Yes, it seems to be global warming morning here at FWIW; we’ll Move On™ after this.

It’s not just gender studies: global warming propaganda dominates the schools

Hot Air’s David Strom has the story:

Public school districts are adopting curricula on climate change from well-funded progressive groups casting the issue as a threat to life on the planet that students should respond to through activism.

As of fall 2020, 29 states and the District of Columbia have adopted standards that require science classes to teach human-caused climate change as a peril beyond dispute, according to K12 Climate Action, a group that is part of the progressive Aspen Institute.

The school districts often rely on information provided by advocacy groups including the Sierra Club and the U.S. Green Building Council. A Sierra Club teaching “toolkit” signals a wide purpose across subject areas: “The ‘why’ and the ‘how’ of moving our entire society to 100% clean energy — and for fighting climate change more broadly — can be woven into many subject areas, including: biology, chemistry, physics, and even social studies.”

Still more curricular guidelines and suggestions are distributed by well-funded progressive groups that include the United Nations’Office for Climate Education, and the North American Association for Environmental Education.

You may have noticed that the younger generation is 100% committed to the idea that life on earth is at risk; in fact, many students believe that the human race is doomed. Many more believe that the doom is imminent should we not radically reshape society in precisely the same way that Leftist advocates have proposed for decades: population control, deindustrialization, and the implementation of a communist society.

The solution is always the same; it’s only the crisis requiring that solution that changes over time. Overpopulation; resource depletion; insecticides; pollution; climate change. It is all the same argument–human beings are racing headlong to a self-created apocalypse.

The only difference between now and earlier generations is that the activists own the education system, and we have invited them in.

Many scientists agree that human activity has contributed to the warming of the Earth in recent decades. But it’s still not clear how much temperatures will rise in the future and the effect that might have on society. While the Biden administration and progressive groups who help shape the school curricula argue that it is imperative to end or limit the use of fossil fuels, there is vigorous debate among scientists and policy makers about the best way to balance mitigation measures with economic and other tradeoffs that, critics say, are largely ignored in schools.

“It’s fine to teach climate if you summarize the pro and con arguments of climate change,” said John Staddon, professor emeritus of biology at Duke University and author of Science in an Age of Unreason. “But you don’t talk about it as a concluded issue. It’s a very political area and [climate change] is about scientific data, which is not a consensus.”

A RealClearInvestigations review of materials used to advance climate learning found that many contain an uncritical examination of climate change; they tend to emphasize worst-case scenarios, and to urge encouraging students to organize as activists.

“There are a lot of resources out there that are … helping students draft policies as well, and getting them involved from the beginning. And this is what we want to see, this whole-institution approach where we’re creating this culture of climate action,” Kristen Hargis, who works on research with the North American Association for Environmental Education, told attendees of an August webinar.

Lesson plans for schools are written by activists, parroted by teachers, and then students are organized to form pressure groups and even engage in the kind of active resistance we are seeing break out around the world. By promoting the idea that human beings and indeed all life on earth faces extinction because of human economic activity students have been indoctrinated with communist propaganda. Only this time the class struggle has been replaced by a racial struggle and an environmental justice agenda.

Teaching about the environment in this manner dovetails nicely with both Critical Race Theory and Transgender ideology, since they share a similar and complementary view about the oppressive and harmful nature of liberal capitalism. Capitalism is a threat to life on earth itself, and must be replaced with one based upon a social justice model.

To question the widely disseminated doomsday view of much climate science is to invite outrage and personal attacks, as Wade Linger found in 2014. As a member of the West Virginia Board of Education, Linger sought to change the wording in a proposed lesson that would, if his amendment were adopted, allow students to consider “factors that have caused the rise and fall” of global temperatures over the past century, rather than only considering the idea that temperatures have increased. Linger also suggested students be allowed to consider the credibility of climate change data.

The lessons he challenged were developed largely by Next Generation Science Standards, developed by a series of mostly progressive science learning groups; they encourage students to “[take] action within their own spheres of influence” to combat what is presented as out-of-control global warming.

“This was a precursor on the education scene to all the indoctrination stuff like [critical race theory] and the gender conflicts,” Linger said in an interview with RCI. “This was an early trial balloon to see how they can use the system to indoctrinate kids.”

His stance drew widespread criticism, with strangers shouting him down on social media. State universities and science groups sent letters to the board, denouncing Linger’s proposal.

“Adding the words ‘“and fall’” to [the lesson] risks confusion among students between the concepts of weather and climate,” read a letter from the National Science Teaching Association.

The non–profit National Center for Science Education issued a report card in 2020 evaluating states on how their public schools teach climate change. The report stated that 26 states and District of Columbia have standards that earned a B+ or better.

The review said its grading favored instruction reflecting that “human activity is responsible for the global change in climate,” and that “It’s bad: climate change is affecting and will continue to affect nature and society.”

As these standards advance, public school districts, with enrollment this year of some 50 million American students, are also collectively paying millions of dollars to “sustainability officers” and their staff to ensure schools are following “green” practices and to help districts meet their self-imposed goals for clean energy and carbon neutrality.