impoverish third-word people all the more and lead to the starving of millions.
One day, future generations will look back on global warming theories with scorn, much the way we look at flawed science that led physicians to believe that you had to bleed a patient to cure him. George Washington was killed by bloodletting that was performed in order to save him from a bad bout of pneumonia.
Let’s hope that global warming alarmist won’t bleed the world’s economy dry the same way. Here is your global warming consensus: