More data points

What could be motives for perpetuating global climate change myths?

Speaker of the House Pelosi and Treasury Secretary Paulson both have huge investments in alternative energy. This represents a legitimate conflict of interest which should prevent either from making energy policy. They should both recuse themselves from any energy policy decisions - but this assumes they are honorable and recognize their roles as public servants.

With CO2 considered a pollutant, our government now has "justification" to tax our every breath! Yes - Americans must DIE to save the planet (or at least pay their "fair share")!

More resources for climate change "critical thinking" coursework:
NASA is constantly massaging their data. These massages are being tracked here: http://www.climateaudit.org/

Global warming taught as fact at Challenger Middle School

I recently had a discussion with Challenger Middle School principal Tony Scott regarding one of their "critical thinking" modules presented to 7th graders in reading class on Global Climate Change.

The last homework assignment in that class had students logging into the website http://www.zerofootprintkids.com to calculate their "carbon footprint".

I cant help but believe that this was an intentional attempt to indoctrinate our kids that climate change is caused by man. According to my student, the word "theory" was never mentioned in class.

I immediately emailed a CEASE and DESIST order to Dr Hatchell, Mr Scott, and Mrs Oltrogge the reading teacher. Having learned that the UN has OK'd China's request to sell aborted children as carbon credits - and that this is a provision in the next Kyoto accord - which apparently now has Obama's support - I objected on religious, moral, and ethical grounds to our schools teaching that children must die to save the trees.

What are the consequences of teaching this message to our children? What is the good in questioning whether they bring lunch in a paper sack, or how many cans of pop they open?

Indeed the District's own policy INB[6192] on presenting controversial subject matter states: "The teacher has the responsibility to be objective and present all sides of an issue."

Clearly, even to the most casual observer, that website fails to be objective, fails to present truth, and is insufficient for teaching a course in critical thinking. The fact that that was the only website visited during the module is equally maddening. My attempt to present evidence to the contrary - or to get her to present it - was resisted, and I now have reservations about the critical thinking skills both presented in her class, and exemplified by her. I already know these skills are non-existent (or at least well hidden) at NOAA and CIRES - everyone knows by now they only publicize what will keep the government funding spicket open. They exist to perpetuate this global warming myth.

So I left Mr Scott with the most impressive "packet" I found on the subject. It is a speech given on the Senate floor back in 2006 by the chairman of the US Senate select committee on the Environment. If you have the slightest doubt about man's contribution to climate change- READ THIS DOCUMENT! http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

My hope now is that other parents get wise to this attempt at indoctrination.

Clearly the District's policy lacks enforcement.