Amid the clash over the horrors of children donning traditional Thanksgiving costumes and other leftie spasms which ritually pour forth with the advent of the holidays, and mindful of Greg’s post about the brainwashing of kids to tap their “pester power”, please enjoy this extended excerpt from Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud and Deception to Keep You Misinformed, specifically the chapter “Poisoning the Little Ones: Propagandizing your children” (citations omitted). It’s my gift to you, if to whet your whistle for the whole thing to consume over the coming down time:
Holidays in Hell
“Consider how the holidays reliably bring out the worst the alarmist industry have to offer. From their Halloween-based guilt trips—“The most frightening part of Halloween is what it is doing to our planet”—to their assault on non-sustainable Thanksgiving, Autumn is just their warm-up for the Big Kahuna of Christmas as an excuse for scare campaigns and indoctrination.
School children in Wales were banned from exchanging Christmas cards, “in the name of saving the planet and its ‘wretched’ Africans.” With this move, environmentalism officially overwhelmed the holidays with political correctness gone mad. We see here at the Evan James Primary School that environmentalism managed to supplant the rest of the PC twaddle as a meta-excuse.
“The reasons for not having cards are endless,” head teacher Nicholas Daniels claims. Although one could speculate that a big motivating factor was to remove the crushing burden of handing out the cards from teachers (“We are a big school. We have 68 pupils in two classes in year six. The magnitude of cards is horrendous”), Daniels’ argument was explicitly moral. “We did take a strong moral ground on the matter. . . .We knew we would face opposition but we decided to do this on moral and environmental grounds.
Reading is Fundamental-ist
…[T]he alarmists go beyond corrupting the kids’ stories and peddling their staple of mantras and gooey drivel, and actually fudge the facts and misrepresent the science in order to frighten and mobilize children who do not possess the adult’s intellectual or even physical abilities to second-source or fact-check.
Consider the example of Gore’s co-producer Laurie David, who followed the utterly disingenuous and on occasion dishonest film with a book aimed at the little ones. Finding scientific distortions even more brazen than those in the movie, the Science and Public Policy Institute revealed how “in order to contrive a visual representation for their false central claim that CO2 controls temperature change, David and co-author Cambria Gordon present unsuspecting children with an altered temperature and CO2 graph that falsely reverses the relationship found in the scientific literature.”…
The very paper they invoke makes quite clear that it stands for the opposite of that for which purpose David and Gordon cite it. Whoops.
They pitched their book claiming that it contains “urgent information” for kids on global warming. Apparently this “urgency” fallback they have for everything is so great as to even preclude proof-reading. Or else they were lying.
David was nonplussed that anyone would dare question her claims, even such a whopper as reversing the cause-and-effect, which had already telegraphed itself for a year in the risibly phony movie.
Of course, she had during that period been encouraged by supportive scientists falling over themselves to insist that it “got all the major points right.” Ah, but welcome to the rough-and-tumble, full contact world of children’s publishing, where fact-checking is so alien to those who push alarmist twaddle that David hailed it as a sign of desperation. “Apparently the climate change ‘skeptics’ have grown so desperate in their attempts to hide the truth from the American people that they’ve taken to spending hours scrutinizing a children’s book, trying to marginalize the urgent information it contains about global warming.”
She is not amused that one would dare look into claims—aimed at children, no less—of the world coming to an end, posing the question, then, what is worthy of inquiry? Further, using the “reasonable man” standard, which act is more one of desperation: fact-checking claims in a book targeting children that are facially erroneous (to adults who know what they’re talking about) by a woman recently having been exposed as having participated in aggressively misrepresenting the science in a related piece of work—or the underlying act of making such claims, itself?
That you likely arrived at a different answer than Ms. David reveals a principal distinction between the global warming activist and the rest of the world. Her publisher Scholastic privately admitted the “accidental” error to a colleague of mine, promising to correct the chart in the next edition. Given that the bogus chart represents the entire premise of the book—CO2 drives temperature—this should prove an interesting challenge. Regardless, all of this simply guaranteed an invitation to her and her co-writer/ accomplice to pollute the “Green California Schools Summit.” What is it about that place?…
In September 2007 the Los Angeles Times provided a round-up of some green books produced for kids, predictably titled “For Earth’s sake” and noting that the ages-11-and-up version of AIT had just been released, fawning that “Gore’s tone is dignified and elegant.” Sort of like that guy who broadcast the Hindenburg explosion.
Such a paean in the face of all available evidence (and judicial decree very soon thereafter) is not surprising since the Times also described the book as “aim[ing] to educate kids about rising temperatures, how human activity is affecting the Earth’s climate and humanity’s responsibility to reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.”
The Times suddenly discovered the art of understatement, as well, vowing, “The aim of these books is to prevent children from feeling like powerless victims of environmental degradation and to turn them into active citizens.”
The piece, written by Sonja Bolle, “a freelance book editor and children’s book reviewer,” continued with its blinkered view of Gore’s already-debunked alarmism being imposed upon children. It gushed, “The illustrations are beautiful, even when they’re documenting grim realities; the attention to visuals shows the book’s origins as a slide presentation. Gore’s memory of his mother reading her children Rachel Carson’s classic, Silent Spring, which argued, in Gore’s words, that mankind ‘now had the power to seriously harm the environment,’ gives a sense of history to the environmental movement.”
Here we go again. Oddly, a piece written by someone dedicated to childhood literacy doesn’t flinch at Gore’s claim that his mother read him a children’s book that came out in 1962, when Gore was fourteen (alternately raising the question of how a child still being read to in his teens soon makes the leap to Harvard). This practice presaged those memorable times he has reminisced about when she rocked him to sleep with the “look for that union label” jingle, written when he was twenty-seven.