Scientific American : Climate Education Should Be Based On Emotion

Teach Students about Climate Change, ‘Just the Facts’ Isn’t Enough – Scientific American

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Scientific American : Climate Education Should Be Based On Emotion

  1. Mark Stevens says:

    The warmanistianity religion has incorrect facts and now they are going to produce emotions based upon those facts. Those types of people will join other groups who have such an incorrect manner of existing, which include: murderers, terrorists, rapists, molesters, blm and other similar types of racial protestors, communists, socialists, people who drive slow in the passing lane, etc…

  2. GWS says:

    The left is so convinced that you are stupid that they no longer bother pretending to be logical and honest, they just announce what they want you to believe, and are convinced that you will fall in line. The left is convinced that the woke desperately want to see the emperor’s new clothes.

  3. Anon says:

    Hi Tony,

    Since you are into history and have familiarity with what newspapers were publishing way back when, I just thought I would alert you to a “popular science” book I recently read. The title is Stalin and the Scientists and describes a world similar to what Scientific American is now promulgating. It is really a painful story about what trying to do honest science in a completely politically driven society was like, where the results are predetermined. It was like reading a real life version of Orwell’s 1984.

    Not only does it describe what kind of world we are heading into, but also mentions that much of this Russian “science” was republished in the American press… much extremely positive. And you would not believe what the Russians were up to back then in terms of believing they could control the climate… the ideas generally revolved around turning the Siberian taiga into another American “wheat belt” through massive projects of artificial forestation and irrigation.

    For example, sometimes the Aral Sea comes up nowadays as proof of CAGW, but few know the sea was emptied because of a now abandoned “cotton project”, designed to make the USSR self-sufficient in that raw material. And the book goes on an on about these types of projects (disasters), many of which were praised in the Western press.

    Hence, back in the 1970s, many progressive economists predicted that the Soviet economy would surpass that of the West… all based on these economists believing what they read in our newspapers.

    So, if you can find them, there might be a lot of articles that people took seriously back then that are hysterical today.

    Anyway… FYI

  4. Anon says:

    I didn’t need to think deeply about what Scientific American is promulgating, as it serendipitously appeared in the next article I read:

    If YouTube’s block of RT’s German channels is about ‘misinformation’, when will MSNBC & CNN be banned for Russiagate conspiracies?

    By Glenn Diesen, Professor at the University of South-Eastern Norway and an editor at the Russia in Global Affairs journal.

    Propaganda is the science of persuading an audience without reason by instead appealing to group psychology and emotional rhetoric. If propaganda entails “closing the mind to argument,” then countering propaganda implies appealing to reason by objectively presenting competing arguments.


  5. NixonScraypes says:

    Im so glad to hear that the climate is at last being educated emotionally. Hopefully this will encourage it to have more empathy with people. I can look forward to much more sensitive and inclusive weather in our diverse future.

  6. arn says:

    The worse the science becomes the bigger the lies and indoctrinations have to become.

    Students who are open to conversation are vulnerable to truth and may reactivate critical thinking skills.
    Emotionalised pricks(woke) on the other hand
    can only start to scream and feel superior.
    This is from a mental petspective political correctness on steroids.
    While PC at least pretends to be civilised
    and is more of a passive kind
    this here is pure activism,alynskies rules for radicals in action.
    New soldiers for ecomarxism.

  7. Linda says:

    “Scientific American” Bad choice of name.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *