Nebraska Education Department Committing Suicide
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus
Living in extremely liberal Massachusetts, this writer expects (hopes?) that fellow Americans in our nation’s midsection still possess enough good sense to reject leftist policies and trends. Looking over the region not close to either east or west coast lunacies, the perception is that traditional political, economic, and cultural standards haven’t been jettisoned. States like Nebraska, for one, seem far enough away from the coasts to resist joining the mob and plunging off a cliff into political correctness and its ideological offshoots.
But on September 8th by a vote of 6 to 1, Nebraska’s Board of Education approved new science standards that have conservatives outraged. In 2012, the education watchdog Thomas B. Fordham Foundation said of the Cornhusker state’s rules for primary and secondary schooling:
The Nebraska science standards are inadequate in nearly every way. They lack sufficient depth and breadth at every grade span, and critically important areas receive woefully inadequate attention – or are completely absent…. Taken as a whole, Nebraska’s science standards do not articulate nearly enough of what students need to know and be able to do.
Local civil engineer Henry W. Burke found that the 2017 Nebraska Science Standards standards are based on the failed Nebraska 2010 Science Standards. He fought unsuccessfully to alert DoE members about the deficiencies of these newly conceived standards. With bachelor and masters degrees and 45 years of experience in his field, he felt sufficiently qualified to register an opinion about the matter. He concluded that the state’s Department of Education was being asked to approve standards that are “more interested in promoting global warming and climate change than providing an academic understanding of science.”
After studying what was being considered by his state’s education board, Burke added a further opinion: “Global warming is presented as if it was proven science, rather than political narrative. This global warming agenda permeates the Science Standards from kindergarten through high school.” “These standards,” stated Burke, “do not present an objective, academically-based and scientifically-based approach to the topics.”
The veteran civil engineer recommended looking at his Internet posting as he addressed the matter of carbon dioxide being a significant culprit:
When it comes to global warming, raw subjectivity has replaced scientific method. Many scientists and researchers began with preconceived notions and theories and then proceeded to find ways to support them. Ideology is controlling the conclusions instead of true science. No authentic scientific data proves that there is a correlation between man-made carbon dioxide (CO2) and global warming.
Backed by numerous representatives of the state’s colleges and universities Omaha World-Herald reporter Joe Dejka wrote approvingly of the decision adopting the new standards. He correctly noted that, in addition to worries about global warming, students would also be exposed to insistence that evolution is a fact, rather than what many believe it to be a widely discredited theory.
The new standards for Nebraska schools will not be reviewed for another seven years. The conclusion: Nebraska has joined the left wing in the world of education. Watch for some parents to opt out and consider homeschooling.
A great home schooling alternative is our affiliate FreedomProject Academy. Learn more about the online school today!
Solar Panel Fraud
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus
Al Gore’s new film, An Inconvenient Sequel, is a bit of a bust drawing fewer paying customers than expected. He’ll have to get friends to force showings of the film in schools. Captive audiences will be force-fed a viewing of out-and-out falsities in living color. They will have no choice but to sit there and take in a collection of misinformation.
One of Gore’s solutions to the non-problems his film describes is capturing energy through the use of solar panels. It sounds good until the costs and a variety of problems are considered. Career electrical engineer Art Crino claims government subsidies for different types of energy collection place solar power in the stratosphere. The handouts provided to obtain one megawatt-hour of electrical energy by burning coal, oil, or natural gas total $0.64. Gaining the same amount of electrical energy using solar panels starts off with subsidies totaling $775.64.
Taxpayer-supplied subsidies aren’t the only hidden cost faced by those seeking to capture energy from sunlight. There’s no sun shining during nighttime or when clouds and storms arrive leading to little or no gathering of energy. Partisans for solar power generation have even admitted that constantly redirecting the angle that solar collectors should be stationed is needed if peak efficiency is to be gained, a costly procedure needing constant maintenance. And the solar power promoters don’t like to be reminded that clearing away the snow after a winter storm might be necessary. Then there are costs associated with storage and transfer of energy acquired during peak hours of sunshine. And don’t forget that manufacturing and installing solar panels plus connecting them electrically and cleaning them regularly isn’t inexpensive.
The nation is being inundated with telephone salesmen seeking commitments to acquire solar power capability for single homes. It’s marvelously inexpensive they tell you while not mentioning the huge subsidies being the reason – which means you and your neighbors are really paying for it via taxation. If you aren’t bothered by unwanted telephone pleas, maybe you’ve been reading advertisements in newspapers or seeing ads on television about the wonder of solar power and its minimal cost to you.
Beyond all of this solar power promotion, you may have been victimized by the propaganda about the harm being done to the planet because “burning fossil fuels pollutes the atmosphere.” The culprit, say the propagandists, is carbon dioxide that causes global warming (or its new label, climate change). But carbon dioxide is food for plants. It isn’t bad; it’s hugely beneficial. As for it affecting the atmosphere, climate scientist Dr. Willie Soon says the amount of carbon dioxide produced nationally by burning fossil fuels is equivalent to adding two more attendees to the 100,000 fans packed into a football stadium. In other words, carbon dioxide produced by burning coal, oil, or natural gas is of little consequence – good or bad.
The United States is sitting on enough oil, natural gas, and coal to take care of our needs for generations – even while exporting to others. A few decades ago, U.S. engineers figured out how to generate electricity by splitting the atom in a nuclear reactor. But bogus scientists and political skullduggery have combined to demonize nuclear power. If France can generate electricity via nuclear plants for 70-plus percent of its electricity needs, why does the U.S. stay mired in less than 20 percent?
And, by the way, a megawatt-hour of electrical energy generated via a nuclear power plant receives a paltry $3.14 in subsidies. Recall the figure given above where the subsidy for the same one megawatt-hour generated by solar power is a whopping $775.64.
America should continue burning fossil fuels and using nuclear power to generate electricity. Those who want solar power should certainly be free to employ it – but without the enormous subsidy it currently relies on.
Gore, the Energy Hog, Leaves Hypocritical Carbon Footprint
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus
Former Vice President Al Gore wants to be known as America’s chief guardian of the environment. He’s the “Numero Uno” propagandist concerned about climate change and everyone’s costly energy use. Everyone that is, except his own.
Senior Fellow Drew Johnson of the National Center for Public Policy Research did some digging and found out that Gore is one of our nation’s heaviest users of energy. His home, a palatial 20-room mansion in the upscale Belle Meade section of Nashville, Tennessee, gobbles up energy as if it were free of the consequences he regularly cites for others.
How overboard is the use of energy at the Gore residence? Johnson reports that during the past year, the monthly energy usage at Gore’s home averaged 19,241 kilowatt hours (kWh). According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the energy per month consumed by America’s average household is a meager 901 kWh. Gore, therefore, uses more than 20 times the nation’s norm! His energy bill per year turns out to be what a normal America residence consumes in a period lasting 21 years.
Does Mr. Gore run up such a large figure because he fills his 20 rooms with the tired, hungry, and poor yearning to be out of the elements and into cozy surroundings? Not on your life. Gore’s routine has him living alone (except for possible servants) without even the former Mrs. Gore from whom he separated in 2010. Their four offspring all reside elsewhere.
During the single month of September 2016, Gore’s home ate up 30,993 kWh. That’s as much energy as is burned up by the average American family in 34 months! Over the past year, the energy used to heat Gore’s swimming pool could have been employed to power half a dozen average U.S. households for a full year. To conclude that this man’s energy use is a bit heavy is no exaggeration.
Having previously been targeted by watchers of energy use as far back as 2007, Gore has taken some face-saving steps including installation of 33 solar panels. They produce a meager 1,092 kWh per month, an amount less than six percent of his energy use. In addition to the solar panels, he purchased energy efficient windows, new insulation, a geothermal heating system, and a new driveway where rainwater gets collected and is used to sprinkle the lawns. But his use of energy is still far above normal.
In addition to his Belle Meade home, Gore owns a farmhouse in rural Carthage, Tennessee, and a fancy residence at San Francisco’s Regis Residence Club. Each uses energy, though not nearly as much as the main Gore residence. Although the total energy usage at these properties hasn’t been made available, we can guess that it still uses ample energy.
Much of the energy for America’s home and industrial use comes from burning coal and natural gas (so-called fossil fuels) resulting in the release of Gore’s favorite target, carbon dioxide (CO2). His newest film, An Inconvenient Sequel, would have viewers believe that CO2 is polluting the entire atmosphere and setting the stage for rising sea levels, destructive weather extremes, and numerous other environmental cataclysms.
If only people would use less energy, then there would be less CO2 to continue wreaking havoc, say Gore and his allies. But the truth is that CO2 is not a poison; it’s a beneficial substance that is necessary for healthy plant life – which is food. More CO2 would result in more food, more trees, healthy animals, and even healthier humans.
All of this suggests a hidden motive for the well-publicized Gore campaign about climate change. Less hidden today than when Gore’s ill-advised crusade began are outspoken claims of fright peddlers at the UN and elsewhere who openly admit that their real goal is world government controlled by them. Gore is their front man who should be shunned, not lionized. Happily, a large and growing number of scientists are challenging Gore and his fright-peddling friends.
Help expose climate change for what it really is, a hoax aiming for world government. Share information on Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030 in order to prevent it.
Gored Again By Dishonest Al
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus
The moniker “Bulldog” fits Marc Morano perfectly. He’s the founder and executive director of ClimateDepot.com, a website sponsored by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT). In that role, he has traveled the nation attending advance screenings of Al Gore’s new film An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power. Morano specializes in debunking the Gore claims made 11 years ago in the global warming champion’s earlier film, An Inconvenient Truth. Morano points out numerous fallacies in the first production while suggesting that the current film is loaded with the same type of misinformation. He has already dubbed the new film pure “bunk.”
A climate realist not a climate sensationalist, Morano claims that Gore’s Sequel film is a self-centered ego trip, a diatribe riddled with more inaccuracies. For an example of Gore’s previous quackery, he asks Gore about the claim made in the 2006 film that the planet would reach a “point of no return” in a decade. That decade has passed and the planet is still functioning quite well.
A 2006 prediction that hasn’t materialized saw Gore insist that Africa’s Mount Kilimanjaro’s snow cap would disappear within a decade. Now that the decade has passed and snow is still there, the obvious conclusion is that warming has never happened or has been minimally insignificant.
Gore won a Nobel Prize for his earlier film, a choice that should have left the prize committee red-faced. Now a wealthy man as a result of his misguided campaign, the former Tennessee senator assured viewers in his decade-old Inconvenient Truth that the damage caused by Hurricane Sandy in New Jersey and New York could be traced to global warming. Not true, according to many scientists. Same for the destructiveness resulting from Hurricane Katrina on the Gulf Coast. Saner commentators have concluded that global warming didn’t cause these storms, and won’t lead to more storms in the future. In fact, according to a 2013 report issued by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the decade since 2006 has seen fewer destructive hurricanes, not more.
In his new film, Gore never mentions pocketing millions through contacts he has gained as a result of his propaganda. A firm he co-founded, Generation Investment Management, invested in Elon Musk’s SolarCity. By 2013, the former U.S. Vice President held an $80 million stake in SolarCity while it consumed billions in taxpayer-funded subsidies. But it still went belly up. Did that hurt the famous champion of global warming and foe of carbon dioxide? Of course not. His Solar City stock got converted into shares in Elon Musk’s Tesla.
If, during all of his crusading for cleaner air and stable temperatures, Gore achieved multi-millionaire status honorably (no subsidies and nothing but honesty), no one should complain. But he amassed wealth at taxpayer expense along with dishonest claims crafted to bring in the moolah. And he has done so with no mention of the fact that top UN environmental officials have openly admitted that their goal in promoting the global warming scam is to lead mankind into UN-led socialism and redistribution of the world’s wealth.
Congratulations to Marc Morano for his increasingly successful efforts in combatting Gore and his allies. They are misleading the American people while promoting unadulterated “bunk.”
Al Gore’s Sequel
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus
Soon to be in theaters across the nation, Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Sequel” will repeat, even add to, the apocalyptic claims shown in his 2006 film “An Inconvenient Truth.” In the decade since Gore’s earlier film, however, the numbers of scientific realists who counter the stance put forth by Gore and others has grown enormously. There will, therefore, be plenty of outright denials of the former vice president’s fright-peddling insistence about warming and mankind’s role in it.
Don’t expect any apology for misinformation in this film. And don’t look for details from an important report examining how data from weather stations have been doctored to buttress Gore’s scares. A conservative news purveyor known as PJ Media has recently shown that temperature figures making up the Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) have been manipulated to favor the position favored by Gore. The culprits include the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Aeronautics and Space Agency (NASA), and the Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research.
Figures used to create GAST’s summary conclusion do not coincide with actual temperature readings and have been dubbed “not a valid representation of reality.” In fact, the year 2016 was not “the hottest year on record” as claimed by NOAA. That year produced “a below average’” number of hot days that ranked it 80th from the hottest since 1895 when recording temperatures began.
NOAA’s charts and graphs portray U.S. temperature higher by 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since the 19th century. But its own figures disproving that very claim have been altered to conform to the increased amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. CO2 is “supposed” to be a dangerous substance driving temperatures upward; however, mounting numbers of climate realists and allies in other fields point to the needed and beneficial effects of CO2. And they don’t adjust temperature data to conform to their expectations regarding temperature fluctuations.
According to many climate alarmists, deniers of “inconvenient truths” are bought-and-paid-for agents of energy companies. No mention is made of the millions Al Gore and his climate allies have accumulated from government grants and green-energy subsidies. Gore alone has become a multi-millionaire.
Nor should anyone be conned into believing that any denier is a self-indicted and dangerous kook just because of the claim that “97 percent of scientists” believe the CO2 con and mankind’s pernicious role in causing its increase. There’s “consensus” among scientists say Gore and his allies. There isn’t. But, as the late physician, researcher and author Michael Crichton stated in his 2003 Caltech lecture, “In science consensus is irrelevant…. There’s no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
There happens to be a political agenda behind all of the hoopla about climate change. The Paris Agreement President Trump refused to sign turns out to be a key step toward wealth redistribution. Former head of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Rajendra Pachauri openly pointed to that goal. Christiana Figueres, who led the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) until 2016, said the Paris Agreement provided tools to “replace capitalism.” Former UNFCCC official Ottmar Edenhofer summarized, “we de facto redistribute the world’s wealth by climate policy.”
Climate realists, adamant deniers of the message put forth by Gore and others, are today’s heroes not the enemies of mankind. That their number continues to grow is welcome news.
Mr. McManus served in the U.S. Marine Corps in the late 1950s and joined the staff of The John Birch Society in August 1966. He has served various roles for the organization including Field Coordinator, Director of Public Affairs, and President. Mr. McManus has appeared on hundreds of radio and television programs and is also author of a number of educational DVDs and books. Now President Emeritus, he continues his involvement with the Society through public speaking and writing for this blog, the JBS Bulletin, and The New American
Five Environmental Crises That Have Come And Gone
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus
What do extreme environmentalists do when their claims of looming catastrophe are shown to be unscientific or even ridiculous? They either abandon their current claim and find another cause to scare the public or they change the name of the fright they’re peddling.
Consider this. We no longer hear of “acid rain” destroying crops and other vegetation. “Ozone depletion” was supposed to cause cataclysmic increases in human cancer and more – but there is no mention of it today. Another bygone scourge known as “deforestation” had its share of frightening publicity, but we hear it no more. Another great worry aimed at the public was “overpopulation” and it, too, is no longer being marketed as a significant threat. Then, “auto emissions” became the target of those who insisted the automobile did far more harm than good.
Now we are supposedly being victimized by “climate change,” the most dire environmental problem ever to plague mankind, according to scaremongering environmentalists and sloppy journalists. Climate change was formerly known as global warming. When competent scientists poked big holes in the global warming propaganda, its leading advocates arranged the name change. We are now told that rising temperatures caused by human activity warms the planet, will melt polar ice, cause a significant rise in sea levels, and put dry coastal areas under water.
The history compiled by environmentalist scaremongers isn’t something they should be proud of. Acid rain had been named as the killer of spruce trees in Vermont and elsewhere. When a group of scientists went to see this calamity, they had to fight their way through healthy young spruce trees in order to find those dead or dying. But their search proved fruitless because there were none. Ozone depletion was going to cause skin cancer, cataracts, and damage to mankind’s immune system. The main culprit was chlorofluorocarbons used in air conditioners, as a cleaning agent for electronic parts, and more. Soon, the claims about the ozone hole disappeared but not until expensive studies showed the concerns to be absurd.
Deforestation of the Brazilian rain forest became an environmental cause in the early 1980s. But when the UN’s World Bank was found to be the financier of a 900-mile road-building project right through the forest, pressure for terminating it succeeded and the rain forest was left to grow naturally. Overpopulation then became the environmental cause d’jour.
Famed oceanographer Jacques Cousteau wrote in the November 1991 UNESCO Courier, “In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it.” Fast forward several decades and demographers in various countries are now worried about declining birth rates. Overpopulation is no longer being discussed.
In 2014, climatologist Dr. Patrick Michaels, formerly of the University of Virginia and currently the leader of Cato Institute’s Center for the Study of Science, provided data showing “no significant warming trend in surface average temperature for 18 consecutive years.” At MIT in Massachusetts, Dr. Richard Lindzen became nationally known as a “climate skeptic.” Over at Harvard University, Dr. Willie Soon has paralleled Lindzen’s skepticism and angered the climate change partisans. But numerous former believers have moved into the camp of the skeptics. They all concede that temperatures will rise and fall; they don’t concede that humans are the cause.
More than sloppy science is at work here. Even before he was Secretary of State (2013-2017), John Kerry beat the climate change drum. In 2015, he pontificated, “When science tells us that our climate is changing and human beings are largely causing that change, by what right do people stand up and say ‘I dispute that’ or ‘I deny that elementary truth?’” He claims climate change is a more serious threat than terrorism, poverty, and weapons of mass destruction. Because of climate change, he wants government restrictions placed on people. His goal, easily known by studying his career, is a world government run by him and others like him.
If the people become aware that the claims of climate change advocates are pure nonsense, even dangerous nonsense, Kerry and his ilk will come up with some other scheme to frighten people into giving up their freedoms. We should make sure they don’t get away with it. Join The John Birch Society today to take action!
Scientific Hokum and its Destructive Political Agenda
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus
The war on the use of available energy (coal, oil, and natural gas) not only continues, it received a huge boost at the recent United Nations Climate Summit in Paris.
The doomsayers who gathered in the “City of Light” decided that the world must be saved from certain calamity by markedly reducing the amount of carbon dioxide put into the air by burning fossil fuels. But the carbon dioxide resulting from such fuel burning happens to be well known among competent scientists as the “gas of life.” Simply stated, plants eat carbon dioxide. The more that’s available, the healthier and larger will be the trees and plants that humanity uses for food, building, and more.
Several years ago, scientists at the U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory in Arizona conducted a remarkable experiment. They planted small orange trees side by side with each tree enveloped in a clear plastic container whose top was left open. Half of the trees were supplied with ambient air and the other half received air enriched with 300 parts per million of carbon dioxide. After four and a half years, the trees enriched with carbon dioxide grew three times larger – both above and below ground – than those exposed only to ambient air. Also, the trees receiving the carbon dioxide produced ten times more fruit than the nearby trees that didn’t receive the added carbon dioxide.
An experiment like that has undoubtedly been duplicated elsewhere. It demonstrates carbon dioxide’s value, not its supposed harm. But what the Arizona scientists showed was politically incorrect. Some even feared that publicizing the results of their work could lead to cancellation of their funding by the government. No one is supposed to conduct experiments that contradict politically correct conclusions.
Increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is blamed for melting polar ice, rising sea levels, droughts, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, and more. But fluctuations in the Earth’s temperature have been occurring regularly for as long as records have been kept. As for the claimed weather anomalies, they too have occurred before coal, oil, and natural gas heated our homes and ran our industries.
The war on carbon dioxide amounts to a war on productivity, even a war on life itself. And there are plenty of scientists who have taken a stand against the scientific fright-peddlers and the hordes of agenda-promoting politicians. As recently as 2014, Dr. Art Robinson, the co-founder of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, obtained 31,000 signatures from American scientists on his Global Warming Petition Project. It stated in part, “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” If you have never heard of this petition, its political incorrectness is the reason.
Who promotes the fears about climate change? From 2008 to 2015, Dr. Ottmar Edenhofer chaired a prestigious United Nations panel dealing with the topic. He stated his goal in promoting fears about carbon dioxide: “We redistribute the world’s wealth by climate policy.” Separately, UN official Christiana Figueres said that the real goal of the claims about climate change was “a complete transformation of the economic structure of the world.” These individuals are not alone.
The New American, a JBS affiliate, sent a team over to the UN Paris Climate Conference. The January 4, 2016, issue offers their findings. Either download or order physical copies today of “UN Climate Summit: Shackling the Planet to ‘Save’ It.” Learn more about the climate agreement that will affect every American, and what you can do about it.
Are you receiving our free weekly e-newsletter? Keep up with our latest news by signing up at our Facebook page.