Bias and Exploitation of Bias About Environment and Climate In Schools

Commentary, Education, Frontier Centre

“The true teacher defends his pupils against his own personal influence.” A.B Alcott

Do you know what your child is learning in school? Do you know the curriculum or subjects and content used? Are you aware of the intellectual and political bias that permeates the schools? Are you aware that these biases extend into the universities? Are you aware how anti-business, anti-development, and anti-progress they are? All of this is happening under the guise of false green in an unbalanced education (indoctrination) system.

In 1982 I gave the keynote address at the first Canadian conference on Agriculture in the Classroom (AIC) in Saskatoon. The idea developed because the subject was not taught accurately in the schools. Factual errors were compounded by teacher bias, particularly about the environment. A Manitoba dairy farmer’s spouse became aware of the problem when looking at her child’s textbook. AIC was designed to provide information for the teacher most of who had little or no knowledge about agriculture. An Alberta study showed that even people in small agricultural communities knew little.

I worked with AIC, teachers and the curriculum over the next several years.  A central concern was about using the classroom for selling products or more seriously proselytizing, that is trying to “convert or attempt to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another.” Somehow these concerns don’t apply to environmental issues or climate, but they’re part of a proselytizing process, as environmentalism is viewed with religious fervor by many.

Application of these views to environment and climate is problematic in curriculum planning. It is part of a larger conflict about inclusions in a core curriculum.  Everyone thinks their subject is core, but all students need are the tools provided by the three “Rs”. Even that is a problem because only 20 percent of students are comfortable with “Rithmatic”. Environment and climate require a level of scientific knowledge for understanding. Yet, in most schools both subjects are taught in social studies programs by people who don’t understand the basic science. As a result, all forms of teaching aids chosen are unbalanced and usually biased.

Environmentalism and climate change were co-opted for a political agenda to show that industry and capitalism were destroying the planet. This went beyond the need for the new paradigm of environmentalism. It is manifest in many ways including the main theme of the “Occupy Wall Street” events. Few have outlined the exploitation better than Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus in his book “Blue Planet in Green Shackles.” Klaus writes, “What is Endangered: Climate or Freedom?” My answer is: “it is our freedom.” I may also add “and our prosperity.”

Bias in education is not limited to Kindergarten through Grade 12 but is most intolerable there. Recently assaults on the classroom have been deliberate and directed as the bad science is exposed.  It began with Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth” shown often despite a UK court ruling that it was politically biased and had nine scientific errors.

The judge drew attention to the bias in the classroom by pointing out that no opposing views, though existing in films, were being shown to students.

Al Gore’s campaign foray into Canadian schools follows his “24 hours of climate reality” fiasco. Several thousand Manitoba students are scheduled to be indoctrinated to a Canadian version at We Day on November 23. It uses the standard ploy of piggybacking on to legitimate concerns. Gore is combining with the Canadian version of The Climate Reality Project (CRP) to visit schools across the country to push their version of climate science. David Suzuki is linked with the project as their web site shows. Indeed, members of the David Suzuki Foundation are prominent CRP Board Members.

Independently Suzuki is touring Canadian schools. He is telling students about his view of the world. It is a very controlled situation; he does not allow debate. Consider this information from an Edmonton school appearance. “One of the students has been selected to ask the following question: 1. At one point in time, religion was the center of our society. Now, it could be said that it has been replaced by the economy. If we got rid of the economy, what would replace it?” 

There’s one good reason for getting rid of the economy: it made Al Gore wealthy. He retired as Vice president in 2001 worth $1 to 2 million. In 2010 it was $100 and $200 million and some think he’ll be the first “green” billionaire.  

But wealth or the economy are not the issue here. I don’t mind Suzuki or Gore being in the schools. The problem is bias. Suzuki and Gore would likely scream if someone visited schools across Canada explaining what is wrong with “official” climate science or promoting business and the economy. The answer to Suzuki’s orchestrated question for both men is, get rid of the economy and they would not survive because they both stand for organizations that are parasitical of the economy.  Before that engenders a lawsuit, remember, parasites are a part of nature. The interesting question is what happens to a parasite, like the Dutch Elm Beetle when all the Elm trees are gone?