John Kerry Says DiCaprio’s New Global Warming Doc Will Turn GOP Into Believers

Secretary of State John Kerry is convinced actor Leonardo DiCaprio’s documentary about climate change will transform Republicans into climate change warriors.

DiCaprio’s global warming-themed documentary, “Before The Flood,” will almost certainly persuade climate change skeptics in Congress to soften their hearts on the environment, Kerry told a United Nations panel Thursday night.

The documentary shows the Oscar winner jet-setting around the world, watching glaciers from helicopters, and convening with President Barack Obama and electric vehicle automaker Elon Musk, who sees himself as an anti-oil crusader.

“As a 28-year veteran of the Senate who knows Jim Inhofe well and many of the other people depicted in the film, maybe Nov. 8 will produce a capacity for the entire Republican caucus to go to the Goddard Space Center, NASA, see that map and to see this film,” Kerry said, referring to Republican Sen. Jim Inhoffe of Oklahoma.

Sponsored Content

“It should be required for every single one of them,” he added.

DiCaprio, who attended the panel in New York alongside Kerry, mirrored the former Massachusetts senator’s sentiments, telling those in attendance that he was “incredibly moved” by the climate scientists in the film.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/22/john-kerry-says-dicaprios-new-global-warming-doc-will-turn-gop-into-believers/#ixzz4O1aldnga

EPA Spends MILLIONS Training Teachers On ‘Environmental Education’

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is spending $10.8 million training teachers on the fundamentals of “environmental education.”

EPA will fund the training of 4,400 educators annually and “deliver high-quality environmental education in formal and non-formal education settings.” EPA officials declined to tell CNS News what the program would actually teach or how it would explain topics, like global warming.

“Environmental educators help learners of all ages understand and value the ecosystems around them,” EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said in a statement. “The teacher training program gives educators access to the best classroom and out-of-classroom materials and professional development opportunities, focused on using the environment as a platform for learning science, technology, engineering and math skills to improve decision-making.”

It would collaborate with other academic institutions including Stanford University, the University of Oregon, Antioch University and several federal agencies.

Research by Oregon State University shows that the best way to get adults to act like environmentalists is by indoctrinating their children. The research found that having teachers indoctrinate kids about global warming caused their parents to use less energy and act more like environmentalists. The investigation was run on 30 Girl Scout troops in northern California and had a “lasting impact on family energy consumption” for at least eight months after the end of the program.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/23/epa-spends-millions-training-teachers-on-environmental-education/#ixzz4O1ZpWggt

5th-grader launches ‘youth ambassador program’ to teach kids about ‘global warming’

learn-polar-army-clipular

Via: http://woodtv.com/2016/09/26/boy-starts-site-to-teach-other-kids-about-global-warming/

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. (WOOD) — A West Michigan 11-year-old is taking his knowledge of global climate change beyond the classroom.

Monday, Bryce Madder of Ada announced the launch of Polar Army, a nonprofit website to teach children about the impact global warming has on polar bears.

Bryce, a fifth-grader, spoke at the Grand Rapids Children’s Museum, announcing that kids of all ages can now be a part of the Polar Army by posting pictures and paintings of polar bears.

“I first learned about global warming about a year ago. I was in school and I found out by 2040, all the world’s sea ice will disappear. By 2050, we could actually lose two-thirds of polar bears, and that just really bothered me,” Bryce said.

Founded by 11 year old, Bryce Madder, Polar Army is an educational Non-Profit Company for kids dedicated to saving polar bears. Polar Army aims to educate children about global warming, its impact on the Arctic, and ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. It does this through a global art initiative, youth ambassador program, school partnerships, brand/corporate sponsors, and business collaborations.

Founded by 11 year old, Bryce Madder, Polar Army is an educational Non-Profit Company for kids dedicated to saving polar bears. Polar Army aims to educate children about global warming, its impact on the Arctic, and ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. It does this through a global art initiative, youth ambassador program, school partnerships, brand/corporate sponsors, and business collaborations.

Boy starts site to teach other kids about global warming

http://woodtv.com/2016/09/26/boy-starts-site-to-teach-other-kids-about-global-warming/

 …

Want to Slow Climate Change? Stop Having Babies, Bioethicist Travis Rieder Says

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-23/want-to-slow-climate-change-stop-having-babies-bioethicist-travis-rieder-says

Carbon dioxide doesn’t kill climates; people do. And the world would be better off with fewer of them.

That’s a glib summary of a serious and seriously provocative book by Travis Rieder, a moral philosophy professor and bioethicist at Johns Hopkins University.

When economists write about climate change, they’ll often bring up something called the Kaya identity—basically a multiplication problem (not an espionage novel) that helps economists estimate how much carbon dioxide may be heading into the atmosphere. The Kaya identity says the pace of climate pollution is more or less the product four things:

  • How carbon-heavy fuels are
  • How much energy the economy needs to produce GDP
  • GDP per capita
  • Population

After years of policymakers’ yammering about carbon-light or carbon-free this-or-that, Rieder basically zeroes in on the fact nobody wants to acknowledge: The number of people in the world—particularly in affluent countries—is literally a part of the equation.

Think of Rieder’s as the argument waiting in the wings should the 195-nation Paris Agreement, which came within a shade of enactment this week, fail to address the problem.

An edited interview transcript of an interview with him follows.

Q: So. What seems to be the problem?

A: There are 19 million adoptable orphans, and there’s catastrophic climate change on the horizon. Contributing a child to the world both makes climate change worse and, if we don’t get our act together, it might actually not be all that great for the child either.

You have two tracks. You could say climate change is a big structural problem, so it requires a structural solution; that’s a policy question. Or you could say a problem like climate change requires that we change our culture of individual obligation, and everybody needs to think about having small families.

Q: That seems like a pretty heavy ask. People don’t even want to think about having small bags of movie popcorn.

A: Well, the argument goes like this: Okay, humans have shown me that they’re just not willing to give up their toys. And so we need another option on the table. You want to continue to live in your 10,000-square-foot house? You know, fly private jets around, and that kind of thing? Well, that would mean a lot fewer people on the Earth.…

Bioethicist: The climate crisis calls for fewer children

Bioethicist: The climate crisis calls for fewer children

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3468351/posts

NPR correspondent Jennifer Ludden profiled some of my work in procreative ethics with an article entitled, “Should we be having kids in the age of climate change?,” which summarized my published views that we ought to consider adopting a “small family ethic” and even pursuing fertility reduction efforts in response to the threat from climate change. … Perhaps many of us in rich countries (the “us” who might be reading this) will be largely protected from these early harms; but that doesn’t make them less real to the vulnerable citizens of, say, Bangladesh, Kiribati or the Maldives. In fact, it…

— gReader Pro…

Update: University official wants answers on whether climate professors are ‘indoctrinating’ students

– The Washington Times – Thursday, September 1, 2016

DENVER — The University of Colorado professors who shut down climate change debate in class have landed on the radar of a top school official, who says he wants to make sure students are being “educated, not indoctrinated.”

John Carson, a member of the University of Colorado Board of Regents, said he plans to make inquires Thursday about an email from three University of Colorado at Colorado Springs professors who advised students to drop the class if they dispute climate change.

“I have a lot of questions after reading this reported email sent to students,” Mr. Carson told The Washington Times. “We should be encouraging debate and dialogue at the university, not discouraging or forbidding it. Students deserve more respect than this. They come to the university to be educated, not indoctrinated.”

He said several constituents asked him Wednesday about reports on the email, in which professors told students that the course would be based on “the scientific premise that human induced climate change is valid and occurring,” and that anyone disputing that premise may want to drop out.

Colorado Springs instructors ban discussions on the climate, even in students’ leisure time

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/LuboMotlsReferenceFrame/~3/DG-1Mgvi1UI/notre-dame-instructors-ban-discussions.html

And my worries about these students are perhaps even greater. We read:

The professors also note this ban on debate extends to discussion among students in the online forums. Moreover, students who choose to use outside sources for research during their time in the course may select only those that have been peer-reviewed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the email states.

Do the instructors ban the students’ discussions about particular topics in the online forums? What? The activity of the students outside the classroom or the campus is absolutely not the instructors’ business. If a student learns enough and fulfills the requirements in the classroom, he may very well be computing statistics for ATLAS at the LHC in her spare time, and perform human sacrifices in front of God Shiva, too. 

Moreover, online discussions are clearly much more vital for the intellectual growth of the modern students than the human sacrifices to God Shiva. To prevent students from discussions conflicts with one of the basic values that the scholarly environment should be all about.

The attitudes of these three women are a textbook example of the reasons why the environmentalism is counted among one of the big totalitarian ideologies of the present. These totalitarian ideologies demand a 100% (total) political agreement with the “leaders” in the classroom – and in 100% (total) of the affected people’s lives out of the classroom, too.

Incidentally, the remark that they only allow papers approved by the IPCC is “cute”, too. And the formulation about “papers peer-reviewed by the IPCC” shows that these ladies don’t know what they’re talking about even from the viewpoint of informed fans of the IPCC. As every person who understands the words a little bit knows, the IPCC has never done anything that could be called peer review. The IPCC is/was only supposed to develop their assessmentsbased on the basis of (previously) peer-reviewed literature. They actually claim to simply adopt and present the collective verdicts by the body of the peer reviewers who did their work before the IPCC worked on those topics. The IPCC officially does no original research and no original reviews – this claim of theirs is really a necessary condition for them to pretend that they’re not acting as a transparently biased Inquisition-like filter distorting the scientific literature. Of course, they are distorting the literature, anyway, but the IPCC fans aren’t

Professors tell students: Drop class if you dispute man-made climate change

CensoredGlobalWarming.BrettTatman‘We will not, at any time, debate the science of climate change’Three professors co-teaching an online course called “Medical Humanities in the Digital Age” at the University of Colorado-Colorado Springs recently told their students via email that man-made climate change is not open for debate, and those who think otherwise have no place in their course.

“The point of departure for this course is based on the scientific premise that human induced climate change is valid and occurring. We will not, at any time, debate the science of climate change, nor will the ‘other side’ of the climate change debate be taught or discussed in this course,” states the email, a copy of which was provided to The College Fix by a student in the course.

Signed by the course’s professors Rebecca Laroche, Wendy Haggren and Eileen Skahill, it was sent after several students expressed concern for their success in the course after watching the first online lecture about the impacts of climate change.

“Opening up a debate that 98% of climate scientists unequivocally agree to be a non-debate would detract from the central concerns of environment and health addressed in this course,” the professors’ email continued.

“… If you believe this premise to be an issue for you, we respectfully ask that you do not take this course, as there are options within the Humanities program for face to face this semester and online next.”

The professors also note this ban on debate extends to discussion among students in the online forums. Moreover, students who choose to use outside sources for research during their time in the course may select only those that have been peer-reviewed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the email states.

EmailUCCS

Professors Laroche, Skahill, and Haggren did not respond to email inquiries from The College Fix seeking further comment on their email or their stance on debate in their online class.

The University Communications Director Tom Hutton told The College Fix via email that “Humanities 3990 is a special topics course with multiple choices for students to take when fulfilling requirements.”

“By clearly stating the class focus,” he continued, “the faculty are allowing students to choose if they wish to enroll in the course or seek an alternative. Additionally, the faculty who are leading the course have

‘Have More Kids. It’s Good For the Planet’

What can we do? Well, Rieder says, “Here’s a provocative thought: Maybe we should protect our kids by not having them.”

The idea that we should have fewer children to save the planet hasn’t been provocative in about 50 years. It would take these students five minutes of Googling to understand that doomsayers have been ignoring human nature and ingenuity since the 18th century, at least.

They might read about Paul Ehrlich and our “science czar” John Holdren, who co-authored a 1977 book suggesting mass sterilizations and forced abortions to save the world. (We’re decades past the expiration date.); or about Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who not long said that she always assumed Roe v. Wade was “about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” Did she mean poor people? Did she mean people who recklessly use air conditioners? It’s still a mystery.…