The Columbia Missourian is atwitter: Missouri teachers have received a book from the Heartland Institute that questions the reigning dogma on climate change. Writes Olivia Desmit, the Heartland Institute “has aligned itself with the belief that global warming is not largely caused by human activity, and that it is not a problem that requires attention.”
In a sidebar Desmit adds, “Some of Heartland’s known disclosed funding came from fossil fuel companies.” Admittedly, that figure is less than five percent, but still! The book in question, “Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming,” is fairly sophisticated. It addresses the question of “whether the human global signal is large enough to be measured and if it is, does it represent, or is it likely to become, a dangerous change outside the range of natural variability?” The Heartland Institute sent out 300,000 copies of the book to teachers across the country.
Mike Szydlowski, science coordinator for the Columbia Public Schools district, knew exactly what to do with his copy of the book. He “promptly recycled it.” Said Szydlowski with pride, “I immediately took a photo of the book and sent it to the rest of the department telling them to also recycle it.” In this context, of course, “recycle” means “throw away.” In an age less sensitive to climate change, he would have simply burned it. In either case, the heresy is stamped out quickly.
Three years ago, the Columbia schools adopted the Next Generation Science Standards. These standards reinforce the doctrinal belief “that human activities are largely responsible for global warming and that global warming and climate change is real and requires solutions to reduce human impact on the earth.”
“We didn’t want to wait for Missouri,” Szydlowski said. “We took a leap of faith.” Faith, indeed! He could not have chosen a more apt phrase to describe the blind acceptance of climate orthodoxy. The indoctrination begins in the fifth grade, is intensified in the seventh grade, and in is taught across the science curriculum in high school.
Desmit, with editorial help from Katherine Reed, spends much of the article in an amateurish defense of the orthodoxy and concludes with the impressively dumb tautology that the book’s sources are largely “from known climate change doubters.” Who else, Olivia?
“Rather than rely exclusively on IPCC for scientific advice,” say the book authors, “policymakers should seek out advice from independent, nongovernment organizations and scientists who are free of financial and political conflicts of interest.”
This is pretty much what they used to call “science.”