“Get them while they’re young, Evita, get them while they’re young,” sang the Che Guevara figure in the hit musical Evita, based on the life of Eva Peron. It’s a lesson Laurie David and the whole climate alarmist crew have learned and apply with some force.
The latest example of the alarmists propagandizing to kids comes in their manhandling of children’s book publisher, Scholastic. That company often hands out curricula and educational material to kids, and often gets sponsorship to do so from industries involved in the subject. So when Scholastic produced one called The United States of Energy, which happened to have backing from the American Coal Foundation, the alarmists went ballistic. Leading the charge was the anti-business Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood. How dare Americans learn that coal is a vital part of the energy mix of the country and that thousands earn a good livelihood in otherwise poor areas because of it!
The fact that the curriculum contained information not just about coal, but about nuclear, wind, hydroelectric, solar and natural gas power as well didn’t figure into their reasoning at all. Coal is the forbidden subject — all children should be allowed to learn about coal is that it is evil. Eeeeeviillll.
The intimidation worked, of course. Scholastic pulled the curriculum. But to make matters worse, since 2008 Scholastic has had a plan called Celebrate Earth Day that is based on Laurie David’s book for Scholastic entitled The Down-to-Earth Guide to Global Warming. Unfortunately for the children, however, this book is factually wrong. As the Science and Public Policy Institute reported:
A new SPPI paper briefly examines a cardinal error, found on page 18 of the David book, where she mousetraps children: “The more the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the higher the temperature climbed. The less carbon dioxide, the more the temperature fell. You can see this relationship for yourself by looking at the graph. What makes this graph so amazing is that by connecting rising CO2 to rising temperature scientists have discovered the link between greenhouse-gas pollution (sic) and global warming.”
The SPPI paper states, in part:
What really makes the David-Gordon graph “amazing” is that it’s egregiously counterfactual. Worse, in order to contrive a visual representation for their claim that CO2 controls temperature change, the authors present unsuspecting children with an altered temperature and CO2 graph that reverses the relationship found in the scientific literature.
The manipulation is critical because David’s central premise posits that CO2 drives temperature, yet the peer-reviewed literature is unanimous that CO2 changes have historically followed temperature changes.
Case in point, on page 103 of their book, David cites the work of Siegenthaler et al. (2005). However, Siegenthaler et al. clearly state the opposite, that CO2 lags “with respect to the Antarctic temperature over glacial terminations V to VII are 800, 1600, and 2800 years, respectively, which are consistent with earlier observations during the last four glacial cycles.”
“Parents and teachers should be concerned enough to demand that the publisher, Scholastic Books, recall, pulp and correct the error before mores copies reach innocent children.,” said Ferguson.
Indeed. David’s book should be pulped, rather than The United States of Energy.
I grew up in a coal mining area of Great Britain, where every morning at school we said prayers for the miners and their continued productivity. That’d probably cause our alarmist friends’ heads to explode.
UPDATE: The original post suggested that Scholastic had replaced the plan with Celebrate Earth Day, which is not the case. The double standard still remains, however.
In other words, they have no problem supporting "commercials" for big government racketeers, even as they condemn private endeavors.
Can these commies be any less transparent?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI witnessed firsthand David's co-author, Cambria Gordon, try to indoctrinate a room full of children at the Jewish Book Fair in Detroit. She had prizes for the "right" answers.
When she asked what was happening to the polar bears, I raised my hand and said that most polar bear species were increasing. She said I was wrong. During the question and answer period, I asked her why she wanted us to go around our houses, unplugging battery chargers, and turning off tvs, while she left her laptop and projector on for the entire duration of her talk though she'd only used it for five minutes. After I accused her of hypocrisy I found that I had a "minder" standing next to me for the rest of her presentation. Afterwards, during the book signing, I asked her why she and David used a big biodiesel powered tour bus (6 mpg) to promote their book instead of a trailer towed by an SUV (at least double the fuel mileage and also available in biodiesel form but then David, who lives in a $25 million home, might be uncomfortable in any less than rock star tour bus fashion). That's when one of the event sponsors told me to leave or they'd call the police.
I used to hear stories about how the Soviets indoctrinated children. David and Gordon act similarly.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd that is leaving off that the discovery of coal saved the forests. Of course, the change to coal was mostly because of the scarcity of trees, especially in Britain. By 1230, England had cut down so many trees, they were importing timber from Scandinavia. But fortunately for England, they were sitting on a easily accessible pile of coal.
And let's face it, the only reason society tolerates a bunch of unproductive academics and activists, who sit around lamenting the modern world, is because coal made it possible through technology to have a large group of people who don't contribute to the production of food, energy or shelter for the society's survival.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMy 6th grade son also gets a lot of this in school. We see a lot of solar panels on houses, light posts and corporations aound here. It's fun to do the math about how long it will take to get your money's worth and how much it will actually cost to power a light bulb from a solar panel. We also discuss the battery issues with electric cars.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhen he brings this up in his classes he is also told he is wrong but is never told why or given supporting evidence as to why he is wrong.
I saw this firsthand with my nine-year old daughter about two months ago. I happen to work for the largest coal burner in the United States. We were stopped at a stop sign and I pointed out all the litter and said what a shame it was. Her response: "You work for [my company]. You don't care about the environment." Instead of engaging in a debate about environmental policy, I simply reminded her that my evil company pays for everything she has, powers the lights she uses to read, keeps are food cold, allows us to cook food in the comfort of our home, keeps us warm in the winter and cool in the summer. That was the last time I heard her complain about my company.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePublic Education my foot. The only thing they care about is public indoctrination.
Separation of school and state.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRonnieS: At the 2009 meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group, scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations of polar bears:
8 are declining
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse3 are stable
1 is increasing
There is not enough evidence to determine the status of the other polar bear subpopulations. So it does appear overall, that the population is declining.
So the "principle" I glean from Scholastic's conduct is that it's okay for some interested parties to sponsor materials but not others.
If "The United States of Energy" is somehow considered tainted by its association with the American Coal Foundation, how is "The Down to Earth Guide to Global Warming" any less so by its association with radical environmental activists from the NRDC?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFactsOnly: You are making the assumption that all of those bear populations are the same size.
Regardless, there are other opinions out there:
"Dr Mitchell Taylor has been researching the status and management of polar bears in Canada and around the Arctic Circle for 30 years, as both an academic and a government employee. More than once since 2006 he has made headlines by insisting that polar bear numbers, far from decreasing, are much higher than they were 30 years ago. Of the 19 different bear populations, almost all are increasing or at optimum levels, only two have for local reasons modestly declined."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKids will probably skip both books in the Scholastic pamphlet and dart directly to the books on dinosaurs anyway.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseStaten Island Alex - unfortunately many at our school skip the books altogether and go right for the fuzzy pencils and googly eyed pens. Sigh.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTo Facts Only:

Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYour polar bear facts of a declining population are not trustworthy. That is the problem. So much of vaunted science is now agenda driven and not objective.
External Link
as opposed to:
External Link
It becomes difficult to discern what is fact, and what is fiction.
It does not "appear" that the populations are declining, it appears that the "science" of studying polar bear populations is declining.
Who can you trust anymore for real facts?