Climate Change Wars Coming to Virginia Schools?

You have to click on the illustration and expand it to even see the percentage of carbon dioxide from human activity in our atmosphere. A new lesson plan in waiting?

By Steve Haner

Young Virginians are not getting enough instruction on the deadly existential threat of climate change from the news media, their favorite social media sites, Hollywood productions and President Joe Biden’s campaign stump speeches. Virginia’s General Assembly Democrats are demanding that the public schools double down with a wave of new classroom materials.

The curriculum wars at the State Board of Education and in local school board meetings may now move on to a new topic if Governor Glenn Youngkin (R) signs House Bill 1088. The bill is ripe for a veto, having received support from only one Republican legislator out of 68, but after the first 100 or so vetoes, Youngkin’s veto pen may tire.

Should he sign the bill, do not assume the process will go as the patron (Delegate Betsy Carr, D-Richmond) intends. In fact, if the bill is followed to the letter, the resulting materials probably will not be to her liking. The text is short:

A. The Board shall make available to each local school board instructional materials on climate change and environmental literacy that are based on and include peer-reviewed scientific sources.

B. The Board shall develop, adopt, and make available to each local school board model policies and procedures, based on peer-reviewed scientific sources, pertaining to the selection of instructional materials on climate change and environmental literacy, including a requirement for any such selected material to accurately portray changes in weather and climate patterns over time, the impacts of human activity on changes in weather and climate patterns, and the effects of climate change on people and resources.

Any materials that “accurately portray changes in weather and climate patterns over time” will contradict the alarmist narrative of dramatic and dangerous warming. Likewise, the hard data will not demonstrate detrimental effects on people or resources, because nothing much is going on. All the scary media and political narratives of future flood, famine and fire are based on mathematical models packed with assumptions and cherry-picked data, and are rank with uncertainty.

If the state curriculum writers want to stick to “peer-reviewed” sources, here are 1,000 examples which come to this or that conclusion which undermines the alarmist scaremongering. That list is seven years old, so there must be more now. If this bill is law, we’ll find more and provide them to the curriculum writers. The biggest lie of all (and that is saying something) is the claim that “the science is settled” despite ongoing vigorous debate.

Frankly, the best reason to veto the bill is redundancy. Virginia has long had science Standards of Learning that deal with earth science, physics, chemistry and biology, and any other discipline involved in trying to understand short-term weather or long-term climate. More to the point, the Department of Education is already engaged this year in the periodic review and update of the general science SOLs. This would duplicate that effort.

In general, based on a review of the existing SOLs shared by a physicist involved in North Carolina’s standards, the 2018 version is fairly neutral and has a focus on the scientific method. But a closer look is now in order thanks to that bill, to prevent any deterioration resulting from the revisions. A public comment period is already underway.

As to the materials, the state has an online resource for classroom lesson plans already, and any and all topics that cause climate alarmists to swoon can be found there. Concerns about human-caused, detrimental changes to the earth’s climate are a common thread already. Had there been no bill, it might not have been noticed.

Search the term “climate change” and you get 427 results. Search “extreme weather” and you get ten. Carbon dioxide produces 124, the ones on the top of the list about its rising atmospheric concentration, not its chemical properties and certainly not its beneficial effects. Glacier melt, increasing hurricane intensity, sea level rise – all the topics pop up with lesson plans that should satisfy the alarmists.

Many come from one source, the Climate Literacy and Energy Awareness Network, located on the Colorado University campus in Boulder. It has almost 200 lesson plans on that state database, but when a topic is searched, CLEAN’s materials often appear early-on (an algorithm?).  Seven of the first 20 lessons on CO2, for example, were from CLEAN. So were the first six when you search “sea level rise.”

The very existence of such an organized, professional effort to infuse a particular point of view into every possible school across the United States is a sign of how serious these advocates are. The myth is that those who challenge the “world is ending” narrative are better funded and organized, but after years on the edges of that movement, trust me, they are not.

A lesson plan from another source, dissected on wattsupwiththat.com by an author I know, covers the claimed issue of “ocean acidification.” Kip Hansen gets deep in the chemistry weeds and reports that the notes for the teachers have some balance, but the classroom lesson itself will end up “tricking the students” into believing the ocean is in crisis.

This new bill provides incentive to gear up and insist both on some balance and a truly scientific approach that puts data over “consensus.” The hard data for Virginia, be it temperature patterns, rainfall, the slow tidal rise (mainly due to subsidence), or crop yields, will prove no cause for alarm. Thanks to the bill, a group is now forming to focus as well on the SOLs.

Existing materials that do not “accurately portray changes” in weather, or which are disputed by “peer reviewed” sources from qualified researchers all fail the General Assembly Democrats’ own unanimously adopted benchmarks and need to be challenged.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

55 responses to “Climate Change Wars Coming to Virginia Schools?”

  1. Kathleen Smith Avatar
    Kathleen Smith

    The GA needs to stop the work of educators and let the SOL process for revision do the work it is intended to do.

    1. Not Today Avatar
      Not Today

      Asking the GA to stop the dissemination of peer-reviewed, accurate, educator info…KEEP GOING!

    2. Not Today Avatar
      Not Today

      Asking the GA to stop the dissemination of peer-reviewed, accurate, educator info…KEEP GOING!

  2. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    This blog constantly reminds me that while the cost of an education is high, it’s still cheaper than none.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Too bad you never got one, or stopped questioning when you reached your firm conclusions. Mine continues daily. Counting the seconds until you-know-who demands we decide science by a vote on the consensus or a poll. 🙂

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Yep. We shall soon see, but oh, what shall we see? For all of your daily changes, it’s still the same old song and dance. 😉

      2. Not Today Avatar
        Not Today

        More allowable insults?

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Oh, it’s alright. Steve knows his limitations. It’s banter.

          1. Not Today Avatar
            Not Today

            I keep waiting for an article on how to join the VA Chapter of the Society for American Civic Renewal (SACR). Their website is Man in the High Castle-esque. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/19/far-right-fraternal-order-sacr

          2. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            I know one phrase in Afrikaner, “‘tetch wires to ‘is testicles.” I think it means, “Happy birthday”.

  3. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead

    Betsy and her blue buddies might want to improve SOL reading scores first. Meanwhile the real learning is happening on Tic Tac, Instant Telegram, Snap Talk, and Spacebook.

  4. A body is made of 80kg of varying materials. So clearly 0.0001% of that in mercury won’t hurt me.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Well, you’ll be happy to know that much fentanyl will NOT kill you.

  5. LesGabriel Avatar
    LesGabriel

    The Bill apparently focuses solely on the problem, but does not mention any analysis of solutions. Even if one were to concede that climate change was a serious problem that needs to be addressed, the potential solutions would need to be graded on their effectiveness, sustainability, cost, and a large number of other impacts on our society and our economy. Despite the growing body of evidence that mandating fixed percentages of EV sales on a government-decided timeline is not achievable, especially in the next decade, politicians and bureaucrats in Washington and Richmond (and Sacramento, who make our emissions laws) have taken none of those factors into consideration. Those responsible for maintaining our electric power grid have been warning for years that they can barely keep up with current demand, let alone replace the decommissioning of fossil fuel generation on the arbitrary timeline mandated by uninformed regulators. It is not only EV’s that will be draining electric power from its current uses, it is the compulsion of the left to transform every use of fossil fuels to the grid, including gas stoves, lawn mowers, and hedge clippers.
    Decarbonising the aircraft, ocean shipping, and trucking industries brings another drain on the grid that few proponents of “decarbonising” seem to consider.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Meh, the grid didn’t have to exist, or even be guesstimated, before the grid was created, now did it? It will just “grew like Topsy”.

      CAFE Standards were met, were they not? Challenges are good for the economy.

      Solutions will be found, but the cost of doing nothing is enormous.

    2. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      So you do believe there is a climate problem but you argue about costs ?

      How do you determine costs for both not doing anything and doing something?

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Well, you know what they say, “Never ask a question to which you don’t know the answer.”

      1. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        More smart Democrats than I expected. But didn’t I predict he’d revert to a poll?

        1. Yes, a poll. Seems to me polls exist to alert us to where we are relative to the prevailing opinion of those polled — and, if we find ourselves at odds with prevailing opinion, particularly prevailing informed opinion, to suggest we should resume questioning “firm conclusions” of yore.

        2. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Still the larger set of the two.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Hence BR

    2. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Assumptions are what I use to make the problem solvable, hence bad solutions to problems that would have no solution at all.

      1. Not Today Avatar
        Not Today

        To simplify a problem and make its contours digestible for the masses, sure. Solve? No.

      2. Not Today Avatar
        Not Today

        To simplify a problem and make its contours digestible for the masses, sure. Solve? No.

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Well, it’s a different problem, but wave of hands, close enough.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      First thing they teach when you learn to fly, “trust your instruments”.

      I don’t mind the denial of the predictions, especially the timing, but these birds are denying the observations.

  6. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    how many peer-reviewed articles does it take to reach “consensus”?

    “More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change

    More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.”

    https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-change

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      One, at least, I should think.

    2. Yes, but have you considered that the 0.1% of studies are paying for my RV?

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Not to mention your six $5 donations to Trump.

    3. William O'Keefe Avatar
      William O’Keefe

      Larry, you don’t understand that peer review can be done more than one way and citing peer review and consensus doesn’t mean that they are correct.
      What does the IPPC say about human causation and the strength of the evidence.
      Yes, there is a climate problem but it is not now an existential crisis that requires throwing money and government mandates at it.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        I do understand the different ways that peer review is done BIll including the ways considered better. Consensus does not mean they are right – totally agree. They actually could be wrong in an even worse way – i.e. underestimate the effects. But if you agree we do have a “climate problem” but then oppose doing anything or most anything, what does that mean? Most folks, if they think there is a problem – want to at least start to approach responses to it – like we have done for decades on environmental issues like acid rain, pollution from coal plants, Chesapeake Bay, non-attainment urban areas, toxic waste, mercury, PCBs, etc… if we KNOW there is a problem – doing nothing is not smart.

        1. William O'Keefe Avatar
          William O’Keefe

          I have NEVER suggested doing nothing. The models that lead to actions that are too expensive and have little hope of achieving their objectives on the time scale on which they are based are not suitable for policy making.
          If you look at global emissions reduction data you will see that the US is one of the leading nations. As long as China, India, and developing countries are burning coal for power, global emissions will continue to rise.
          I favor a Lewis and Clark approach as being much more effective than the Cook’s tour approach that we are following.

  7. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    And then, there was one. Alas Mike Gallagher, we hardly knew ya.

    1. Not Today Avatar
      Not Today

      Is this when I get to point out, again, that Republicans cannot govern and have no workable ideas? Next thing you know they’ll be banning APES right alongside APAAH.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Shame on you! Of course they know how to govern. Even Empty Gee just did one of those parliamentary thingies and filed a “Motion to Vacate”.

        1. An appropriate name for the Motion, don’t you think?

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Works biologically too. Or, is that what you meant?

          2. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Works biologically too. Or, is that what you meant?

  8. Matt Hurt Avatar
    Matt Hurt

    The more that is added to the plates of educators, the less they will be able to produce. We can do one thing well, or multiple things less well. The Law of Unintended Consequences is enforced very well.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      What kids are taught or not , has become increasingly political.

      And when some folks start talking about “indoctrination”, “grooming”, and the like,
      there’s no way to do it without politics since
      both the Governor and the GA have the ability to get involved in it.

      It never was without such issues whether talking about how to teach (or not) “sex” education to white-washing history, to prayers in schools, etc…it’s always been a battleground but has gotten even worse.

      And because we cannot find common ground on it, it is one of the drivers behind vouchers, and “choice” schools where parents can choose what “kind” of education their kids will receive or not and such schools have a wider ability to boot the kids that don’t “fit” or behave.

  9. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
    f/k/a_tmtfairfax

    Does it address the impact of large-scale illegal immigration, where people have more income and wealth in the United States than they did in their home countries and, as such, have a higher carbon footprint? Back in the day when we had real journalists, this question would be asked of the supporters of both illegal immigration and harsh restrictions on individual choice.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      TMT – would you think that some people in the world should not have a carbon footprint equal to others in the world?

      You’d want, for instance, people in China restricted to 1/2 the carbon footprint of Americans?

      1. Not Today Avatar
        Not Today

        Some people matter more than others, natch.

      2. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
        f/k/a_tmtfairfax

        No. But if we have people in the United States arguing for government restrictions on the choices that American citizens can make, e.g., no gas stoves, no gasoline powered vehicles, to reduce their carbon footprints, how does one justify bringing huge numbers of people with relatively low carbon footprints today but who will have much higher carbon footprints tomorrow? Doesn’t this force the United States either to imposed even greater restrictions on Americans or accept higher carbon emissions? Or perhaps, progressives can commit suicide to enable a poor Central American family to come to the U.S. illegally and use the deceased carbon emission allotment.

        Once again, the left cannot answer valid questions.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          I don’t think immigration has anything at all to do with this.

          Immigrants are needed in this country and they should be treated no different than others.

          We’re not setting restrictions based on per capita common anyhow.

          We don’t do that now for existing restrictions on things like coal plants or non-attainment regions, etc.

          It’s not about immigration except to those who are pretty much opposed to (even legal) immigration and will cite any/all things they can as an argument against.

  10. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
    energyNOW_Fan

    I am reminded of an old Steve Martin joke. “Do you wanna play a funny trick on your kids? Teach then to talk wrong….it’ll be hilarious..” In this case, teach them to think wrong and give them hate for American industry. Wonderful.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40K6rApRnhQ

  11. Nelson Fegley Avatar
    Nelson Fegley

    An update of SOL’s, completed by individuals who are familiar with changes in climate in geological history, will include the dominate effects of the naturally caused changes. This is not likely to happen if these individuals are politically motivated rather than being focused on the scientific records.

    Nelson Fegley

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      Well, wouldn’t you want to consult credible/accepted science on the issue?

      1. Nelson Fegley Avatar
        Nelson Fegley

        I am not familiar with the backgrounds or the political leanings of those on the SOL committee.
        I can only hope that in their deliberations they will follow the science rather than trying to be politically correct.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          We agree.

Leave a Reply