Scholars: Campus ‘Sustainability’ Indoctrinates College Students | The Daily Caller

Scholars: Campus ‘Sustainability’ Indoctrinates College Students | The Daily Caller.

Scholars: Campus ‘Sustainability’ Indoctrinates College Students

Ginni Thomas
Contributor

Last March, the National Association of Scholars issued a groundbreaking report causing a splash on campuses and within the progressive movement.

Sustainability: Higher Education’s New Fundamentalism” is a comprehensive expose of an ominous grab bag of progressive ideological causes bleeding into more and more college courses. Rachelle Peterson, one of the study’s authors, was surprised to find “how well sustainability was entrenched in the college curriculum — not just in sustainability courses, but in English and history classes.”

The reports’ authors, Peter Wood, the president of NAS, and Peterson, say most people mistakenly believe sustainability is about global warming or a benign form of environmentalism.

Yet, the report and this exclusive 39 minute video interview, expose how progressive activists are swallowing up a host of issues — including gay marriage, raising the minimum wage, #BlackLivesMatter and ending capitalism — as being within the “sustainability” umbrella. NAS’s report details “an ideology that demands new limits on economic, political and intellectual freedom as the price that must be paid to ensure the welfare of future generations.”

To NAS, the whole movement embodies a menacing shift from the very purpose of higher education – that of pursuing truth and offering a forum for freedom of expression. Although the report takes no position on the science of global warming, Wood believes “there’s something amiss when the university turns itself into a source of doctrine rather than a source of inquiry.”

NAS has labeled sustainability as the “new fundamentalism, because it is a movement that brooks no doubts about the truth of its basic propositions.” In fact, Peter Wood reminds us that instead of welcoming substantive challenge, the loaded and offensive term of “denier” is widely thrown at any who dissent from the orthodoxy of sustainability.

Using fear and intimidation to silence dissent is a red flag, according to Wood.

Wood explains how the elite decided they wanted “to make it look like a student movement, but it isn’t really.”

Starting with a 1986 United Nations report, Wood says the UN and the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued five apocalyptic reports on the topic as “the drum major.” The unfortunate problem, he says, is that “for the last 18 years, there has been no measurable global warming, unless you really play havoc with the way the data is collected or reported.”

But, Wood says, “this has not stopped the movement from welding itself to the idea of imminent catastrophe.”

The report details the beginning of this manipulative campaign with “a couple, a summit and a new idea.” The “couple” is John Kerry and Teresa Heinz, who went to the 1992 UN Summit and returned with a sweeping cultural project. Knowing campuses are hotbeds of activism and cultural change, the report exposes Kerry/Heinz plan to launch the sustainability movement throughout college campuses with a new organization, Second Nature.

This organization is the home of a public pledge, now signed by 695 college presidents, who promise to promote sustainability in a host of manners with students, professors and administration of colleges.

Colleges were incentivized to buy into this ideological fad, a fad that happens to promote cultural Marxist theories the United Nations wants the West to adopt to “save the world.”

Surprised at the dearth of information on costs and benefits to sustainability projects on campuses, NAS did a comprehensive case study of how Middlebury College spends money on sustainability. They detail how the college spends $4.9 million a year on sustainability. The report projects that, if all those campuses who have pledged to sustainability with Second Nature, the national cost to these campuses would be at least $3.4 billion a year – all with questionable results.

Asked what the stakes are, Wood says, we can see it in our politics today. Obama’s appeal for expanded regulatory authority to address global warming assumes the support from these same college students who are embracing the sustainability campaign. NAS worries that America’s youth are being “nudged” to think exclusively within this set of doctrines, without demanding evidence or rigorous inquiry.

Wood notes that in light of the EPA’s Colorado River disaster, sustainability is “diverting from real problems to fantasy problems.”

The reaction to the NAS report of raising the alarm has been one of relief since “the political and intellectual class has been virtually silent” about the ominous signs of this sustainability movement, Wood says.

As for who is leading the sustainability movement, the authors highlight two individuals. One is the controversial activist and Middlebury College professor Bill McKibbon. His entity, 350.org, according to Wood, is behind the divestment from fossil fuel movement that 37 colleges and universities have agreed to already.

Also discussed by Ms. Peterson is Naomi Klein, a former union activist. Klein promotes radical ideas to reshape our society and the economy in her book, “This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate.”

Peter Wood, an anthropologist, has been president of the NAS for the last eight years. Rachelle Peterson, his co-author recently graduated from King’s College and is a NAS research associate.

For more on NAS, go to their website here. In October, another related report on the divestment campaign being waged across the nation will be issued by NAS by Peterson. She also wrote this New York Times op-ed on the subject recently.

Mrs. Thomas does not necessarily support or endorse the products, services or positions promoted in any advertisement contained herein, and does not have control over or receive compensation from any advertiser.

Advertisements

Scientist Confesses: “Global Warming a $22 Billion Scam” – Conservative Byte

Scientist Confesses: “Global Warming a $22 Billion Scam” – Conservative Byte.

image: http://conservbyte.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/GlobalWarmingScam-300×204.jpg

GlobalWarmingScam

This is a very comprehensive article. The facts are amazing. Liberals love to control their subjects by any means necessary.
Check it out:

Imagine, for a moment, sitting at a prestigious steakhouse in Palm Beach, Florida, a hot spot for some of the most wealthy and famous — Donald Trump, Tiger Woods, Oprah Winfrey, James Patterson, Rush Limbaugh, and hundreds more.

And, imagine dining with a handful of men you’ve only read about. Some of them are worth millions, others published best-selling books, and some have held prominent positions at the White House.

In essence, you’re sitting at a five-person table of VIPs.

You’re about to take a bite of your New York strip when one of the men, a top U.S. intelligence agent, slams a 164-page document in the middle of the table.

This document, you soon find out, contains damning evidence that a network of politicians, corporations, and scientists have conspired together to promote the fear of “global warming” . . . despite evidence clearly stating no such “global warming” exists.

The motive: $22 billion per year.

To be clear . . . that’s $22 billion of taxpayers’ money . . . the amount that our government pays to stop the “global warming” epidemic.

Continue Reading on www.newsmax.com

Read more at http://conservativebyte.com/2015/03/scientist-confesses-global-warming-a-22-billion-scam/

‘Global Warming’ Biggest Science Scandal Ever – Conservative Byte

‘Global Warming’ Biggest Science Scandal Ever – Conservative Byte.

image: http://conservbyte.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/bear_3191458b-300×204.jpg

bear_3191458b

False data has been given over and over again so that funding will continue. Liberals love this since they can than control the lives of people.
Check it out:

When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.

Two weeks ago, under the headline “How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming”, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming.

This was only the latest of many examples of a practice long recognised by expert observers around the world – one that raises an ever larger question mark over the entire official surface-temperature record.

Continue Reading on www.telegraph.co.uk

Read more at http://conservativebyte.com/2015/02/global-warming-biggest-science-scandal-ever/

1 year from now, freedom dies worldwide

1 year from now, freedom dies worldwide.

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger

After the usual impeccably choreographed all-night “negotiation,” delegates of almost 200 nations at the latest annual U.N. climate yak-fest – this time in Lima, Peru – reached the usual agreement not to agree on anything except that the process by which they profit must continue.

Not one delegate made any mention of the fact that every single one of the mad scientists’ predictions about the global warming and consequent planetary doom has failed to happen.

Notwithstanding record increases in CO2 concentration, global temperature has stubbornly failed to rise at all for 18 years, two months and counting.

The rate of warming in the 25 years since the first report on the subject in 1990 by the U.N.’s climate panel has been less than half what its useless computer models then predicted.

Sea level is not really rising at all. Global sea ice is at a record high extent. There have been fewer tornadoes in the U.S. in the past three years than since records began. The area of the world under drought has fallen for 30 years. There is no increase in the intensity, frequency or duration of flooding, nor in tropical cyclones, nor in hurricanes, nor in typhoons.

In short, the climate is behaving much as usual. As many records for extreme cold are being set as for extreme heat. Not so long ago, for the first time in recorded history, all 50 states of the U.S. – including Hawaii – had snow on the ground at least somewhere.

Not one of these inconvenient truths has been uttered by any of the national negotiating delegates. They are locked in a time warp, isolated from all reality. And the cost is staggering.

Even Australia – whose prime minister has rightly described catastrophic manmade global warming as “cr-p” – has donated $200 million to a U.N. slush fund, the “Green Climate Fund,” which will make the bureaucrats rich and the rest of us poor.

For and on behalf of the bankrupt United Kingdom, the Children’s Coalition has pledged $1.1 billion to the same slush fund.

The United States is spending hundreds of billions on making non-existent global warming go away.

Why?

As Ayn Rand foresaw in her towering philosophical novel, “Atlas Shrugged,”the “looters,” as she so aptly described the rapacious left, would strive and strive until they had robbed almost all of us of our ability to think.

Independent thought would be banned. Adherence to the party line would be mandatory. Anyone who thought for himself would become an outcast and would eventually be punished and, if possible, killed.

The truth is that the state-run schools are places not of thought but of indoctrination. Once upon a time, everyone who aspired to a higher education would be taught first grammar, then logic, then rhetoric, so that he could not be easily fooled.

Not anymore. However fancy and expensive the “education” received by the useless negotiators in Lima, not one of them has been taught how to think. Otherwise, surely someone would have broken ranks, firmly, and spoken up as I did at the Doha climate conference two years ago.

I pointed out, mildly, that there had been no global warming for 16 years.

Was there an outburst of spontaneous cheering at the news that there is no climate “crisis” after all? No. Instead, I was booed and jeered at and banned for life.

Why?

No one wants his gravy train tipped into the gulch. That’s why. Also, the delegates were afraid – afraid of someone who, in a dictatorship, was willing to speak out and tell the truth, knowing that there was a risk he could end up in jail.

The forces of darkness, however much they lie, however much they sneer at those of us who tell the truth, are more terrified of the truth than of anything else.

In their consciences (for they still have them, deeply buried somewhere), they know the truth. They know that the money they are squandering to enrich the U.N. and its pampered Fauntleroys should really be spent on electrifying Africa, India and China. That would do more for the global environment than anything.

But no. They will not do the obvious until everything more profitable to them has been tried.

I have already noted in this column the paramount importance of ensuring the inclusion in the Paris Treaty next December of a get-out clause allowing any nation to resile from its obligations on giving a few months’ notice.

I now propose a further modest measure, which you may like to draw to the attention of your senators (without a two-thirds majority of whom no treaty can bind the United States).

All obligations under the Paris Treaty should lapse if at any time at least three of the five principal global-temperature datasets (HadCRUT, GISS, NCDC, RSS and UAH) show no global warming for at least 20 years.

At present, the RSS dataset shows no warming for 18 years and two months. The others would have shown no warming for 14 years, but the three terrestrial datasets have been tampered with this year to show more warming than has actually happened. However, there is a limit to the possibility of tampering, because the satellites of RSS and UAH are watching.

In the Scottish Parliament a couple of days ago, I asked three representatives of the “renewable-electricity” lobby what contingency plans they had if there was not a lot more global warming.

One looked me in the eye and said that his organization – a consultancy group – maintained a business-as-usual scenario in its modeling. The other two would not look me in the eye. Instead, each of them made a declaration of faith in the new religion and in the holy books of IPeCaC. I was sharp with the pair of them.

We must now make the unthinking governing class aware of its obligation to require the modelers to model the possibility of little or no further global warming. By this gentle step, we shall hope to bring our rulers back to sanity on this question.

In the meantime, 60 percent of Scotland’s once-beautiful landscape now has wind farms on it. Tourism is likely to collapse if this goes on. Even in my beloved Rannoch, which has been spared the attentions of the racketeers so far, there will soon be windmills many hundreds of feet high.

I have told the chairman of the Renewables Committee of the Scottish Parliament that I should like to address it and let it hear the other side of the case. He did not seem keen. For our biggest problem from now on will be to convince the global governing class to admit it was wrong and change its mind, before any more trillions are squandered.

And that won’t be easy. For governments can never be wrong, and global tyranny – which is what we’ll get if we don’t look sharp in the next 12 months – will always have the power to force us to accept that it is right, whether we like it or not.

Freedom is our birthright. The forthcoming climate treaty – if the failed Copenhagen draft of five years ago is any guide – may yet prove a greater threat to liberty than fascism or communism. For it is the same threat writ global, albeit with the jackboots and guns very carefully hidden – for now.

Media wishing to interview Christopher Monckton, please contact media@wnd.com.

Receive Lord Christopher Monckton’s commentaries in your email

BONUS: By signing up for Lord Christopher Monckton’s alerts, you will also be signed up for news and special offers from WND via email.

  • Name*
    FirstLast
  • Email*
    Where we will email your daily updates
  • Postal code*
    A valid zip code or postal code is required
  • Click the button below to sign up for Lord Christopher Monckton’s commentaries by email, and keep up to date with special offers from WND. You may change your email preferences at any time.
  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/12/1-year-from-now-freedom-dies-worldwide/#w5qtR85235dZx8UT.99

Why Does Washington Want to Hide Science Data From the Public?

Why Does Washington Want to Hide Science Data From the Public?.

 

When federal bureaucrats drive up costs for American families and businesses through heavy-handed regulation, it shouldn’t be too much to ask for a solid scientific underpinning for that regulation.  And it shouldn’t be too big of a burden for the federal government to make its data available to the public.  Congressman David Schweikert’s, R-Ariz., Secret Science Reform Act (HR 4012) would address this.

HR 4012 would force the Environmental Protection Agency to disclose all scientific and technical information before proposing or finalizing any regulation.  Doing so would allow for independent analysis and allow qualified experts to reproduce the results.  The public would have access to the data, computer codes and models, as well as descriptions as to how to use and run the data. The legislation would be an important check on an agency running rogue and landing punch after punch to the American economy.

Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, chair of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, wrote in the Wall Street Journal that he “received a letter of support for the Secret Science Reform Act that was signed by more than 80 scientists, including physicians and professors of environmental science, physics, statistics, economics and engineering.” He added:

Subscribe to updates and alerts

The signatories included George Wolff, former chair of the EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee in the Clinton administration, and Forrest J. Remick, former commissioner of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the George H.W. Bush administration. They wrote that the bill would ‘make the agency’s regulations more accountable, credible and enforceable‘ and that its transparency requirements ’can be accomplished without imposing unnecessary burdens, discouraging research or raising confidentiality concerns.’

The federal government has been blazing a regulatory trail that significantly increases the compliance costs for businesses. Those businesses then in turn pass those costs onto families.  If a company absorbs the costs, it will prevent them from investing, innovating and employing.

You might be thinking: The environmental benefits we receive through cleaner air justify the massive costs imposed on our economy. But that’s not the case.

The fact is that federal bureaucrats are regulating all aspects of the economy at extreme costs where the marginal benefits are almost nil. At the heart of this matter is Particulate Matter or PM 2.5. According to a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee minority report, “up to 80 percent of the benefits associated with all federal regulations are attributed to supposed PM2.5 reductions.”

To illustrate how this works, consider the Environmental Protection Agency’s mercury air and toxic rule. The EPA claims that the mercury air and toxics rule would produce $53 billion to $140 billion in annual health and environmental benefits. But the agency vastly overstates the environmental benefits by including estimated benefits from reducing particulates already covered by existing regulations.  Not including these particulates lowers the projected benefit to only $6 million, at most. In other words, these co-benefits account for 99.996 percent of the agency’s estimated benefits – much of that being PM2.5 co-benefits.

Here’s where the secret science comes in.  The two studies that represent the scientific foundation  for 1997 ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards are highly questionable and the data concealed, even though the studies were paid for by federal taxpayers and thus should be public property.   Because the data is unavailable to the public, the two studies used to justify the federal government’s regulatory ambush have never been reproduced, independently verified or validated in any way.  In fact, even without the data available, the studies have come under intense criticism.

Opponents of HR4012 label the bill as anti-science and a roadblock for the agency.  But the reality is the bill is simply anti-secret science.  Is that too much to ask for from a taxpayer-funded agency?

Furthermore, a roadblock is just what this agency needs to prevent bureaucrats from unjustifiably extracting trillions out of the American economy and destroying millions of jobs for no meaningful environmental benefit.

In March 2009, President Obama released a White House memo stressing that “the public must be able to trust the science and scientific process informing public policy decisions. Political officials should not suppress or alter scientific or technological findings and conclusions.”   If that’s the case, the administration should welcome an opportunity to give the public access to the science and data to ensure politicians aren’t altering the outcomes.