Indiana public schools announce partnership with a state university, and objectivity has gone out the window

Recently, the Indiana Department of Education (INDOE) announced a partnership with the Purdue Climate Change Research Center (PCCRC) and the Purdue University College of Science.  The release read:

The Indiana Climate Change Education Framework offers easily accessible and scientifically curated instructional resources to educators interested in infusing their curriculum with information about climate change. ...

'People have heard a lot of misinformation about climate change over the years, so it's important for teachers to be able to find trusted, scientifically accurate materials,' said PCCRC Director Jeff Dukes.

Innocuous enough as an introduction, but within the structural framework is the statement:

The scientific community strongly agrees and concludes that human activities are causing global warming, which in turn causes climates to change.  Educators need to teach the scientific perspective about climate change.

As most American Thinker readers know, this is entirely false because the independent "scientific community" does not "strongly agree" with that assumption.  Saying it doesn't make it so.  Furthermore, that this continues to be debated in scientific circles makes this, without question, a "controversial issue."

I suggest finding out through your school administrator or school board exactly what curriculum is brought into the science classes about "climate change."  Demand to be provided the references to state standards and curriculum maps for any and all grades where "climate change" is a topic in class.  You are entitled to that information, whether you have a student in school or not, because your taxes fund that school.

My school district here in Indiana has a policy that addresses "Controversial Issues":

Properly introduced and conducted, the consideration of such issues can help students learn to identify important issues, explore fully and fairly all sides of an issue, weigh carefully the values and factors involved, and develop techniques for formulating and evaluating positions.

I also suggest going to school district administrators and demand to see their policy on controversial issues.  If none exists, petition for such a policy.  If you discover a suspicious "climate change" curriculum being taught in your schools, consider the following points to make a compelling case against pseudo-science curriculum.

#1: The entire basis of "man-made" global warming is CO2 emission and the theory of "greenhouse gases" using only computer models.  These ignore the thousands of other factors that affect the climate on Earth.  Since CO2 is not a poisonous gas, but rather is essential to all life, all you have to do is ask the question: "What is the right amount of CO2?"  Listen for the crickets.

#2: Because there's only so much water on the Earth, there is no dispute that the perfect integrator of the Earth's average temperature is the ocean level.  Rising ocean level is, in fact, at the heart of the "global warming" argument.  The melting of ice caps currently on land (not floating) is the only way the ocean levels will rise with any significance.  Remember the scientific community at one point actually suggested melting the ice caps?

We know that the oceans have risen and fallen substantially on Earth for millions of years without human intervention.  High ocean levels is why we see dinosaur footprints in the Rocky Mountains.  Low ocean levels is why we have Great Lakes with sandy beaches.  What is relevant, however, is the rate at which ocean levels rise and fall with associated causation(s) — a fact that nobody in any scientific community will dispute.

There is ample research concluding that during the Last Glacial Maximum approximately 20,000 years ago, the ocean levels were about 120 meters lower than they are today.  That same research graphically depicts the slowing of rising ocean levels over the last 7,000 years versus the rapid rise in the first 7,000 years of the last 14,000 years.

Over the last 140 years, average ocean levels have been measured fairly reliably.  Even the EPA agrees.  This quite apparent linear rate is about 10 inches over the last 140 years.

Let's do the math: the average rate of rise for the last 20,000 years is 0.24 inches per year.  During the period between 14,000 and 7,000 years ago, the oceans rose at a rate of 0.56 inches per year.  Over the last 140 years, the ocean levels have risen a mere fraction of these former rates, its current rate being 0.07 inches per year.  Scaring anyone yet?

This is a timeline of fossil fuel usage over the similar timeline as accurately measured ocean level rise in the last 140 years.  You can see that it is exponential, not linear.

Comparing the relatively linear rate of ocean level rise over 140 years to the exponential rise in fossil fuel usage, one can easily draw the conclusion that there is no cause-and-effect relationship.  A fundamental engineering and scientific principle is that without correlation, there can be no attributed causation from one to the other.  Even if one attempts to assign human causation to the very slightest change in curvature of the graph over the last 140 years, it is merely speculation while ignoring everything else that has caused rapid and dramatic climate changes on Earth over millions of years.

This is certainly not to suggest we should increase pollution, flying all over the world in private jets like climate heroes John Kerry and Bill Gates — instead, we should all be good stewards.  Are we being good stewards by exponentially increasing the mining and leaching of lithium, which is poisoning the earth?  Are we being good stewards by suddenly increasing the disposal volume of these dangerous minerals as well as the vehicles they power?  Are we being good stewards by erecting massive limited-life non-recyclable solar farms and enormous windmills that disrupt our natural landscape and wildlife and don't actually provide reliable power compared to relatively safe nuclear, coal, and hydroelectric?

This is the scientific debate and critical thinking that needs to happen in classrooms.

Image: Free image, Pixabay license, no attribution required.

If you experience technical problems, please write to