Environmentalists in the classroom

It’s time to challenge the steady diet of bias, false information and alarmism on climate change that students are fed in and outside of their classrooms. Science and public policy analyst Dr. David Wojick has launched an important new project to do exactly that.

From kindergarten onward, our young people are repeatedly told that they, our wildlife and our planet face unprecedented cataclysms from manmade climate change, resulting from our fossil fuel use. The science is settled, they are constantly hoodwinked, and little or no discussion is allowed in classrooms.

They thus hear virtually nothing about the growing gap between computer model predictions and satellite temperature measurements; questions about data manipulation by scientists advocating the dangerous manmade climate change narrative; the hundreds of scientists who do not agree with the supposed “consensus” on manmade climate chaos; or the absence of any real-world evidence to support claims of carbon dioxide-driven coral bleaching, species extinctions, or the seemingly endless litany of ever more absurd assertions that fossil fuel emissions are making sharks right-handed, arctic plants too tall, pigs skinnier and salmon unable to detect danger, to cite just a few crazy examples.

Students are rarely told that the United States enjoyed a record 12-year absence of category 3-5 hurricanes making landfall between 2005 and 2017, or that 1944-1950 was the worst period in history for monster hurricanes hitting Florida. They’re not told the U.S. had 40% fewer “violent” (F4-5) tornadoes per year in 1986 to 2018 than in 1954 to 1985 – or that America did not have a single violent tornado in 2018, for the first time in history. Instead, they are misinformed that storms are becoming more frequent and intense.

They are rarely even told about the Little Ice Age, Roman and medieval warm periods, prolonged droughts throughout history, or the critical roles of fluctuating solar energy, periodic oscillations in Pacific and Atlantic temperatures and currents, and other major natural forces that have driven climate changes throughout Earth and human history.

It’s therefore hardly surprising that we are now seeing children marching in the streets and calling for “climate action” and “climate justice.” Worse, their teachers do not only excuse their truancy. They encourage it, giving course credit for these actions, or even saying student activism on climate and fossil fuels is more important than their reading, mathematics, history and other course work.

It’s ridiculous. But it’s real, ongoing – and often paid directly by our tax dollars or by tax-exempt foundations and activist groups whose views dominate and permeate our education and media systems.

In addition to what students are learning in their classrooms, they also receive “guidance” and “information” from “educational” websites that promote climate alarmism. Incredibly, many have been federally funded for years, and some are still funded by Trump Administration federal agencies!

For example, the “Climate Literacy and Energy Awareness Network” (CLEAN, as in “clean energy”) operates the CLEAN website, which is funded jointly by NOAA, NSF and DOE: the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Science Foundation and U.S. Department of Energy.

It supposedly advances “climate literacy” – which is really code for the false belief that humans are causing dangerous climate change. CLEAN says it has over 600 free, ready to use resources suitable for use in secondary and higher education classrooms. It also boasts that it is the core of the “Teaching Climate” part of the Climate.gov website. This is Federal Government bias targeting children.

One of the key principles of CLEAN’s version of climate literacy is explained thus: “A great challenge of the 21st century will be to prepare communities to adapt to climate change while reducing human impacts on the climate system (known as mitigation).” CLEAN also says “Because the primary cause of recent global climate change is human, the solutions are also within the human domain.” In other words, we can now control Earth’s perpetually fickle climate, by adjusting its carbon dioxide thermostat control knob. In our dreams.

All of CLEAN’s biased teaching materials are based on this false premise. The reality is that dangerous human influence on climate is completely unproven and the subject of intense scientific debate. That only the scary side is being presented as settled science is a severe and intolerable lack of balance.

Dr. Wojick recently launched a crowd-funding project to provide alternative educational materials. His materials reflect the profound and well-documented debate that actually flourishes worldwide about nonsensical climate alarmism, the real (natural) causes of climate changes and weather events, the ways increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels are helping plants to grow better and faster, and the actual causes of the sometimes crazy phenomena and creatures we encounter on this planet of ours.

The Climate Change Debate Education project or CCDE is still small. But it is growing steadily – and its GoFundMe effort is playing a critical role.

At this point, Dr. Wojick’s CCDE project provides two primary kinds of educational materials. One is skeptical videos by leading scientists. As of now there are 193 videos, by eminent scientists like William Happer, Patrick Michaels, Fred Singer, Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen. Wojick says his goal is to list 1000 skeptical scientific videos, clearly proving that the scientific debate is real.

Dr. Wojick and his project are also developing what he calls “gate breakers.” These are one-page, nontechnical summaries that explain a particular issue in the scientific debate about climate change. They are designed to be used to confront, challenge or question “gatekeeping” alarmists – such as teachers, speakers or politicians – who refuse to admit the scientific debate even exists.

Thus far, there are three gate breakers on the website, addressing hurricanes, the Little Ice Age and the sun’s role in global warming and climate change. But many more are on their way.

One interesting feature is that each gate breaker has a version that includes a Google Scholar search for more of the massive scientific literature on its topic. Dr. Wojick says the point of these searches is not that students can read all this technical stuff, but that they can see the debate truly exists. In each case, there are thousands of scientific journal articles that challenge the groupthink and borderline hysteria that dominates classroom and media discussions of climate issues.

The Climate Change Debate Education project is an ambitious and important undertaking.

It deserves the support of anyone who believes in the scientific method, integrity in scientific research – and having open, robust debates on dangerous manmade climate change claims that are being used to justify a rapid and complete switch from fossil fuels that provide over 80% of America’s and the world’s energy ... regardless of the tremendously harmful impacts that switch would have on our economy, jobs, living standards, health, productivity, housing, transportation and personal freedoms.

Companies that could and should support this vital educational program are too intimidated by the Antifa mobs arm of the $2-trillion-a-year Climate Industrial Complex to do so. That means citizens need to step forward. The future of American and global science, energy and prosperity hang in the balance.

SOURCE 






2020 Democrats rail against charter schools and flaunt big spending plans at education forum

Democratic presidential hopefuls railed against charter schools and flaunted billion- and trillion-dollar education proposals during a Friday forum hosted by the largest union in the U.S.

“I am sick and tired of these efforts to privatize a precious thing we need, public education,” New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio said at the National Education Association event in Houston. “I know we’re not supposed to be saying ‘hate,’ our teachers taught us not to. I hate the privatizers, and I want to stop them.” He aims to eliminate all federal funding for charter schools.

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders said he would end federal funding for for-profit charter schools and freeze federal funding for all charter schools until a national audit is completed.

Former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke took a softer tone toward charter schools than some of his primary rivals. “There is a place for public, nonprofit charter schools, but private charter schools and voucher programs, not a single time in my administration will go to them,” he said.

Candidates broadly supported increasing Title I funding, investment in universal pre-kindergarten programs, and funding infrastructure projects for public schools.

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren said her proposal to subsidize early childhood education programs would be paid for through her plan for a wealth tax on multi-millionaires and billionaires. One analysis of her plan found that it would cost an additional $700 billion over the next 10 years.

Sanders brushed off critics of his plan to forgive all $1.6 trillion in outstanding student loan debt.

“I have been criticized for this proposal. I’m criticized for every proposal because I try to stand up for working families in this country and not the billionaire class,” Sanders said. “But on this proposal, if we can bail out the crooks on wall street to the tune of billions of dollars, we surely can cancel student debt in America.”

The White House hopefuls took aim at Education Secretary Betsy DeVos for her lack of teaching experience, with many pledging to nominate a teacher to the position.

“Betsy DeVos need not apply,” Warren said.

Former Vice President Joe Biden, the Democratic front-runner, assured the crowd that he would not make his wife Jill Biden, a former high school teacher, his education secretary. “So the press doesn’t get confused, I promise I’m not going to appoint my wife,” Biden quipped, adding that “she would be a good one.”

Julián Castro, former housing secretary under former President Barack Obama, made a nod to the debate over desegregation busing happening in the wake of California Sen. Kamala Harris attacking Biden during the first round of presidential primary debates last week for opposing federally mandated integration busing in the 1970s.

“I would invest in tools like voluntary busing so that within school districts, folks are able to go to different schools,” Castro said.

SOURCE 






Restoring affordability to a college education

When my parents graduated from high school in 1936, a college education was too expensive for the son of a copper miner and the daughter of a plumber.

Eighty years ago, our country was in the middle of the Great Depression and teens took odd jobs to help put food on the table and pay the family bills. In those days no bank would lend money to college students.

Following World War II, there was new hope for veterans, The GI bill paid for veterans to complete their college or trade school education. My father, for example, graduated from trade schools in Seattle and Chicago and became a journeyman electrician thanks to Uncle Sam.

In the 1960s, the federal government introduced the work-study program allowing students from middle and low income families to work their way through college. I found jobs and fortunately didn’t have to borrow money to complete my degree.

Today, it is much difficult story. Student loans are the norm rather than the exception. As a result the student-loan debt has shot past $1.56 trillion spread out among 45 million borrowers. In 2018, nearly 70 percent of college graduates took out student loans and face their careers with an average of $30,000 in debt.

Growing student loan debt is a concern among Americans. “Spurring the free-college movement is the anxiety over the cost of tuition, which has risen at than double the inflation rate since 1990, while student debt has tripled since 2006,” The Wall Street Journal recently reported.

Free-college for all would cost a minimum of $75 billion each year if tuition was $4,400 per year, Quillette, an on-line think tank, estimated last September. “That doesn’t pay the bills even for in-state students at many public flagships. The University of Michigan, for example, costs over $15,000 per year for Michigan residents, and about $50,000 for out-of-state students.”

There are a variety of other approaches which can make higher education more affordable.

For example, in Kalamazoo, Michigan, wealthy anonymous donors pooled their money and started a free-college tuition program. It is one of more than 300 cities and states around the country offering a variety of tuition assistance programs.

WSJ reports since 2006, the donors contributed $124 million in tuition subsidies for nearly 5,400 students. The Upjohn Institute, which has been tracking Kalamazoo Promise, found that tuition assistance needs to be augmented with additional student career counseling in the K-12 system and other living costs for students.

Many small business owners in Washington State offer college scholarships and combined them with work and other benefits. Hopefully, the up-front funding offsets the need for loans and make it possible for students to complete their college education or technical skill training.

For example, in Seattle, Dick’s Drive-Ins offers employees who work 20 hours a week for at least six months and continue to work at least 20 hours a week while going to school to have access to a $25,000 scholarship over 4 years. In addition Dick’s pays higher than minimum wage, provides an employer paid health plan, and pays up to $9,000 in child-care expenses.

Other donors are stepping forward. Billionaire Robert Smith, founder and CEO of Vista Equity Partners, surprised Morehouse College’s 400 graduating seniors announcing his family is paying off their student loans. The estimated value of the gift was $40 million. He also challenged other donors to do the same.

Making higher education affordable is a national priority. The focus needs to be on approaches, which are affordable and effective for students and their families. The issue is large than just having the federal government provide free-tuition for all.

SOURCE