Earth Day confuses cult indoctrination with education

Environmental extremism is destroying the basics of scientific inquiry in our schools

CALGARY, AB, Apr 18, 2014/ Troy Media/ – Earth Day is upon us and once again we’ll be bombarded with appeals to protect the earth for our children. Our children, in turn, will be submitted to agenda-driven indoctrination that would have made Stalin proud. As they are every day, it turns out.

In the UK, a report released in early April entitled “Climate Control: Brainwashing in Schools” revealed that global warming/climate change propaganda has infiltrated every aspect of education, leading Education Secretary Michael Gove to publicly state that school principals are “breaking the law if they preach an eco-agenda.”

The report found: “In every case of concern, the slant is on scares, on raising fears, followed by the promotion of detailed guidance on how pupils should live, as well as on what they should think.”

The Wall Street Journal reports that climate change has conquered campuses. Universities no longer push education in the hard sciences like petroleum engineering or geosciences because there are few takers. Elementary schools have successfully destroyed the basics of scientific inquiry in children and anyone expressing an interest in petroleum is instantly demonized.

In Alberta, the NDP tabled a petition of 26,000 signatures last week to try and stop oil companies from helping redraft the school curriculum. Fossil fuels are consistently demonized in school materials, with no mention of the benefits to humankind.

Critical thinking on climate could be taught at schools. Your children could be learning that between 1912 and 1963, an almost eruption-free period of volcanic activity, global temperatures rose by 0.5 degree C due to a lack of aerosols and ash which lower temperatures. They could be taught that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions up to 1950 were too small to have caused any significant climate change, so climate change to that date was mostly natural. Then, climate cooled for 25 years from 1950.

Instead, they will be taught that industrial greenhouse gases (GHG) caused by human activity, principally CO2, are the sole reason for a rise in global temperatures since 1880 – and that global warming is all their fault.

Your children could be taught that there have been three known periods of natural warming in human history – the Minoan, Roman Optimum and Medieval Warm Period. These were interspersed with the Dark Ages Cold Period and the cold, wet, rainy extremes of the Little Ice Age, brutal and violent times to be alive.

They could be reading Brian Fagan’s books or James Marusek’s 1,400 page weather chronicle, showing how common it is to have extreme swings in weather events and climate patterns in history.

The children will instead be told, repeatedly, that the globe is warming and extreme weather is the result. They should be reading the evidence in Dr. Madhav Khandekar’s report, showing that, despite nominal global warming to 1998, there has been no trend of more extreme weather globally.

They could be studying the evidence – that global hurricane energy has declined 40 per cent since 1998. It has been 3,108 days since the last major (category 3 to 5) hurricane hit the U.S., the longest major hurricane-free period in U.S. history.

They will be taught that wind energy is clean, green and free – and “reduces emissions” – even though evidence has demonstrated it is dirty and rare earth mineral mining for turbine magnets have destroyed swaths of China. Wind power is wasteful and nine times the cost of conventional power. Wind increases emissions with back-up natural gas plants ramping up and down 24/7 to keep pace with wind’s variability.

They could be discussing atmospheric scientist Judith Curry’s testimony to the U.S. Senate that “CO2 is not the control knob of climate variability.” They could be discussing how the sun is a main driver of climate change.

They could be told that global warming stopped all by itself, years before the Kyoto Protocol was enacted to “stop global warming” and despite a continued rise in carbon dioxide.

Instead, your children are still being told global warming is a new, unique catastrophic threat.

Generations of children have been terrorized at school and through Earth Day to have an unfounded ‘fear of global warming,’ a psychological state comparable to the Stockholm Syndrome, where they are unable to liberate themselves from their tormentors. The critical thinking skills have been scared out of them.

This Earth Day, question what your children are learning. Is it climate cult indoctrination or true education? Must we sacrifice the work of centuries of scientists on the altar of Gaia?

Michelle Stirling-Anosh is the Communications Manager of Friends of Science.

Download this FREE edited column.

Access all of Troy Media’s content for your publication or website for one low monthly fee.

Troy Media Marketplace © 2014 – All Rights Reserved

21 Responses to "Earth Day confuses cult indoctrination with education"

  1. Avatar
    amused   April 18, 2014 at 8:22 am

    Great piece of satirical writing.  Is she one of the writers for the
    Colbert Report?  Perhaps a writer for the Onion?  Anyway, thanks for the
    laughs.  Keep up the goofiness.

  2. Avatar
    DVille   April 18, 2014 at 8:23 am

    A beautiful demonstration of psychological projection. Climate change denialism is antiscientific ideological thinking. Blaming the other side side helps to insulate ideologues from their accusations and gives them a perceived ‘excuse’ to ‘counter’ with their own propaganda directed at children.

    There IS a scientific consensus on global warming/climate change, and the substantial role of humans in it. The conclusions are fact-based, and alarming in character. Melting glacial ice can raise ocean levels, putting coastal cities at risk. Even Judith Curry supports the scientific consensus on climate change, but differs on details. Even so- There is a scientific consensus that is ignored, and the people who support some of the claims of this article couldnt be quoted in full, as they wouldnt support the claims overall.

    Dont buy this nonsense. Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation from heat extremely well, and its this radiation that carries a large portion of energy away from the earth. Increasing carbon dioxide, as has happened over the last century in particular, contributes to a positive feedback cycle that serves to accelerate warming. Im a physicist getting my PhD in photonics- specifically infrared absorption and emission- and the rampant antiscience of climate change deniers is appalling and dangerous.

  3. Avatar
    DavidNutzuki   April 18, 2014 at 10:15 am

    @amused  How many climate blame “believers” does it take to change a light bulb?
    None because they choose to remain in the dark about science never saying; “will be” or “inevitable” or anything beyond; “could be” and 95% in 32 years.

  4. Avatar
    MichelleStirling   April 18, 2014 at 12:47 pm

    @DVille  Thanks for your comments DVille. We have a number of atmospheric scientists who provide information for these articles and we also agree that humans and CO2 have some impact on climate – a fact we do not deny –  however that impact is nominal as shown by the evidence statements in the article. Do you think it appropriate that children are being taught blanket statements and not invited to discuss how it was that there were warmer periods a couple of thousand years ago before wide-spread fossil fuel use? 
    Regarding CO2, NOAA calls water vapour the wild card in global warming and it appears that a reduction in water vapour in the upper atmosphere means CO2 is not warming as theorized.  We have also reviewed the alleged scientific consensus and find that there is not one – not to mention that ‘consensus’ is not science. It’s an opinion poll. Using ‘consensus’ is a psychological bandwaggoning tactic used very effectively in advertising…and in global warming threat messages.

  5. Avatar
    Norm Kalmanovitch   April 18, 2014 at 2:52 pm

    There is no scientific consensus because that would require that the scientific data backs up this consensus and that is clearly not the case.
    All five global temperature datasets show net global cooling since 2002 and this dozen years of net global cooling has taken place as global CO2 emissions increased from 26Gt/year in 2002 to over 35Gt/year in 2013.
    In spite of this massive increase in CO2 emissions atmospheric CO2 concentration only increased from 373.22ppmv in 2002 to 396.48ppmv and not to the 450ppmv level predicted by the IPCC based on their false assumption that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels were the primary source for observed atmospheric CO2 increase (Evidence shows that humans contribute no more than 10% to the current annual 2.07ppmv increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
    There was another global cooling trend from 1942 to 1975 that also occurred as CO2 emissions increase from 4Gt/year in 1942 to over 17Gt/year in 1975. Collectively this is 49 of the past 72 years when the world cooled with increasing CO2 emissions and on this basis no scientist would ever claim a causal relationship between CO2 emissions and global warming.
    What you claim is a scientific consensus is actually a consensus of scientists who work only from climate model projections and are unaware of the fact that all physical evidence refutes IPCC global warming dogma and actually believe this false conjecture to be true.
    This is why all IPCC claims are based on certainty of belief as is the case for the latest 95% certainty. This is called “consensus science” which as Michael Crichton states “There is no such thing as consensus science. If it is consensus it isn’t science. If it is science it isn’t consensus. Period

  6. Avatar
    TomHarris   April 18, 2014 at 4:29 pm

    @amused Good to see another fact-free, sarcastic posting from the other side. It shows we must be winning.

  7. Avatar
    TomHarris   April 18, 2014 at 4:32 pm

    MichelleStirling Good response, Michelle. DeVille’s post is intellectual baby-talk. And to think this person may be teaching students some day – sheesh!

  8. Avatar
    durangobill   April 18, 2014 at 7:58 pm

    The reason that the phrase “Global Warming Deniers” is used is that the “Deniers” ignore reality and fabricate stories that are not true.

    For example, the assertion
    “that global warming stopped all by itself, years before the Kyoto Protocol was enacted to “stop global warming” and despite a continued rise in carbon dioxide.”
    is NOT true.

    Despite the fantasies of Global Warming Deniers, the earth continues to warm at the rate of 4 Hiroshima atomic bombs per second – running 24/7  – including the years from 1998 to present.
    Earth’s Rate Of Global Warming Is 400,000 Hiroshima Bombs A Day
    Four Hiroshima bombs a second: How we imagine climate change
    This measured/observed warming rate is via the Argo buoy system.

    2005 was warmer than any previous year. Then 2010 broke the 2005 record. Data at:
    NOAA/National Climate Data Center

    2012 was the warmest year on record for the United States.

    Sea level continues to rise due to thermal expansion and glacial melting. The current rate of sea level rise has quadrupled since the 1870 to 1924 period.
    Columbia University

    Glaciers continue to melt, and the rate of melting has accelerated since 1998.
    World Glacier Monitoring Service

    Ocean heating has accelerated sharply since 1998. (Note: Over 90% of Global Warming ends up heating the oceans.)
    Graph at:
    Full peer reviewed paper at:
    Up to date info at:
    NOAA/National Oceanographic Data Center (click on “2”)

    Finally, November 2013 just set a record for the warmest November in history.
    NOAA/National Climate Data Center
    More at:

  9. Avatar
    MichelleStirling   April 18, 2014 at 10:25 pm

    durangobill  Thanks for your many links durangobill – why would the IPCC bother to admit that global warming stopped 16 years ago if it was not true?  The Hiroshima bomb measure is very colorful but irrelevant. Satellite measurements do not show the earth’s temperatures exploding in any Hiroshima like way. You’d think it would be obvious from up there, eh? If you review the data of Roger Pielke Jr.’s US Senate testimony, you will find, as most historians know, that the hottest periods of US history were in the Dirty Thirties.  The Argo buoy system at sea has perhaps 3,000 drones that can dive to 2000 meters…it’s a great start, but just not enough when the ocean covers 71% of the earth’s surface and can be 10 km deep at some points. If you read Brian Fagan’s book The Greaat Warming or Scott Stine’s research on Owen Lake in CA you will find that during the Medieval Warm Period (which was pleasant and stable in Europe) it was hot as hades in the south western US with megadrought epochs – perhaps a century of drought at a time!

  10. Avatar
    MichelleStirling   April 18, 2014 at 10:34 pm

    durangobill  Further it seems that Denmark’s weather agency which measures the sea all the time has a different view of sea levels than Columbia.  ” During the last interglacial period (Eemian) about 120,000 years ago, global sea levels were approx. 6 m higher than today. Temperatures were also higher – 1-2°C on a global scale.”  Look at that. Temperatures were warmer! How can this be?  Regarding your claims about glaciers, again Brian Fagan’s books are instructive – explaining how glaciers have both retreated – leaving ruined lifeless land; and attacked – covering up whole farms and villages near Chamonix. These changes happened in the Little ice Age before industrialization.  Glaciers are like the intestines of the earth, one of our earth scientists explained to me – they squeeze themselves out and retract in cyclical patterns related to various factors. You reference ocean heating – as you are probably aware, but most readers are not, the earth has massive undercurrents in the oceans – some warm and some cold – and they sometimes switch direction or temperature – processes that are poorly understood.  The Arctic ice cap is simply a block of ice floating on a number of these swirling currents which fluctuate, sometimes pumping in more warm and sometimes more cold. These factors cannot be excluded in assessing melting of ice – and it is known historical fact that Roald Amundsen and the St. Roche, in early 1900’s both made the North West Passage voyage in low ice conditions.  Therefore, the melting seems to be part of some cyclical patterns – not all about humans (though black soot in the Arctic is an identified factor). BTW on sea level rise, Patrick Michaels World Climate Report indicates that land subsidence, land rebound or sinking due to post-glacial response, and shifting of tectonic plates account for virtually all change in sea levels – meaning these are NON climate factors. The earth has moved, not the sea has risen.

  11. Avatar
    Norm Kalmanovitch   April 19, 2014 at 6:58 am


    When you climb up a mountain and then start the slow descent you can claim to be higher than during most of your ascent.
    If the previous mountain that you climbed is higher than the one you are currently descending you can’t claim to be higher than you were at the top of the mountain that you previously climbed.
    Repeat this analogy four times and you have the Current Warm Period (CWP) cooler than the previous Medieval Warm Period  which was cooler than the previous Roman Warm Period  which in turn was cooler than the previous Minoan Warm Period so present day temperatures are in fact cooer than all peak temperatures dating back 3000 years to the Minoan Warm Period.
    Figure 7.1 in the 1990 IPCC First Assessment Report shows 5,000 years of overall global cooling since the Holocene maximum and 800 years of overall global cooling since the medieval warm period.
    Our current cooling trend which started in 2002 is expected to last at least until the end of solar cycle 25 around year 2032 and the question is whether this is the end of the warming recovery from the Little Ice Age or whether it is another global cooling cycle like the one that occurred from 1880 to 1910 or the more recent one from 1942 to 1975 which brought on the global cooling scare of the 1970’s.
    Regardless of whether the now dozen year long global cooling trend continues or we revert back to the overall warming trend since the Little Ice Age; no matter how much CO2 we dump into the atmosphere it will not cause any deviation from the 0.55°C/century warming trend since 1880.
    This is because the 14.77micron band of the Earth’s thermal radiation which is affected by CO2 is already so close to saturation from our current concentration level of 396.48ppmv (2013) that it is impossible for even a doubling of CO2 to cause any more than 0.4°C of further enhancement of the Earth’s 35.42°C current greenhouse effect, and at the current rate of increase of just 2.07ppmv/year; it will be 191.5 years before this additional 0.4°C enhancement of the greenhouse effect occurs.
    The difference between us and those who call us deniers is that as scientists we work from proper scientific theory and real world hard scientific data while you quote meaningless statistics and base your conjecture on fabricated computer models; all of which have been wrong!

  12. Avatar
    MichelleStirling   April 19, 2014 at 8:06 am

    @Christos  Thank you for your comments. I don’t see where you provide supporting scientific data for your claim that this is misinformation or garbage. All of these facts are sourced before anything goes to press. Calling me names doesn’t affect the content presented.  We’d like to hear the counter scientific argument or evidence, if you have any.

  13. Avatar
    concerned   April 19, 2014 at 12:09 pm

    First, reasonable debate and scientific inquiry benefit from the
    encouragement of critical thinking and questioning, and those who do not agree
    with the current scientific consensus about climate change should do their
    research, publish their results, and contribute to the discussion.
    My concern is that this article does not appear to follow basic tenets of
    reason-based debate or scientific inquiry, but instead is so rife with specious
    reasoning that it would take more space than the actual article to dissect all
    of the problems with it.Given how easy
    it is to find examples of this, I will start and end with an example that is
    provided at the outset of the article:
    “Our children, in turn, will be submitted to
    agenda-driven indoctrination that would have made Stalin proud. As they are
    every day, it turns out”.
    Although it might be a clever rhetorical tactic to use the term
    “agenda-driven indoctrination” this is clearly an appeal to emotion that is not
    supported by evidence.The author takes
    an unproven assumption, dresses it up by relabeling school experiences in
    loaded language (“agenda-driven indoctrination”), links it to Stalinist
    tactics, and claims this is happening daily. Did I miss anything?
    The reference to the “UK report” is not to a peer-reviewed scientific
    article of any sort, but is to a report developed by the Global Warming Policy
    Foundation – A UK lobbying group whose founder has documented links to European
    coal-based industries.The group has
    also been shown to have major funding from a significant contributor to the
    Conservative party in the UK.In an
    April 1st news article (
    ), British MP’s voiced criticism of the BBC for giving undue weight to the
    input from this group and others like it.To quote from the article:
    report said: “Some editors appear to be particularly poor at determining
    the level of scientific expertise of contributors in debates, putting up
    lobbyists against top scientists as though their arguments on the science carry
    equal weight … Lobbying groups and other interested parties should be heard
    on the issue, [but] the BBC should be clear on the role of its interviewees and
    should not treat lobbying groups as disinterested experts.”
    hope other readers of this opinion piece might contribute to a further
    dissection of the assumptions and claims made by the author. Perhaps
    someone could start by deconstructing her claim that generations of children
    have been terrorized by Earth Day.

  14. Avatar
    MichelleStirling   April 20, 2014 at 9:43 am

    @concerned  Let me provide some references so you can judge for yourself. Here is the original report: Climate Control: Brainwashing in Schools here is the article from the Wall Street Journal.  How Climate Change Conquered the American CampusThe top-paying job for grads last year: petroleum engineer, at $97,000. Yet most colleges seem oddly uninterested.
    Here is the randomly selected Alberta grade 5 curriculum and references to some material within it that is either anecdotal, not supported by evidence or incorrect.
    Alberta Grade Five Curriculum
    “To slow global warming (climate change) people have to reduce their production of carbon dioxide” (pg 126)
    Wind – pg 143 –
    Pikas and pine beetles- pg 151
    Suzuki and One Tonne Challenge pg 159
    Pg 160 – Polar Skier Will Steger provides anecdotal, not empirical evidence on snow/ice patterns in the Arctic; in fact Roald Amundsen sailed through the North West Passage in 1905 as did the St. Roche in 1940-42 and 1944 suggesting there are periodic swings in ice formation. The Arctic is an ice cap over water, affected by warm and cool currents flowing beneath the ice that are subject to periodic changes in direction, flow and temperature. This is not explained to the learner. The assumption is that human-made ‘global warming’ caused ice changes.  
    Roald Amundsen crosses North West Passage 1905:   St. Roche crosses North West Passage 1940-42 and in one season 1944
    Meltdown – threatens skiing worldwide – there are known previous cycles of more and less snow in the mountains – notable Hannibal crossing the Alps on Elephants in long before SUVs. Short term climate changes document from University of Saskatchewan reveals that the passes Hannibal marched through during the Roman Optimum (a warm period) later filled with snow.
    Western glaciers setting melt records – again the assumption is that climate changes or observable changes in glaciers are due to human impacts; students are not told that Hannibal crossed the typically snow covered Alps on elephants during the Roman Warm Period – while in the 1600’s in Austria, glaciers advanced so quickly that ‘ate up’ towns and farm land.
    pg- 161 – 2. “Your cousin doesn’t believe that we should be worried about climate change. Writer him/her a message explaining your position on this issue.” A Grade 5 exercise in how to confront and convert a “climate change denier”
    pg 171 – Teacher’s summary (below) describes on the alleged negative GHG output from transportation sources, not the ultimate benefit (i.e. bringing goods to market, improved diets with fresh vegetables for us during winter months, etc)

  15. Avatar
    MichelleStirling   April 20, 2014 at 9:48 am

    Note – the screen shot of the teacher’s summary stated as ‘below’ did not copy into the above – you can look it up in the online curriculum.

  16. Avatar
    MichelleStirling   April 20, 2014 at 10:20 am

    @concerned  Further to your references on the BBC – there was a recent revelation that the editorial and management level of the Beeb had also been party to several green workshops led by Greenpeace et al to ‘help them’ understand climate change…and to verify my statement that the curriculum is rife with agenda-driven eco-pap I refer you to the GEOEC site of Alberta where it is explained that since 1998 the US has used Environment and an integrating context:  explained as “…integrated education is good education. In 1998 the U.S. State Education & Environment Roundtable (, a cooperative initiative of 16 state departments of education, studied schools that teach using the environment as an integrating context.”

  17. Avatar
    MichelleStirling   April 20, 2014 at 10:29 am

    Sorry – I’m sure many will claim Watts Up with That not the best ‘objective’ source like a newspaper – but here is the quick reference I find on this BBC-turned-green story from 2013 – I have a couple of deadlines so if you can’t find other references, I can look for them later:   My point being that the BBC is a pot calling the kettle black in criticizing the GWPF.

  18. Avatar
    Troy Media   April 20, 2014 at 10:34 am

    Editor’s Note: The message Ms. Stirling is responding to was removed due to its offensive tone.

  19. Avatar
    MichelleStirling   April 20, 2014 at 10:45 am

    @concerned  One more point concerned – most of the school materials I have reviewed begin with an opening statement to the affect that “…climate change is happening, scientists agree it is humans fault due to CO2 from fossil fuels and extreme weather will follow and you can help stop it…”  but if you read the IPCC Working Group physical sciences paper – it acknowledges that global warming has stopped and on pages 114 and 115 the scientists clearly state they do not have sufficient data to make ANY confident predictions of any extreme weather.  So if the IPCC scientists are not certain -how can our educational texts say the opposite?  Why do these openers not say something to the effect… “There is concern about human impact on climate, ranging from pollution from industrial activity, to possible impacts on the earths climate.  In this section we review historic and contemporary material about climate change and discuss whether humans can ‘stop dangerous climate change’…or whether climate change is always dangerous. Sometimes it is beneficial.  And we explore the theories related to carbon dioxide as a driver and discuss scientific forecasts as to whether or not climate change means there will be an increase in extreme weather or not. We look at the OBSERVED DATA to determine whether or not these statements and theories are true.”  Look at how unsure the scientists are – how can teachers/educators/curriculum developers know more than these experts?     pg 114 and 115

  20. Avatar
    Faith   April 20, 2014 at 8:55 pm

    Thank you for the excellent piece, Michelle. I suspect many people remain unaware of the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development, led
    and co-ordinated by UNESCO, and the global Education For All (EFA) Agenda.
    The disturbing agenda-driven indoctrination of students seems to have ramped up across Canada since spring of 2009, when participants of the UNESCO World Conference on Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) issued a telltale statement and call to action known as the Bonn Declaration.

    More enlightenment regarding ESD is provided in the booklet titled “Enough, for All, Forever: The Quest for a More Sustainable Future” by Charles Hopkins – which can be downloaded from the site of the Toronto-based Canadian Education Association,  along with the complementary ESD Toolkit.

    On a related note, folks might also want check out the guide for parents & teachers on Restorative Justice Community/Classroom Conferencing and the long list of information booklets promoting Restorative Practice offered by The Society for Safe and Caring Schools and Communities – Edmonton, Alberta.

  21. Avatar
    Troy Media   April 21, 2014 at 2:03 pm

    IsabelMosseler This comment was deleted due to its offensive nature.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login