Propaganda is the one-sided presentation of information, designed to lead the listener to the conclusions chosen by the propagandist. The presentations used in much of k-12 and university-level classes fit this definition to a 't'.
There are too many examples to list, but I will direct your attention to one of the most glaring abuses within the public education system: at this link, you will see a lesson for kindergarteners, posted on a California state government website. It is pure indoctrination, and it is going to be a very unusual 5 year old who will have developed the critical thinking skills necessary to question what he or she is being told.
http://www.coastal.ca.gov/publiced/direc...
Like the many other examples, this lesson presents the AGW theory as a non-controversial fact. Many of the lessons for the later grades point the student to video resources on government and NGO websites--where the propaganda is only slightly more sophisticated, but no less biased.
Most of the material relies on appeals to authority, false cause fallacies, appeals to consequences, appeals to fear, appeals to ignorance, and post hoc fallacies. Some of the grade school lessons direct children to the NAS website, where there is a series of (painfully pedantic) videos where children can watch Dr. Alley (Penn State) and (the now late) Dr. Schneider use appeals to authority, post hoc fallacies (they call it 'fingerprints'), and appeals to ignorance ('we looked and looked and we can't find anything else that could cause the warming').
The first step in the process of critical thinking is to gather *all* the available information. None of these programs do that; they all direct children to resources which present only the alarmist side, or are heavily biased towards the alarmist position.
The environmental left is working overtime to keep children from seeing or hearing disconfirming information. Critical thinking is heavily discouraged, especially when it runs too close to conclusions counter to the AGW hypothesis.
Organizational cultures are dysfunctional largely to the extent that certain ideas are not permitted within the narrative. Dr. Chris Argyris refers to these as 'undiscussibles'. Not only are some thoughts 'undiscussible', but that they are undiscussible is also itself undiscussable. This is the state of the climate 'science' today; amongst the AGW believers, the idea that the hypothesis might not be valid is undiscussible. This is the meaning of statements such as 'there is no doubt', 'we shouldn't even be discussing this', and (to paraphrase Dr. Michael Mann) 'there can be no discussion of the validity of man-made climate change, only the responses to it can be discussed'.
Questioning of the 'sacred science' brings on an avalanche of ad hominem attacks (denier, shills for the oil companies, etc.). No organization which functions in this fashion is capable of discovering its own errors. That our public school system is foisting this off onto the next generation as 'science literacy' is not a criminal act--but it should be.
Education has to teach students the best science of the time ... at the moment the best science concludes that humans are having a net effect on global warming.
You can disagree with that, but it still remains a FACT that the scientific evidence well and truly supports that conclusion. And as any responsible authority should be teaching, it should be what the scientific evidence supports.
Sorry that you think teaching our kids the best science is propaganda, but in a secular nation that is how education should operate.
Edit: 1. no natural known variables can describe the trend. As with any science new hypotheses will always presented (some with more credit than others). However, best science is dictated by evidence and research not hypotheses.
2. The IPCC is to review the science, risks and causes. They review available information. No reputable scientific organisation disagrees with the conclusion reached by the IPCC (that humans are having a net effect). Suppose all the scientific orgs in the world are bias too??
3. Happens all the time, NASA has a page on uncertainties still under investigation.
4. Most scientific papers I have read in regards to climate change state error and confidence levels (the IPCC reports even state a wide range of scenarios and variations).
5. The only lawsuits I can find regarding Tim Ball are libel cases. This has nothing to do with the science but slanderous comments he has made about others characters ...
Tried listening to those podcasts but Alan Jones is the biggest idiot and most ignorant person I have ever heard ... sorry but you talk about educating people and then link to Alan Jones interviews, not a smart move.
Edit 2: I can't believe you used Alan Jones and objectivity in the same sentence. Sorry but you just lost any credibility I had for you. Alan Jones is a shock jock ... their whole existence is to push their agenda and cause controversy. They aren't after the truth, they are after ratings and pushing their own personal agenda.
Let's call a spade a spade, AGW is a political issue - period. It tries to parade as science but clearly isn't as there is no scientific evidence for it's outlandish assumptions.
Also it looks to politics for solutions which are, suprise suprise, pay more for everything and receive less.
It is a shame for young people who after being generally dumbed down by both the school systems, and chemical agents such as fluoride are getting indoctrinated. Difficult to stop though as those party to the scam such as governments are setting the school indoctrination curriculum's.
No.
And this post is yet another example of climate change deniers being either extreme free marketeers, conspiracy theorists, or ranting about liberals because they insist on teaching science in school rather then creationism.
The facts are that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that without greenhouse gases the earth average temperature would be 33C colder (a giant snowball) and that we have added 40% more CO2 to the atmosphere. There is not one scientist who denies these facts.
In every science experiment, you calculate markers for outcome #1 and markers for outcome #2. That way you can subjectively determine if the experiment proved or disproved something.
In the global warming debate, all the markers are judged for outcome #1, and none for outcome #2. Therefore, no matter what happens, it is outcome #1.
Accordingly, this means if I had Diarrhea this morning, it was due to Global Warming. Any respected scientist would find this method has a closer resemblance to what was in the toilet.
You are seriously misinformed. Global Warming is not 'unqualified science.' It is a theory just as much as gravity is a theory. Scientists do not have all the data concerning climate change, however they do know this: the overall temperature of the Earth is rising at a rate directly proportional to the amount of harmful man-made greenhouse gases being emitted into the atmosphere. The evidence for this is supported by several, ISOLATED facts and statistics indicating that Global Warming is an actual, and more importantly, MAN-MADE phenomenon. According to "Expert credibility in climate change" (Anderegg, Prall, Harold, Schneider) "a majority of earth and climate scientists are convinced by the evidence that humans are significantly contributing to global warming." "No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view" says the article "Petroleum Geologists' Award to Novelist Crichton Is Inappropriate" (Julie Brigham-Grette et al.)
First, please read the following which provide clear evidence in support of Global Warming:
http://www.edf.org/climate/global-warmin...
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
http://quercus.igpp.ucla.edu/teaching/pa...
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v42...
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/new-e...
http://azstarnet.com/news/opinion/provid...
Secondly, if you STILL believe that there is not sufficient evidence to back up the claims of man-made climate change, you can measure temperatures of the ocean, ground, atmosphere, etc. yourself with devises purchased off Amazon. The experiments performed by Scientists which provided the evidence in support of Global Warming can be performed by everyday non-Scientists with the right equipment. Temperature readers are quite cheap and you can find some on Amazon and other sites.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?u...
Thirdly, the parties associated with Global Warming 'skepticism' (which you promote) are mostly composed of fuel companies (whose business would suffer if Global Warming were to be an accurate theory). It is in the best interest of these fuel companies to deny the science that supports Global Warming, even if said science comes with an overwhelmingly strong base of evidence.
This site provides information on the opposition to Global Warming. You will notice these groups are mostly comprised of fuel companies.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/sci...
Also note this article, which explains the link between oil companies and climate change denial.
http://oilprice.com/The-Environment/Glob...
In short, the opposition to climate change is fake. There is little to no evidence suggesting that recent rises in temperatures of the Earth is purely natural- in fact, all evidence points to the opposite.
Amazes me what I hear on the climate change section of this website which raises very serious questions for me about the INDOCTRINATION of young people via the school system and Universities.
The more I look into climate change the more it becomes very clear something very sinister is occurring. Young kids straight out of University/School are abusively advocating unqualified science, and calling for tax and regulation on the industries and generations that have preceeded them. All in the name of AGW which, despite claims by Organised scientific bodies and the IPCC, is disputed strongly by eminent scientists as being fundamentally flawed. A listen to interviews with climate skeptics Professor Richard Lindzen, Prof. Timothy Ball, Prof. Bob Carter, or Dr Vincent Gray via the link below will very strongly outline the level of concern and criticism they assert towards the science behind AGW.
http://www.galileomovement.com.au/downloads.php
Having reviewed AGW science myself, had my view asserted by the high degree of distrust of the science within an eminent scientific community, then combining this with observed strongarm tactics applied by AGW advocates, it has all the hallmarks of a political, rather than scientific, event that is occurring relevant to climate change. Given these politics, it still amazes me that young people can firstly be so brainwashed, and secondly to strongarm AGW onto everybody in the belief they have the right to self serve themselves via the creation of pseudoscientific AGW industries that arise from all of this political manipulation.
In my view, the only way young people can have their thinking so distorted is through becoming indoctrinated via the educational systems they attend. So the questions raised is do you agree that "the Y generation is brainwashed and self serving themselves relevant to climate change". What does this say about the motivations behind the political machine that is doing the indoctrination?
Note: I am fully aware Yahoo Answers is very predominantly a young peoples forum and that the AGW advocates on here will abuse this question relentlessly. Rather than just give up, I am posting this question to determine what level of agreement, if any, exists within this website for what is very strongly believed to be AGW politics being indoctrinated into young people via the University/School system.
