The Heartland Department of Education

February 24, 2012

About these ads

19 Responses to “The Heartland Department of Education”

  1. mrsircharles Says:

    From the YouTube website:

    “Sign our petition and stand up for reality. Say NO to climate denial in our schools:

    http://forms.climaterealityproject.org/page/s/heartland

    The Heartland Institute’s President and CEO just admitted that Heartland is writing a “global warming curriculum” that would say climate science isn’t settled. Heartland would like to create the appearance of a scientific debate where there is none by having our teachers claim we just don’t know if humans are changing our climate.”

  2. daveburton Says:

    More than 30,000 scientists (and engineers in relevant disciplines) say the science is far from settled. Indeed, the great weight of the evidence indicates that CO2-driven global warming is not now, and never will be, a significant problem, either for mankind, or for the Earth’s environment:

    “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases 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.”

    • dana1981 Says:

      Oh crap, Poe’s Law strikes again. Are you making fun of deniers, or an actual denier?

      • owlbrudder Says:

        No, he’s an actual denier and strong apologist for Heartland. For example, he has many sycophantic comments posted on the Pot Meets Kettle thread here. As he is someone well versed in software development, I find his uncritical acceptance of HI propaganda to be surprising. Usually, an analytical mind is able to distinguish good information from bad.

        It makes me wonder whether Dave has some link to HI, as he certainly aligns himself with their agenda. If he is a troll, he is very persistent and wants others to believe what he posts, although I am still baffled as to whether he believes it himself.

        • archaeandragon Says:

          Oh, software developers aren’t immune from stupidity. Being analytical and critical of mnemonic formulae doesn’t always translate to being an analytical and critical thinker in other areas. It should, but it doesn’t always.

          As for his software, looks like he is a has-been. His main product, TLIB, is an antiquated version control system from the 90s and hasn’t been updated in 8 years. That’s ancient history in terms of software development. Given the prevalence of vastly superior free VCS packages, like Subversion, Git, Mercurial, etc, I severely doubt he sees much in terms of sales.

    • livinginabox Says:

      Dave Burton,

      The first warning sign of bullshit is no hyperlink to the source.
      This is the OISM bullshit, unless I’m very mistaken, is it not. In which case your claim: “More than 30,000 scientists (and engineers in relevant disciplines)”, is a complete and utter lie.

      This piece of bovine ordure is debunked here:
      http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=OISM

    • otter17 Says:

      daveburton:

      First off, the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine is not exactly the most well-known or rigorous scientific organization. Just check out their website a bit, particularly their recommended course packet for what I presume to be a home school education package. Furthermore, the climate change petition that they conducted isn’t exactly vetted by any other scientific organization and there are very few PhD’s in climate science among those signers. The judgment from the National Academy of Science’s wide ranging assessment is far more credible.
      http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

      But really, now. What is the root issue for you concerning climate change? Do you dislike the potential solutions? Do you have a solution that would be acceptable to your political views (I recall you have identified yourself as a conservative in the past)?

    • Nick Palmer Says:

      The Oregon petition wording is rife with misdirection. So 32,000 signed it? 10,000,000 who could have done, based upon their education, didn’t.

      “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate”

      The petition specifically asks about “human release”, thereby excluding considerations of the effects of natural feedbacks e.g. methane release, increased water vapour. The real science agrees that the results solely from a doubling of CO2 (excluding feedbacks) would be modest. By careful choice of words by those who launched it, the petition was made highly deceptive.

      Even with natural feedbacks included, there is still a (smallish) probability that “catastrophic heating” will not occur (but who wants to take that risk?) and so even James Hansen could legitimately sign this OISM petition .

      I don’t know why those like Dave Burton who claim to be sceptics, and who sometimes try to use scientific papers to make their case, still bring up this frankly stupid and deceitful piece of misdirection – don’t they see it hurts their cause and casts doubt upon their judgement or integrity?

    • g2-b31f1590b0e74a6d1af4639162aa7f3f Says:

      Oh, Bull&*$!

      That petition is completely bogus — virtually none of the signatories has any professional level understanding of climate science. Hell, *I’m* more than qualified to sign it.

      The only requirement to sign is a 4 year degree in some field related to science — about 10 million people in the USA possess that qualification.

      The petition has been around for nearly 15 years; in that 15 years, the petition sponsors have managed to get about 1/3 of 1 percent of the qualified individuals to sign it. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the petition sponsors’ views.

      It’s a transparently bogus propaganda ploy to sway the gullible — nothing more, nothing less.

    • greenman3610 Says:

  3. dana1981 Says:

    That’s an excellent video.

  4. livinginabox Says:

    Great video.

  5. Jean Mcmahon Says:

    This sounds like the list of scientists that Sen Inhofe came up with…All you had to do was say your werre a scientist and you were on the list…How can people lie like that?? Alto I think Inhofe is a Sociopath…some politicians are sociopaths..even sociopaths can sound convincing

  6. davefinnigan Says:

    This is exactly why I started my program in Elementary Schools http://www.climatechangeiselementary.org

    My program is the antidote to the Heartland pack of climate lies. The problem is I have no long-term “floor” funding. I just go school to school and rely on the generosity of the PTA and the courage of the principal. Without special funding the most I can do is go to one or two schools a month. But even so I have been to 17 schools in five states and am ready to replicate the program all over North America. It is effective because I work with every teacher, every student an all the parents who show up in the evening for Family Night. Our goal is to leave each school with a green team and to leave every family with a Family Sustainability Checklist of all the things they promise to do before their kids graduate from high school to reduce their carbon and water footprints.

    If there are scientists or educators out there reading this post who would love to help erect a bulwark against the Heartland program, please get in touch with me. If I had a prestigious Board of Directors I could raise the money needed to train a hundred recent college grads to go out in their areas and spread the word using this excellent program. Schools will pay for this assembly just as they pay for other assemblies. Certainly a sponsor would help, but they must be really and truly “green.”

    New ideas cannot enter the curriculum until they have been proven by decades of history. We do not have time for that. So this new scientific paradigm must come in the back door using outside programs like mine until the science is proven and the new textbooks are written, 20 years from now, and decidedly too late.


  7. [...] to Focus on Short-lived Greenhouse GasesTrending in Liquid FuelsWhat You Should Know Green EnergyThe Heartland Department of EducationNuclear Energy: Applications – Nuclear Heat for Hydrogen ProductionThe Heartland [...]


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,583 other followers

%d bloggers like this: