Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Getting Hollywood to “Sell the Product” to Children

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In reading the article/speech below, ask yourself how successful (or unsuccessful) by comparison Darwinists have been in selling their product to children.

Inhofe Slams Leonardo DiCaprio and Laurie David
by Marc Morano (more by this author)
www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23092
Posted 10/29/2007 ET
Updated 10/29/2007 ET

Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Environement and Public Works Committee, delivered a more than two-hour floor speech today debunking fears of man-made global warming. Below is an exerpt of his remarks about how Hollywood, led by Leonardo DiCaprio and Laurie David, has promoted unfounded climate fears to children. For video of speech section denouncing Hollywood is below.

Senator Inhofe Speech Excerpt:

We are currently witnessing an international awakening of scientists who are speaking out in opposition to former Vice President Al Gore, the United Nations, the Hollywood elitists and the media-driven “consensus” on man-made global warming.

We have witnessed Antarctic ice GROW to record levels since satellite monitoring began in the 1970’s. We have witnessed NASA temperature data errors that have made 1934 — not 1998 — the hottest year on record in the U.S. We have seen global averages temperatures flat line since 1998 and the Southern Hemisphere cool in recent years.

These new developments in just the last six months are but a sample of the new information coming out that continues to debunk climate alarm.

But before we delve into these dramatic new scientific developments, it is important to take note of our pop culture propaganda campaign aimed at children.

HOLLYWOOD TARGETS CHILDREN WITH CLIMATE FEARS

In addition to Gore’s entry last year into Hollywood fictional disaster films, other celebrity figures have attempted to jump into the game.

Hollywood activist Leonardo DiCaprio decided to toss objective scientific truth out the window in his new scarefest “The 11th Hour.” DiCaprio refused to interview any scientists who disagreed with his dire vision of the future of the Earth.

In fact, his film reportedly features physicist Stephen Hawking making the unchallenged assertion that “the worst-case scenario is that Earth would become like its sister planet, Venus, with a temperature of 250 [degrees] centigrade.”

I guess these “worst-case scenario’s” pass for science in Hollywood these days. It also fits perfectly with DiCaprio’s stated purpose of the film.

DiCaprio said on May 20th of this year: “I want the public to be very scared by what they see. I want them to see a very bleak future.”

While those who went to watch DiCaprio’s science fiction film may see his intended “bleak future,” it is DiCapro who has been scared by the bleak box office numbers, as his film has failed to generate any significant audience interest.

Gore’s producer to kids: ‘Be activists’

Children are now the number one target of the global warming fear campaign.

DiCaprio announced his goal was to recruit young eco-activists to the cause.

“We need to get kids young,” DiCaprio said in a September 20 interview with USA Weekend.

Hollywood activist Laurie David, Gore’s co-producer of “An Inconvenient Truth” recently co-authored a children’s global warming book with Cambria Gordon for Scholastic Books titled, The Down-To-Earth Guide to Global Warming.

David has made it clear that her goal is to influence young minds with her new book when she recently wrote an open letter to her children stating: “We want you to grow up to be activists.”

Apparently, David and other activists are getting frustrated by the widespread skepticism on climate as reflected in both the U.S. and the UK according to the latest polls.

It appears the alarmists are failing to convince adults to believe their increasingly shrill and scientifically unfounded rhetoric, so they have decided kids are an easier sell.

But David should worry less about recruiting young activists and more about scientific accuracy. A science group found what it called a major “scientific error” in David’s new kid’s book on page 18.

According to a Science and Public Policy Institute release on September 13:

“The authors [David and Gordon] present unsuspecting children with an altered temperature and CO2 graph that reverses the relationship found in the scientific literature. The manipulation is critical because David’s central premise posits that CO2 drives temperature, yet the peer-reviewed literature is unanimous that CO2 changes have historically followed temperature changes.”

David has now been forced to publicly admit this significant scientific error in her book.

Nine year old: ‘I don’t want to die’ from global warming

A Canadian high school student named McKenzie was shown Gore’s climate horror film in four different classes.

“I really don’t understand why they keep showing it,” McKenzie said on May 19, 2007.

In June, a fourth grade class from Portland Maine’s East End Community School issued a dire climate report: “Global warming is a huge pending global disaster” read the elementary school kids’ report according to an article in the Portland Press Herald on June 14, 2007. Remember, these are fourth graders issuing a dire global warming report. (LINK)

And this agenda of indoctrination and fear aimed at children is having an impact.

Nine year old Alyssa Luz-Ricca was quoted in the Washington Post on April 16, 2007 as saying:

“I worry about [global warming] because I don’t want to die.”

The same article explained: “Psychologists say they’re seeing an increasing number of young patients preoccupied by a climactic Armageddon.”

I was told by the parent of an elementary school kid last spring who said her daughter was forced to watch “An Inconvenient Truth” once a month at school and had nightmares about drowning in the film’s predicted scary sea level rise.

The Hollywood global-warming documentary “Arctic Tale” ends with a child actor telling kids: “If your mom and dad buy a hybrid car, you’ll make it easier for polar bears to get around.”

Unfortunately, children are hearing the scientifically unfounded doomsday message loud and clear. But the message kids are receiving is not a scientific one, it is a political message designed to create fear, nervousness and ultimately recruit them to liberal activism.

There are a few hopeful signs. A judge in England has ruled that schools must issue a warning before they show Gore’s film to children because of scientific inaccuracies and “sentimental mush.”

In addition, there is a new kids book called “The Sky’s Not Falling! Why It’s OK to Chill About Global Warming.” The book counters the propaganda from the pop culture.

Objective, Evidence based Science is Beginning to Crush Hysteria

My speech today and these reports reveal that recent peer-reviewed scientific studies are totally refuting the Church of Man-made Global Warming.

Global warming movement ‘falling apart’

Meteorologist Joseph Conklin who launched the skeptical website in 2007, recently declared the “global warming movement [is] falling apart.”

All the while, activists like former Vice President Al Gore repeatedly continue to warn of a fast approaching climate “tipping point.”

I agree with Gore. Global warming may have reached a “tipping point.”

The man-made global warming fear machine crossed the “tipping point” in 2007.

I am convinced that future climate historians will look back at 2007 as the year the global warming fears began crumbling. The situation we are in now is very similar to where we were in the late 1970’s when coming ice age fears began to dismantle.

Remember, it was Newsweek Magazine which in the 1970’s proclaimed meteorologists were “almost unanimous” in their view that a coming Ice Age would have negative impacts. It was also Newsweek in 1975 which originated the eerily similar “tipping point” rhetoric of today:

Newsweek wrote on April 28, 1975 about coming ice age fears: “The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.”

Of course Newsweek essentially retracted their coming ice age article 29 years later in October 2006. In addition, a 1975 National Academy of Sciences report addressed coming ice age fears and in 1971, NASA predicted the world “could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age.”

Today, the greatest irony is that the UN and the media’s climate hysteria grows louder as the case for alarmism fades away. While the scientific case grows weaker, the political and rhetorical proponents of climate fear are ramping up to offer hefty tax and regulatory “solutions” both internationally and domestically to “solve” the so-called “crisis.”

Skeptical Climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball formerly of the University of Winnipeg in Canada wrote about the current state of the climate change debate earlier this month:

“Imagine basing a country’s energy and economic policy on an incomplete, unproven theory – a theory based entirely on computer models in which one minor variable (CO2) is considered the sole driver for the entire global climate system.”

And just how minor is that man-made CO2 variable in the atmosphere?

Meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo, the first Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel and former chairman of the American Meteorological Society’s (AMS) Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting, explained in August how miniscule mankind’s CO2 emissions are in relation to the Earth’s atmosphere.

“If the atmosphere was a 100 story building, our annual anthropogenic CO2 contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first floor,” D’Aleo wrote.

Comments
Mac T you stated: This is not because they may not exist, but because science is not equipped with explanatory mechanisms outside the natural realm. You are clearly limiting science, to what you think it can explain, prior to investigation. The primary job of Science is to relentlessly pursue a more correct understanding of the truth whatever, and wherever, that truth may be! To put artificial limits on what science is allowed to discover prior to investigation, just because you, or others, think science can't explain whatever is to be discovered, is to basically retard the primary purpose of science in its primary endeavor prior to investigation!bornagain77
November 4, 2007
November
11
Nov
4
04
2007
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT
getawitness: Perhaps I didn't make my point clearly enough. A scientific explanation cannot "point toward" non-natural mechanisms; they are excluded from scientific consideration. This isn't a matter of taste, or preference, or world view, or religious or philosophical bias. Science does not have the tools to answer questions about non-material causes. Also, as I understand their position, the most prominent ID theorists would not agree with your implication that the design perspective suggests God. Perhaps an ID theoris would care to comment? Finally, you take a shot at evolution. But the phenomenon of evolution is not seriously at issue. The scientific question is whether the mechanisms of change thought by most scientists, and inspired by Darwin, are in fact responsible for change. If you read the scientific literature, you will see that proposed evolutionary mechanisms receive a great deal of critique within the mainstream.MacT
November 4, 2007
November
11
Nov
4
04
2007
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT
MacT said: Darwinian principles might eventually be shown to be wrong, and an alternative may emerge that provides a better account of evolution. But any viable alternative will have at least one thing in common with Darwinism: Non-natural causes will be excluded from consideration. This is not because they may not exist, but because science is not equipped with explanatory mechanisms outside the natural realm. MacT, your answer assumes a lot (like, that "evolution" needs an "account" rather than a critique). But I may not have made myself clear. What if the explanation does not provide non-natural mechanisms but points toward non-natural mechanisms? I don't expect anybody to describe God scientifically. But the design perspective suggests that the intelligence behind life is not like anything (or anyone) we encounter in nature.getawitness
November 4, 2007
November
11
Nov
4
04
2007
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT
The true goal of climate fear is to use it to stifle economic growth in the US. There are two main groups of people who want this. 1 is those international powers who wish to erode US soverigenty so that they can freely do what ever they want at our expense. The second group is the poor and anti american political sentiment from within the country. They always have sought and continue to seek equality over the betterment of all. The more burocratic advancements that can be made especially when it is at the expense of the free market will allow for more redistribution of wealth. In this case it is the intellectual sicentists of climate that are leading the charge agianst the free market with research grants in their sites. Greedy hungry politicians are fallowing their lead in lock step. Shame on the usual suspects- those elitests of the institution. But the intellectul war is nothing new- Marxism is responsible for millions of deaths spanning accross the globe and more unequal economies than any intellectual political idea before it or since. All suposedly in the name of equality and peace.Frost122585
November 4, 2007
November
11
Nov
4
04
2007
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT
getawitness says: "I’m still trying to figure out when criticism of Darwinism becomes critique of materialism and therefore support for ID." Be careful about entering a logical dead zone. It is not the case that any criticism of Darwinism is ipso facto support for ID. It's not about Darwinism; it's about science. Darwinian principles might eventually be shown to be wrong, and an alternative may emerge that provides a better account of evolution. But any viable alternative will have at least one thing in common with Darwinism: Non-natural causes will be excluded from consideration. This is not because they may not exist, but because science is not equipped with explanatory mechanisms outside the natural realm.MacT
November 4, 2007
November
11
Nov
4
04
2007
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT
Jerry, I understand that Dr. Behe provides evidence against Darwinism while Dr. Dembski provides evidence for ID. Yet both are ID theorists. Dr. Wells also provides evidence against Darwinian processes, and he's an ID theorist. I don't know anything about Dr. MacNeill except what I've read here, but if he's against ID I bet he's a materialist no matter what he says about Darwinism. I'm still trying to figure out when criticism of Darwinism becomes critique of materialism and therefore support for ID.getawitness
November 4, 2007
November
11
Nov
4
04
2007
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT
getawitness, Support for one's position in any controversy often requires negative evidence against the other positions. This is what critical analysis is about. Much of the evidence used in the evolution debate is negative evidence against the other positions. The creationists and ID have been very effective at developing negative arguments against naturalistic processes for complex biological change. Each hopes that this will reflect positively on their own position. The naturalistic adherents invoke bad design, the presence of evil and other philosophical arguments against ID, essentially a negative approach. The Edge of Evolution is essentially about the limitations of the neo Darwinian process. In fact it is a devastating appraisal. Dr. Dembski's work. if I have assessed it correctly, is more in a direction of providing evidence for the necessity of intelligence so as to lead one towards the ID position. Allan MacNeill who is discussed on another thread currently up will also present lots of evidence against neo Darwinism but then try to lead one to another naturalistic process that includes a multitude of mechanisms for change. I personally, and I believe a lot of others here would also agree, that like the weaknesses of neo Darwinism should be taught in the text books and the classroom along with the current theory. Let the students make up their minds. Right now there is little criticism in the curriculum but more is appearing.jerry
November 4, 2007
November
11
Nov
4
04
2007
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT
In re: (11). If one defines "design," as Dembski does, as "the set-theoretic complement of the disjunction regularity-or-chance," then yes. Under that definition, everything that is neither ascribable to regularity or to chance must be a result of design. Therefore, arguments against NDT (neo-Darwinian theory) are arguments in favor of design theory. (Neglecting, for the time being, non-teleological, naturalistic alternatives to standard NDT.) In other words, if the only options are A, B, and C, and we know that it can't be B or C, then it must be A. Dembski provides probabilistic arguments against "B or C"; Behe provides empirical arguments against "B or C." That, at any rate, is my sense of how things stand. But there are many here whose command of design theory far exceeds my own. Is what I've said a fair interpretation of the state of play?Carl Sachs
November 4, 2007
November
11
Nov
4
04
2007
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT
Thanks, Dr. Dembski, that helps clear things up. I still tend to confuse the idea of teaching scientific criticisms of evolution and teaching ID. They overlap a lot in my mind. If we want to require teaching critiques of evolution, doesn't ID provides the best examples?getawitness
November 4, 2007
November
11
Nov
4
04
2007
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT
Teaching ID next to Darwinian evolution, which I continue to support, is different from mandating either by force of law. Judge Jones, for instance, ruled that ID may not be taught.William Dembski
November 4, 2007
November
11
Nov
4
04
2007
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT
rrf’s post was poorly thought out it was instantly clear what he was up to. I mean really, “...remake it in His image”??? lolshaner74
November 4, 2007
November
11
Nov
4
04
2007
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT
"Teaching the controversy” is about the scientific dissent from Darwinism...
Skepticism is an essential component of scientific thinking. More of it is definitely needed in our schools.Daniel King
November 4, 2007
November
11
Nov
4
04
2007
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT
rrf was quite rude. But I think the ID position may have changed over time. Back in 2005, Dr. Dembski wrote that "President Bush is to be commended for his courage, wisdom, and foresight in publicly supporting the teaching of intelligent design alongside evolution." He even linked to that op-ed on this site. At least at the time, Dr. Dembksi did "advocate teaching ID to school children." But positions change, and there's nothing wrong with that.getawitness
November 4, 2007
November
11
Nov
4
04
2007
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT
Since rrf directs us to the Discovery Institute, it might be helpful to read what DI president John West has written on the subject of "teaching the controversy". http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/12/intelligent_design_critic_call.html
...In fact, Discovery Institute recommends teaching evolution by natural selection but also scientific criticisms of the theory. It does not recommend that schools require intelligent design. This is the policy we have supported in Ohio, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Texas, Pennsylvania, Kansas, and a number of other states. We do support the right of teachers to voluntarily discuss intelligent design, but we do not advocate this as a school board policy or state legislative policy. That is one reason we opposed the Dover School District policy from the start--well before there was any lawsuit. For a statement of our rationale on this point, see the letter we sent to the Pennsyvlania legislature opposing a bill on teaching intelligent design earlier this year.
russ
November 4, 2007
November
11
Nov
4
04
2007
03:29 AM
3
03
29
AM
PDT
rrf "Teaching the controversy" is about the scientific dissent from Darwinism which is separate from ID. And by the way, you're outta here.DaveScot
November 4, 2007
November
11
Nov
4
04
2007
12:44 AM
12
12
44
AM
PDT
Perhaps "rrf" is an instigator. I've heard that in the 60s, during COINTELPRO, undercover FBI agents infiltrated various countercultural/leftist movements. They would instigate the group to take more and more radical actions in order to get them to break the law so that they could then be arrested. In time, activists formed the assumption that whoever proposed the most radical, illegal actions was an undercover agent. I mention this because the proposal here, namely that one should try to get ID taught in the schools before it is vindicated in the laboratory, is precisely what neo-Darwinist establishment-types think you guys are trying to do anyway. So accepting the proposal -- which, as russ points out, has not been advocated by anyone else here -- would pretty much confirm the establishment's stereotype of the ID movement. As for me, I'm a tried-and-true Darwinist, and made no effort to conceal it -- but I enjoy philosophical argument, and there's something to be said about rooting for the underdog -- which ID currently is.Carl Sachs
November 3, 2007
November
11
Nov
3
03
2007
08:05 PM
8
08
05
PM
PDT
Amen, brother! This is exactly why we need to get ID into schools...
I've never seen anyone on this forum advocate teaching ID to school children.russ
November 3, 2007
November
11
Nov
3
03
2007
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply