What Say To A Climate Change Bill Of Rights?

It’s for the children, of course

(National Center For Scienc Education) NCSE is pleased to announce the launch of the Climate Science Students Bill of Rights, which articulates the principle that all students deserve the best climate science education available as part of a 21st-century science education. Sponsoring the bill of rights along with NCSE are Climate Parents, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the Alliance for Climate Education.

In a July 10, 2014, press release, the four organizations explained that they plan to “work across the country to bring together parents, students, teachers, administrators, and concerned citizens to support high-quality climate science education and speak out about attacks on efforts to improve it.”

Awesome more “spreading awareness”, propaganda, indoctrination, and politically motivated attacks. Anyone think these far left Progressives will allow opposing views?

Let’s take a look at this so-called climate change bill of rights

  1. Receive the highest quality science education as determined by educators, free from ideological or political interference. (Educators who tend to be far left fanatics, and are only interested in 1 viewpoint)
  2. Explore the causes and consequences of climate change. (Which will be blamed mostly/solely on Mankind)
  3. Learn that meaningful solutions to slowing climate change exist. (Progressive ideological ones)
  4. Examine the data and evidence that leads to the established scientific consensus on climate change in a learning environment that encourages inquiry, questioning and understanding. (As all non-Warmists know, the consensus is BS in scientific papers, and if one is citing consensus they aren’t interested in science)
  5. Understand how climate science informs social, political, and personal decision-making. (Wait, I thought per #1 that this wasn’t about politics, and this would be free of political and ideological interference? No?)

If they really cared, all the teachers would stop driving fossil fueled vehicles and turn off the heating/AC systems in their classrooms to Save Us. See #3. Of course, they mean solutions that affect Other People.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

2 Responses to “What Say To A Climate Change Bill Of Rights?”

  1. Jeffery says:

    1.Receive the highest quality science education as determined by educators, free from ideological or political interference. (Educators who tend to be far left fanatics, and are only interested in 1 viewpoint) — That’s certainly a cynical view of teachers. Are you concerned that they’ll tell the truth?

    2.Explore the causes and consequences of climate change. (Which will be blamed mostly/solely on Mankind) — Again, as long as teachers tell the truth, it should be OK, right?

    3.Learn that meaningful solutions to slowing climate change exist. (Progressive ideological ones) — Any solution that results in slowing CO2 emissions should be acceptable.

    4.Examine the data and evidence that leads to the established scientific consensus on climate change in a learning environment that encourages inquiry, questioning and understanding. (As all non-Warmists know, the consensus is BS in scientific papers, and if one is citing consensus they aren’t interested in science) — You’re objecting to examining the data and evidence and an environment that encourages inquiry and questioning? You object to discussing why there’s a scientific consensus?

    5.Understand how climate science informs social, political, and personal decision-making. (Wait, I thought per #1 that this wasn’t about politics, and this would be free of political and ideological interference? No?) — Well of course science INFORMS political decision making. But not vice versa.

  2. Jeffery says:

    Almost half of Americans believe the myth that the human race was created sometime in the last 10,000 years as described in the Christian Bible.

    The scientific consensus is that life evolved on Earth and that humans are part of that process.

    Should the government force the science curriculum in public schools to include the teaching of creationism as an scientifically valid alternative to biological evolution?

    When you demand that science curriculum include climate Denier talking points, you’re asking to teach something other than science in science class. You’re demanding that science teachers teach your political viewpoint rather than science facts.

Bad Behavior has blocked 9985 access attempts in the last 7 days.