Climate(gate) Change “Science” to Be Taught in U.S. Public Schools
The word “science” is typically associated with something tested, tried and true. Fake data and deliberate public misdirection for profit and control aren’t supposed to be on the list…or are they?
Global warming has wormed its way into many aspects of our daily lives, and every year trillions of dollars are spent to avert it. Now it has just been announced that climate change will be added to the curricula at middle and high schools in up to 40 U.S. states.
But it won’t be as blatant as Al Gore’s frightfest An Inconvenient Truth (found in court to be filled with errors and convenient omissions), but rather will be phased into children’s minds through a more gradual, subtle indoctrination approach. The London Guardian reports:
“However, the final standards were substantially weakened from earlier drafts. The final guidelines cut by about a third the amount of time devoted to a subject seen as critical to future generations. They are also less explicit than earlier drafts about the human role as a driver for climate change. ‘It’s buried at best,’ said Mark McCaffrey, policy director for the National Center for Science Education.” [emphasis added]
McCaffrey sounds displeased the American public education system won’t be heaping as much green guilt on our adolescents as he’d apparently like. He goes on to complain that “conservative groups” who “deny the existence of climate change” might be able to inject “phony controversy” into the classroom.
“The price of ‘climate protection’ with its cumulative and collateral effects is bound to destroy and debilitate in great numbers, for decades and generations.”
While not binding, it’s almost assured the new educational materials will fail to impart several important facts about climate change. Let’s review.
1. Climate change used to be called global warming, but because the globe isn’t actually warming, they had to call it something else.
Last year, 16 prominent scientists authored and signed an op-ed statement published in the Wall Street Journal relaying the fact that the globe is not actually warming:
“The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.”
The scientists go on to mention the plain but simple truth that CO2 is not a pollutant but a necessary component of the life cycle on this planet. Because the globe has not been warming but instead, data shows the Earth may be entering an ice age, alarmists began referring to it as “climate change”. Why?
Well, it’s hard to argue with a phrase like “climate change” because, of course, the climate changes as it always has and it always will. The real issue is whether or not it can be successfully attributed to man via any way possible and fat cat politicians like Al Gore (with his private jets, multi-million-dollar mansions and $30,000-per-year utility bills) can carbon tax our farts for it.
2. As much as global warming alarmists would love to, they can’t erase the Climategate scandal.
In 2009, thousands of leaked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit showed scientists had been purposefully manipulating data to fearmonger the public into accepting global warming as fact when they knew it was (and still is) anything but.
The Telegraph’s Christopher Booker explains:
“[These scientists’] importance cannot be overestimated, what we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).”
Don’t forget the IPCC, established in 1988, was a Rockefeller Brother’s Fund aspiration.
Data taken by the prominent research unit from over 30,000 stations all across the globe actually showed said globe stopped warming back in 1997.
In short, when it comes to the idea of manmade global warming, we’ve all been had…big time.
Just last month, Climategate 3.0 was released, and an insider who goes by the monicker Mr. FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) put out a brand new batch of even more damning previously unreleased research unit documents with a note to the world. Here’s an excerpt:
“Most would agree that climate science has already directed where humanity puts its capability, innovation, mental and material ‘might’. The scale will grow ever grander in the coming decades if things go according to script. We’re dealing with $trillions and potentially drastic influence on practically everyone. It’s easy for many of us in the western world to accept a tiny green inconvenience and then wallow in that righteous feeling, surrounded by our ‘clean’ technology and energy that is only slightly more expensive if adequately subsidized. Those millions and billions already struggling with malnutrition, sickness, violence, illiteracy, etc. don’t have that luxury. The price of ‘climate protection’ with its cumulative and collateral effects is bound to destroy and debilitate in great numbers, for decades and generations.” [emphasis added]
3. Manmade global warming is about as fact-based as magical flying unicorns.
It’s not like global warming/climate change just showed up suddenly because humans breathe and drive and eat too much (although that’s what the Al Gores of the world would have us all believe we need to pay for). The concept of global warming was actually concocted by the elitist think tank Club of Rome in order to seize the world’s resources and corral everyone under a centralized control grid.
Their 1972 publication The Limits to Growth set the stage for ecofascist management of the population based on hyperbolic scenarios, while the Club of Rome’s The First Global Revolution [PDF] publication in 1991 blatantly admitted that pretexts including global warming were being scripted for public consumption via fairy tales to unite the world in common cause — a global citizenry who identify human activity, and ultimately humanity itself as the external enemy to hunt down and contain:
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” [emphasized]
I bet many of you reading this will not be the least bit surprised to find that the current Club of Rome (or its two sister groups: the Club of Budapest and the Club of Madrid) members list includes many of the usual suspects: potential climate billionaire Al Gore, authors Paul and Anne Ehrlich (Population Bomb / Ecoscience), David Rockefeller & Bill Gates (the dynamic duo of depopulation) and Maurice Strong (of Agenda 21 fame).
Bet none of these little factoids will be included in those fancy new science textbooks.
As time goes by, fewer and fewer grown-ups are buying into this phony global warming alarmism stuff and the powers that be know it, so now they’re going to try and wash our kids’ brains. The sad truth is this: our American school system is really nothing more than an agenda platform to indoctrinate our society’s most vulnerable, training our youth to get in the green line, hop onto whatever bus the establishment wants them to so our nation’s future can collectively ride off to global government land.
After all, a global problem like global warming can only be solved with a global solution. Globally.
(Can you hear my sarcasm through my keyboard? Just checking.)
In other news, the father of a Florida fourth grader was shocked to find a paper in his son’s backpack where he was forced to write, “I am willing to give up some of my constitutional rights in order to be safer or more secure.“