By Robert Tracinski
Monday, May 23, 2016
The Portland Public Schools board is going to need to buy
some carbon offsets to compensate for its new book-burning campaign.
Well, okay, it’s not actually planning to burn the books,
so it’s in the clear on the emissions. Perhaps it will use a more ecologically
sensitive solution like composting. Either way, the politically incorrect books
are on the way out.
Last week, the Portland, Oregon, public schools board
voted to “abandon the use of any adopted text material that is found to express
doubt about the severity of the climate crisis or its root in human
activities.”
This is the party of “science” at work. Because the
rigorous suppression of doubt and skepticism is the essence of a good science
education, right?
But don’t worry, Jonathan Chait is on top of this and
informs us that it’s all just in the imaginations of “anti-science
conservatives” because “the story does not actually describe a book ban. It
describes a ban on ‘textbooks and other teaching materials that deny climate
change exists or cast doubt on whether humans are to blame.'” Which is a
totally different thing, somehow.
In other news, Chait is strongly against political
correctness when
it targets people like him. The rest of us are fair game.
Actually, the story is even worse than what conservative
news sites have reported. It’s not just that Portland banished from its schools
any active denial of catastrophic, man-made global warming; it’s that they
banished any language that implies the smallest amount of doubt. Bill Bigelow,
a former teacher now working for the activist group that pushed this
resolution, explained its rationale in testimony to the school board:
Bigelow said PPS’ science textbooks
are littered with words like ‘might,’ ‘may,’ and ‘could’ when talking about
climate change. ‘Carbon dioxide emissions from motor vehicles, power plants and
other sources, may contribute to global warming,’ he quotes Physical Science
published by Pearson as saying. ‘This is a section that could be written by the
Exxon public relations group and it’s being taught in Portland schools.’
It reminds me of the old dictum attributed to Lenin:
first you target the counter-revolutionaries, and then you target the
insufficiently enthusiastic. This is no longer about suppressing us global
warming “deniers.” It’s about erecting the global warming catechism as a dogma
that cannot be given anything short of enthusiastic consent. You have to
embrace it the way you love Big Brother.
But it gets worse. Bigelow is the co-author,
conveniently, of his own alternative global warming textbook, “A People’s
Curriculum for the Earth,” which lays out a course in “climate justice.” What
does that mean? Another report from a site called Inquistr (which sounds like The Quibbler, looks like BuzzFeed, and
reads like Pravda) explains:
Climate justice is a social justice
issue that frames climate change not in physical or environmental terms, but as
a social, ethical and political issue. Climate justice is based on the idea
that climate change has a disproportionate effect on low-income and minority
communities, which will now be taught to students in the Portland Public School
system.
So this is an attempt to use global warming as a delivery
device for old-fashioned Marxism, and it will indeed now be Portland public
school policy. The school board resolution mandates the adoption of “curriculum
and educational opportunities that address climate change and climate justice
in all Portland Public Schools.”
I supposed we should at least be happy that the cards are
on the table. For years, some of us have described the promoters of the global
warming hysteria as “watermelons”: green on the outside, red on the inside.
It’s nice to hear them confirm that “climate” is no longer to be thought of in
“physical” — i.e., scientific — terms but is really a “political issue.” That
is what we’ve been saying all along.
But that leads me to the most ominous part of the story:
that the school board’s resolution was adopted unanimously (at a sparsely attended meeting that feels a bit like
an extended “Portlandia” sketch). There was not a single person who saw
anything wrong with it and was willing to say so. On the school board. And
judging from Chait’s reaction, the whole of the “pro-science” left will march
along happily with this bit of Lysenkoism.
Explaining why all of this is wrong and deeply
unscientific almost seems to be beside the point, so I’ll leave the job of
rebuttal to two of my heroes. Carl Sagan:
The suppression of uncomfortable
ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to
knowledge, and there is no place for it in the endeavor of science.
And Henry
Jones, Sr.:
Goose-stepping morons such as
yourself should try reading books instead of burning them.
This used to be not just basic scientific ethics, but
also basic liberalism, back when there was still such a thing as liberalism.
The only thing that’s really interesting about this story
is the way the “science” mask is coming off. If the Left really wanted to guard
its reputation jealously as the Party of Science, it wouldn’t do this. It’s too
blatantly obviously un-scientific and anti-scientific. But what if it just
wanted to use science as a slogan, to steal its well-earned credibility to
revive its discredited pseudo-science of Marxist economics and to give itself
an excuse to persecute dissenters? Well then, this is exactly the sort of thing
it would do.
That’s the dead giveaway that this isn’t science but is
instead one of those other fields Sagan mentioned: religion or politics or an
unholy fusion of the two.
No comments:
Post a Comment