Why do some believe that advocating the theory of global climate change means some are trying to indoctrinate?

Question

I see words like 'indoctrinate' and 'progaganda' used rather casually or accusatorily in this category. A dictionary definition (1 of 2) for indoctrinate:

"To imbue with a partisan or ideological point of view: a generation of children who had been indoctrinated against the values of their parents. "

In the case of global climate change, that word choice is odd on 2 fronts: One, my parents didn't have the body of knowledge available to them that I do now. And two, since we share the same planet, how can it be indoctrination to want to understand and respect the Earth?

I've taken classes where a teacher had views other than my own or my parents. It helped me to reassess and better understand why I chose to believe as I did. I've never felt threatened by receiving another point of view. In fact, I believe that's healthy, whereas a monocular society is a dull one.

Your thoughts?

Answer 1

Global Warming Advocates are not about science, but rather politics.  It is a way to try to turn the world into socialists by apologizing for your own existence... It is that simple...

Answer 2

Been to public school lately?

Only the "educated" can fully understand.

Answer 3

The denialist want you to believe the earth warming from human activity is a political point of view not a scientific fact.  They used political language because their denial and obstruction of action is politically motivated and NOT support by science or observed evidence  (link to science and evidence provided in references). The actions needed to slow warming requires political agreements, but the science is science and non-partisan.  The denialist want you to think otherwise and work to obscure the issue.

Answer 4

American Heritage defines indoctrination as "To instruct in a body of doctrine or principles. "  Your definition works almost as well.  You just can't see the real world through your partisan glasses IMO.  I certainly recognize that I am partisan but it is interesting to me that the left rarely does.  They are generally arrogant enough to simply think they are correct.

Indoctrination  is a perfect word that describes most of global warming alarmism.  If you believe in human caused harmful warming, you are certainly a leftist and certainly wrong.  If you believe that humans may have emitted CO2 that will probably lead to harmful warming you are probably a leftists.  When you bring leftist views on the news, into the schools, or at every opportunity, it is indoctrination with propaganda.

Answer 5

Back when I was in third grade my liberal teacher indoctrinated me with this stupid liberal scam called 'gravity.' What a joke! It's JUST a theory, they shouldn't be indoctrinating our children with this hogwash! Anyways, everyone knows it's really Intelligent Falling.

Answer 6

ok first of it took me like 10 min to figure out wut indoctrinate means n i still dont fully no but....still i think i get it

some people dont like changing there ideas, their just very stubborn and u must understand that when some people have believed something 4 a long time its hard to change there mind but that usually only goes 4 adults n older people i think many people dont believe because they dont see the proof and it dont

effect them in any way they see. but i realy think these stupid people who think global warming is bull just fell smart when they say real smart people are hippies or just make it up and that its a a bunch of conspiracies they are total losers but i feel bad 4 them they need to see that there being immature like a little kid who wont eat something before they try it because they alredy disided they dont like it!

Answer 7

Amy - I believe we are witnessing fallout from certain radio talk show hosts, primarily -as well as an organized and long-standing campaign of propoganda.  There are more than a few clones out there that spew forth directly from the briefs given to them by their "conservative" think tanks.

It's really exciting and appealing stuff and these media cats push all the right buttons - appeal to the need for a "boogie man" - i.e. "liberals" or "radical environmentalists" or "activist judges" - they place labels and create straw men to beat upon daily for hours at a time - and people eat it up!

It feels good for some folks to indulge in anger - these 'journalists' give them a place to focus that anger on... I mean think of the labels they toss around - just who are these radical enviros?  Camoflauged, beret wearing, bearded hippies hiding in the woods just waiting to jump out at you if you so much as drop a gum wrapper!?!?  Uh... well... sounds good, but... gee.

I am starting to come to the conclusion though that folks that are in that realm and reveling in this so called "world view" are simply unreachable - and if it's not GCC it's going to be something else.

You and I both know that it's usually always issues that if you follow the trail -- threaten the 'power elite' - and we're called crazy if we suggest that there is an organized, insidious and well planned campaign that began years ago and is still in motion  - a campaign of propoganda and indoctrination FOR SURE!

Oh they are clever - they use our justifiable outcry against us and turn the tables - and it feels so good for folks aware enough to realize what's happening - again the displaced anger.

I'm not sure which type of person I feel more sorry for- the one who knows what's happening and still chooses the "dark side" or the person who is emotional, learning and simply duped out of fear into falling in step with the "conservative" movement.

Answer 8

Quite honestly, I think that most people who believe in global warming only do so because it's all over pop culture and the media they consume on a day to day basis and from that develop the conclusion that it must be true.  And that's not to say because they're stupid or gullible; most people simply don't have time in their day to day lives to go investigating every little thing they hear from various sources.  That even goes for teachers.  Many only teach it as one sided because they don't view it as something that has two sides.  They're told to teach it, so they do.  But at some point it does become indoctrination by the system itself because school boards, administrations, some individuals . . . have been presented with the fact that it is not a cut and dry issue, yet, have done nothing to address the situation of having it taught and presented in such a way.  Universities are especially notorious for this as many have been known to only hire professors who share similar ideologies and beliefs when college is supposed to be a place for open discussion of ideas, no matter how controversial.  That even goes for what are supposed to be unbiased science professors.  I have read articles and heard personal stories about how someone hasn't been hired, or has been harassed after being hired for having a differing viewpoint on the very subject on global warming.  And if you break down the subject on the political spectrum, it falls more into the realm of liberalism (not to say some conservatives don't believe in it and visa versa). Being that universities are primarily comprised of liberal leaning staff, quite often politics shine through and they knowingly ignore the other side in which case indoctrination does occur. And don't misunderstand, I'm not trying to exclusively demonize liberals, because the same can occur with a group of conservatives.  But in the case of education on whole, it's mostly liberal.  Basically, you are right in saying hearing other people's views is good at gaining perspective.  However, other views aren't necessarily correct, which is why debate and discussion is good on so many levels.  I think that's one of the biggest gripes about the whole thing from skeptics (and even some advocates), lack of discussion on something that certainly is not proven or solidified as fact that is being branded as clear and concrete.

Answer 9

When enlightenment is brought forth by the new thinkers (usually the youth, as stated) they are mercilessly harangued into submission (or just shot, as in Tiananmen).  Then some period of time goes by and it is learned that the new information is correct and it becomes integrated into the common culture.  

But the reactionaries never give up and they invent endless methods to prevent progress and preserve the status quo.  

Unfortunately, this time around, we don’t have enough time to wait for cycle to play out.  

Did the caretakers lose the war or did they refuse to fight?  Either way, we are losing and time is running out.  If it is that they refused to fight, it didn’t work and we need to try another tack.  

I choose to attack.  Before anyone gets any ideas and reports me to homeland security, I don’t believe in violence and never will.  But the idea that we should be meek and mild scientists and let the debate play out on its own doesn’t sit well with me for the stated reasons.  Perhaps you can enlighten me in this respect.

“They are generally arrogant enough to simply think they are correct.”

Yes, exactly.

So why do we have 100 years of science and 98% of the qualified experts of the world saying that man is the cause (not to mention common sense); yet the finger jabbers have goose egg - a couple of crackpot potshots that don’t stick?

Oh, I forgot.  It’s a socialist one-world-government conspiracy - with no proof of this either.

Oh, I forgot. Who was it again who is "generally arrogant enough to simply think they are correct?"

I have formulated a description for this type of mental disorder:

But I'll be respectful of your wishes and not post it.

We have facts.  They have c**p but they wield it most effectively.

Answer 10

Global warming is used as a fear tactic to convert the unbelievers,  and those who do not convert are stupid, ignorant, right winged radicals, neocons, etc....  and vica versa. This is not education, this is indoctrination, certain fundamentalist groups use these tactics all the time, in the name of saving humanity, I don't see the difference between them and certain proponents of AGW.  The sad thing if you could get the emotions out, you would probably find out most of the people here do care about the environment and would like to see cleaner energy.

Answer 11

I believe in doing ones own homework as to avoid biased /  indoctrinated input.

Answer 12

How long have we kept weather records? About 150 years. How does anyone know what the heat and cool cycle of the Earth is based on that? Think about it, we've had ice ages long before we had records or an "impact." Do you find it interesting that you can now make money off of Global Warming? Who's next in line for their carbon credits?

Answer 13

They don't understand the difference between indoctrination and education.

It's like a similar subject that we often come back to - evolution.  Teaching creationism in schools is indoctrination because it's an ideological point of view.  It's 100% faith-based with no supporting scientific evidence.  Evolution is not - it's supported by science.

The same is true of AGW - it's supported by science.  We're not saying 'believe AGW because the bible says it's true', we're saying 'here is the scientific evidence supporting AGW'.  If you choose to reject that evidence that's fine, but you should reject it with science and reason, not with ideology.  

Most 'skeptics' unfortunately reject the science for purely ideological reasons.  They go on rants about how Al Gore owns a private jet and we're just trying to tax them and turn the US into a socialist state, etc.  The closest they come to a scientific argument is to try and argue the sun is to blame, but with the utter lack of science supporting that argument, it's more akin to worshipping the sun god Ra!

Answer 14

Not sure how old you are, but I am old enough to remember when fast food chains sold their burgers in stryafoam containers.  This was a LARGE part of 80s envirnmental movment, and now those same places sell their burgers in recycled cardboard, or paper.  That said, I also remember when every one was worried about a new ice age.  The threats change, the issues change, but what doesn't EVER change is youth trying to make the world better.  SOmetimes it works, sometimes it fails, and sometimes it ends up hurting.  The key is, as long as there is youth, there will be a call for change.  I hope the next generation does better then mine did : )

Answer 15

"To imbue with a partisan or ideological point of view..."

Have you noticed the extreme media bias on the subject of global warming? All the liberal and most moderate news organizations report the global warming as accepted fact and push green agendas more heavily. They also report that the debate about the man-made climate change theory is "over." That kind of reporting is the very definition of  propaganda.

Meanwhile, conservative organizations tend to avoid the topic of global warming. When they do bring it up, they try to poke holes in the theories and discredit the advocates of man-made climate change. Again, those network have an agenda to push, making it propaganda as well.

"...a generation of children who had been indoctrinated against the values of their parents"

Ask your parents if they remember the " man-made climate crisis" in the 1970's. Was it global warming and rising temperatures? Nope. Back then, global COOLING was the latest and greatest fad for the environmentalists. Everyone was so freaked out over a slight drop in global temperatures that everyone wanted to turn up the global thermostat to try and avoid "the next ice age." People your age may buy into the global warming theory, but people who lived through the 1970's are more hesitant. Instead, when they hear "global warming" and "climate crisis" today, many of them just roll their eyes as they think about the crazy environmentalists in the 1970's and how we really have no clue what influences the climate.

Answer 16

"To imbue with a partisan or ideological point of view: a generation of children who had been indoctrinated against the values of their parents. "

Okay, from the top, I guess:

imbue - To inspire or influence thoroughly; pervade

partisan - A fervent, sometimes militant supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea.

So, to expand the original definition:

To [inspire/influence thoroughly] with a [fervent/militant, one-sided] point of view

Note:  The additional "a generation of children who had been indoctrinated against the values of their parents."  is an example of the word in use, not part of the definition.

A teacher's career, their mission, is to inspire and influence students.  Forcing children to memorize the theory of man-made global warming or suffer failing grades is extremely militaristic and one-sided, as there is no measurable evidence to support the theory.  Every attempt to predict the future based upon the assumptions of this theory has been completely off in hindsight.  Astrology is more scientific than the "man-made" global warming theory.

The practice of teaching man-made global warming in school fits the definition of "indoctrinate" you provide, to the letter.

Answer 17

Because it's like this Amy.  The way it's taught is completely one-sided...as fact.  The 'Al Gores' (and there are many) seen all over the world on tv or in lecture halls keep using the word 'concensus' and saying there CAN BE NO DEBATE.

Anyone who questions them or holds an opposing view will either be beat back by the closed-minded or will fail their class.

Debate is a good thing.  It's how everything is settled eventually, unless there's use of force.  Debate progresses our lives and cultures.

When THERE CAN BE NO DEBATE .... it indicates that something's either proven or that there's a conspiracy.  Since the hypothesis of g/w has not been proven, the conspiracy result is obvious.  

Schools need to start teaching our kids about scams of all kinds...there should be courses on this kind of thing.  G/w, if it is a scam, won't be the last they will face.  And if it is a scam, our kids need to learn that there are consequences, such as harsh prison terms.

Answer 18

all input has value ,

we still have to make our own assessments

and that will be all the richer with volume,

both negative and positive ,

to end up with a panoramic view

And why people become angry with people ,

who are after all saying things which is for the improvement of ALL is at times bewildering.

Maybe they do not want or care about improvement ?

That one`s ideas can be wrong about improving ,

i can accept

but to say NO IMPROVEMENT IS WARRANTED

i consider a negative attitude.

and feel it is right to object

because it is also my world.

Answer 19

I think that those who claim this have things backwards. The deniers are so politically indoctrinated that they can’t see the Arctic melting right before their eyes.

Ask any denier to back their opinions with a scientific source, and you'll get nothing but a list of blogs and editorials: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;... Now who's tyring to indoctrinate who?