Global Warming: Utah Students Should Be Taught Science, Not Propaganda

I completely agree with the Salt Lake Tribune editorial staff. Our children should be taught in school about global warming.

Okay...well...I don't completely agree with them. For starters, I think they should be taught the truth about global warming. And I just found out that, based on my opinion of global warming, the SL Trib editorial board thinks I'm an "obtuse naysayer". Oh! Ouch!

Have the Brits become smarter than their progeny who declared independence from them 232 years ago? It would seem so. At least they can recognize a crock when they see it. Caught up in a religious fervor, however, the Salt Lake Tribune editorial staff has revealed one of its interesting blind spots. You see, with 90% surety, they are absolutely positive that the theory of man-made global warming is
an issue of science, and, as far as the vast majority of legitimate scientists are concerned, it is settled science.
Crock alert!

Show me one--seriously--one scientist who says that the issue is settled? No one in the science field is as positive as the Salt Lake Tribune that "human production of carbon emissions" is a significant cause of climate change or "that there is [a] looming crisis".

When the Brits smelled a rat, they did something about it. They required that the faux documentary Incovenient Truth by Al Gore be offset by statements of truth when shown to their school children.

But the Salt Lake Tribune wants to force it down our children's throats--lock, stock, and barrel. At least the Trib had the courtesy to publish a news story about some of us "obtuse...naysayers"!! In the next breath, however, they lambaste the lot of us.
Some of these parents call the issue "political" or "religious."
Well, duh! I have two questions:
  • (1) First, a political one: Who would be out of a job if they told the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that man is not affecting climate change?
  • (2) Now, a religious one: What do you call it when someone has blind faith in something that has more evidence against it than for it?
The Tribune steps further into a sticky wicket of their own making when they discuss the potential source of "economic chaos":
The children being taught in Utah schools today will have to deal with the hunger, displacement and economic chaos that are inevitable if Earth's growing population doesn't act quickly to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
How everyone and their dogs isn't howling that that emperor has no clothes is beyond me. Note to the Tribune: there already is far too much hunger, displacement, and economic chaos! The only way that millions of third world people will ever get out of their current economic chaos is if they don't get further burdened by the regulations inherent in the combating the fictitious man-made global warming slash government enhancement crisis.

So yes, our children should be taught about global warming. But they should be taught the truth. First of all, we don't know the effect of man's actions on global warming, as much as we religiously would like to. Second of all, there are a lot of other actors that have a great deal of influence on the warming of the globe, such as the sun, the clouds, volcanoes, and the ocean.

All in all, it would be a travesty if the Utah Public School system took the Salt Lake Tribune Editorial Board's advice on how to teach global warming.


  1. Global Warming is yet another cog in the Eugenics machine being propagated by leftist fascists. Developing countries are being forced to slow economic progress in the name of climate change, which will mean more poverty and more deaths and lower life spans.

  2. Proud to be an "obtuse naysayer"

  3. Ken,

    As I was thinking about what I had written here last night, I realized that I had missed an important point. Thank you for raising it:

    "Developing countries are being forced to slow economic progress in the name of climate change, which will mean more poverty and more deaths and lower life spans."


    Frank Staheli
    President, Obtuse Naysayers Organization (ONO!)

  4. At least the pious global warmist folks at the Trib stopped short of calling for heretics like you to be locked away or burned at the stake. Maybe they'll roll out their version of the Spanish Inquisition before long the the cry, "Covert or die, you infidel blasphemer!"

  5. Where can I sign up for membership in the ONO?

  6. I say let them do this, then we can give vouchers another shot. We'd probably gain at least a few points in the next referendum.

  7. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquistion!

  8. Sorry boys but the Trib has it right. Someone did a 10 year survey of the journal 'Science' and looked at nearly a thousand articles. Not a single scientist dismissed anthropogenic contributions to global warming.

    Regrettably, I will be with you in this hell cooking with all you right wing naysayers.

    Al Gore got it pretty close according to most scientists except the connection to hurricanes. That was his weakest argument.

    One theory for green house gasses has been the flatulence of the Bush Cheney Exxon regime we have had to endure for the past 7-1/2 years.

    Enjoy the more extreme weather...

  9. Frank,

    Explain to my how the self-certainty you write with in this post is any different than what you read in the Trib?

  10. WP,

    I hope you're not implying that I don't think man has any contribution to global warming--I do think man does. How could we not? What none of these scientists state is their certainty that man's contribution is overwhelming--they only worry so. I hope you would agree that 10 years of Science magazine's statements that man contributes to global warming is NO refutation of anything I have said here.


    My only certainty is that no one has claimed for a certainty the things that the Salt Lake Tribune is certain we need to teach our children. I'm willing to believe it when there is certainty.

    What is clear is that it would take behemoth government, loss of freedom, and loss of economic prosperity for a lot of people in order to get this supposed crisis under control. I give it as my opinion (although I am not certain) that this is the underlying aim of the entire man-man global warming faux crisis--bigger government--despite the good intentions of many scientists who want to avert possible catastrophe and the many people who want to believe that a catastrophe is imminent.

  11. My only point, Frank, is that the way this post is worded, you have not elevated the dialog above what you object to in the Trib.

    As to the issue itself, what do you say to someone like me who does not "want to believe disaster is imminent" (as you put it), but rather that knowing the science is unconfirmed on either side of the issue, while remaining aware that when it comes to something as all encompassing as the global climate, we do not have time to wait for empirical data?

    What do you say to someone like myself that believes and intelligent species would err on the side of caution by taking action, as this happens to be an issue we won't have the chance to say "oops, my bad!" if it turns out we should have listened?

    Minds are never changed on this issue. Too often we make our decision and then go find supporting information, and I believe that is what this post exemplifies.

    Ideological changes to the way we live and look at the world are always met with skepticism, and historically there are lunatics on both sides of the debate in any paradigm shift.

    Regardless, a rational, thinking approach to any decision is to consider the economic pros and cons of action versus inaction.

    Even if it would have devastating economic effects, those would be greatly outweighed by the effect global warming would have on mere survival, should Al Gore turn out to be onto something.

    And that is the only indisputable fact of this debate. Choosing either path would involve a risk and a leap of faith. Which route portents the most irreversible cost for error in reasoning? Economies bounce back much more quickly than habitats and extinction of species.

    So while I cannot seem to find data on either side that convinces me, I feel there is still a better course of action "just in case," if you will. And I want to agree when someone writes a post as you've written here, but far too often they write it just as you have; using the same false certainty and lack of MUTUAL skepticism for ALL SIDES of the issue when empirical data is lacking.

    You do not convey such equality in uncertainty with your words here.

  12. Jason,

    It sounds like we're closer to agreement than we might think. Each time I rant about this issue, it seems like your comments remind me to tone it down a bit. I think the reason I get so angry is because I can see what the political results will be if everyone decides we need to be convinced that there is a problem.

    I agree with several statements in your last comment. For example:

    "Choosing either path would involve a risk and a leap of faith"

    True. However, there IS empirical evidence that the globe has warmed and cooled over the centuries, and man had little to do with it in the past.

    Another example:

    "there are lunatics on both sides of the debate in any paradigm shift."

    You're right. I hope I don't sound like one, but what I am certain of is a huge loss in standard of living for nearly everyone (the elite will make it through just fine, though) if government takes control of this situation.


    "I cannot seem to find data on either side that convinces me"

    You may be surprised, but I agree with this one, too. Man may be having a significant effect on global warming, but for now, the fact that there is no evidence in favor makes me worry that we're rushing pell mell to take away rights in order to solve a problem that may not even exist.

    If there becomes evidence that there is a problem, I can and will change my mind. In the meantime, I support stewardship of the earth and anything we can do to clean up the environment.

  13. Frank

    That is exactly how I feel about it too. Global warming is less about the environment and more about politics. I think it will ultimately hurt the environment because the money we pour into it the less real environmental problems are addressed.

  14. I'm collecting credible articles, on both sides of the argument, about climate change. I've collected quite a few articles and am still looking for more. For those interested, click here.


Post a Comment

Thank you for commenting. If you have a Google/Blogger account, to be apprised of ongoing comment activity on this article, please click the "Subscribe" link below.

Popular posts from this blog