Upstate New York Landowner Shale Gas Activist at NYRAD-R
Vic Furman takes a look at New York State regents exams and finds them to be tailored for use at Indoctrination Central, where they raise up new fractivists.
A few weeks ago I spent some spare time digging around the New York State Library research site where I found copies of regents examinations used by our state educators to test our children on what they’ve learned in our schools. What I found was nothing less than deeply upsetting; our school system might as well be called Indoctrination Central. It is being used to inculcate fractivism and other political versions of environmentalism in young minds. I had no idea there was this much indoctrination taking place in our schools. No wonder fractivists have so much influence over New York politics.
Let me illustrate my point with a few examples of questions asked between 2010 and 2015 for use at Indoctrination Central:
Global warming has been linked to a decrease in the:
(1) size of the polar ice caps
(2) temperature of Earth
(3) rate of species extinction
(4) rate of carbon dioxide production
Which action will result in the greatest decrease in rain forest stability?
(1) removing one species of plant for medicine
(2) harvesting nuts from some trees
(3) cutting down all the trees for lumber
(4) powering all homes with wind energy
One way that humans could have a positive impact on local environments is to:
(1) generate waste products as a result of technological advances
(2) use resources that are renewable
(3) increase planting large areas of one crop
(4) increase the use of pesticides
Because of an attractive tax rebate, a homeowner decides to replace an oil furnace heating system with expensive solar panels. The trade-offs involved in making this decision include:
(1) high cost of solar panels, reduced fuel costs, and lower taxes
(2) low cost of solar panels, increased fuel costs, and higher taxes
(3) increased use of fuel, more stable ecosystems, and less availability of solar radiation
(4) more air pollution, increased use of solar energy, and greater production of oil
The table below shows the abundance of some greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Identify the most abundant greenhouse gas and state one human activity that is a source of this gas.
Greenhouse gas: _______________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________
Some data suggest that the average global temperature will increase by 1°C – 2°C by the year 2050. If this occurs, a major concern for humans would most likely be that:
(1) sea levels might rise enough to flood some coastal areas
(2) long-term stability of the climate will benefit ecosystems
(3) the availability of salt water for agricultural use will increase
(4) the threat of extinction of land organisms will decrease
Base your answers to questions 60 through 63 on the information below and on your knowledge of biology. An ecology class is trying to help reduce the problem of global warming by asking their school district to change all of their old lightbulbs to compact fluorescent lightbulbs that use less electricity.
60 Identify one specific gas that contributes to the problem of global warming. ___________________________________
61 State one activity of humans that increases the concentration of this gas.
62 Describe one negative effect of global warming on humans or ecosystems.
63 Explain why switching to more efficient lightbulbs will help reduce the school’s contribution to global warming.
Base your answers to questions 71 and 72 on the diagram below and on your knowledge of biology. The diagram identifies four groups that can have an effect on air quality in New York State.
71 Identify one specific air-quality problem caused by pollution that affects New York State.
72 Select one of the four groups and record its name on the space below. Describe one way the group you selected could help to improve the air quality in New York State.
Car manufacturers have begun to explore the use of biofuels, such as biodiesel, ethanol, and cooking oils made from plant material. The desired outcome of using these biofuels would be:
(1) a decrease in the use of fossil fuels
(2) a decrease in the release of oxygen gas
(3) an increase in abiotic resources
(4) an increase in global warming
It’s easy to see what’s wrong with these questions; they all assume essentially political positions based on a superficial veneer of science. Implicit in the last question, for example, is the assumption all fossil fuels are simply bad, but we know none of what we consider today’s high standard of living would be possible without them and we know, further, that some fossil fuels, such as natural gas, are much better than others and contributing to major CO2 reductions from our energy use. We also know New York State is heavily dependent on this resource. Finally, we know biofuels, particularly ethanol, can have huge negative environmental consequences. So, why is the question phrased in a manner to ignore every bit of this? What purpose does such a question have if not indoctrination?
Similar assumptions go into all the questions and answers. The global temperature rise question and answers, for instance, assume “sea levels might rise enough to flood some coastal areas,” but sea levels have been rising for a very long time and, “on average, the ocean floor has been gradually sinking since the last Ice Age peak, 20,000 years ago” according to the EPA. Why are students effectively being told sea level rises are simply attributable to man’s activities, if not for indoctrination purposes? It’s the kind of nonsense that feeds headlines such as “The Fracked Gas Power Plant That Could Put New York City Underwater” in a recent EcoWatch story by the lying Josh Fox.
And, take a look at the question and answers regarding the solar rebate. That could have been a good one in making students think about tradeoffs, but notice how none of the selections get it quite right. The language also reinforces the idea solar must be better and only a selfish concern with higher taxes stands in the way of environmental progress.
Thoughtful readers will see the bias and indoctrination involved with all these examples. Some, no doubt, will think that’s just fine if they share the agendas put forth here by the Board of Regents. As for me, though, I find this indoctrination deeply troubling as it shows New York State is busy trying to shape the political minds of its future voters. We are now servants of our government and they are our masters; the exact reverse of what government is supposed to be. No wonder the Empire State is crumbling!