Powered by Max Banner Ads 

Indoctrination Central: New York State Is Raising Fractivists

landowners and laborers - Vic FurmanVictor Furman
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.

indoctrination 800px-NYSED_Building_Night_2

New York State Education Building – Indoctrination Central?

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!

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

32 thoughts on “Indoctrination Central: New York State Is Raising Fractivists

  1. “they all assume essentially political positions based on a superficial veneer of science”

    Wrong. The questions are based on scientific positions of which there is a consensus. Something like 98% of scientists support these views. Donald TrumP must be jealous of that kind of support.

    The political position is to disagree.

    • If you believe 98% of scientists agree on this subject you obviously have read nothing but the polemics. That is as phony a statistic as there has every been produced (sort of like the Soviet election results), produced by looking at small and very selective sample and counting anything remotely supportive of global warming. In fact, if I were a scientist, I would be counted as a believer because I repeatedly make the point natural gas is the most effective method of reducing CO2 in a substantial way in the near future.

      • con·sen·sus
        general agreement.
        “a consensus of opinion among judges”
        synonyms: agreement, harmony, concurrence, accord, unity, solidarity
        “there was consensus among delegates”
        general opinion, majority opinion, common view
        “the consensus was that they should act”

        NOT unanimity

  2. NY license plates should read: “The NIMBY State”

    Cuomo got a get out of jail free card on Moreland, he runs a bogus Start Up NY PR campaign, lavished nearly one billion of our $$ on unprofitable Solar City and favored contractors, he installed the NRDC as the DEC, the GASFRAC well permit in Spencer is AWOL, the Constitution pipeline is DOA, “progressive” foundations, media and educators run the propaganda mill, and most importantly- landowners have been shafted by a regulatory Taking and NY courts are all too crooked to remedy it.

    Albany via NYC is a corrupt Democrat criminal enterprise. highest taxes, least friendly to business, worst place to retire.

  3. THE POINT IS… our children and grandchildren, our nieces nephews and cousins, are being “falsely indoctrinated on a very important issue that will effect them in their adult life on junk science. They are being graded on scientific opinions without the benefit of discussion, proof, or the benefit of scientific data from those opposing the views expressed on the research showing climate change based on “Paid for thesis’s” to keep the global warming scam which equals in economics… to our GNP in monies… some incentive huh. Now had they added questions like

    1.) Al Gore predicted the world would come to an end in 2010 if we don’t get off fossil fuels now. Explain why we are still here?

    2.) Mark Ruffalo’ A well known activist and movie actor is an expert in fossil fuels without ever being educated on the science. Explain what science he uses to state his position?

    3.) Retired Cornell Professor Anthony Ingraffea who taught geology and rock fracturing for 30+ years at Cornell padded his retirement with stipends from anti fossil fuel interest like Gorge Soros’s and Ithaca NYs “Park Foundation” for writing papers on well bore integrity, that were based on off shore oil & gas wells using a computer module for 8 years. He mislead the public, The state of NY as being an expert yet in a trial at the Federal Court House in Scraton PA. under oath. He stated that he had no proof of what he was saying and had never been on a well drilling site on or off shore. Explain his motives and why he refused to be interviewed after admitting in court he was a fraud.

    Yes if these questions were on the same test then I would say our children were taught to be objective and to do research. “NOT” indoctrination by leftist liberals

  4. PS

    98 percent of science agrees Why do you pull numbers out of the air like that. I say 98 percent of the scientist who agree with the false science on climate change are paid to agree

    • You’re right Vic. It’s not 98%.

      It’s 97 to 98%. And please read about the reasoning that justifies the methodology used to come to the conclusion of 97-98%, and then develop your own reasoned rebuttal. Good luck:


      Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources…..

      American Association for the Advancement of Science
      American Chemical Society
      American Geophysical Union
      American Medical Association
      American Meteorological Society
      American Physical Society
      The Geological Society of America
      U.S. National Academy of Sciences
      U.S. Global Change Research Program
      Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

      List of worldwide scientific organizations

      The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.



      Departmentwide Initiatives
      Climate change will require the Department of Defense (DoD) to examine issues related to climate change
      adaptation with respect to both its installations and missions.
      DoD’s built and natural infrastructure serves as the basis for sustaining military readiness.Maintaining this infrastructure in the face of climate change impacts is of critical importance to DoD. Likewise, climate change will shape the operating environment, roles, and missions that DoD undertakes.

      Strategic Environmental Research and Develop
      ment Program (SERDP) and Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP).
      SERDP is DoD’s environmental science and technology program, planned and executed in partnership with DOE and EPA, with participation by numerous other federal and
      non-federal organizations. ESTCP is DoD’s environmental technology demonstration and validation program. The Program’s goal is to identify and demonstrate cost-effective technologies that address DoD’s highest priority environmental requirements. SERDP and ESTCP’s Resource Conservation and Climate Change program area
      supports the development of the science, technologies,
      and methods needed to manage DoD’s installation
      infrastructure in a sustainable way. One the program’s areas of investment is developing the models and tools necessary to understand infrastructure vulnerabilities to and the impacts from climate change.

        • Tom, believe what you want. I’m with the Pentagon, and the Pentagon is with the concept that man-made climate change is real and is actively preparing for it. You are against the Pentagon, I presume?

          And again, from Warren Buffet:

          “Buffett writes that he is not denying the science showing that climate change will likely be a problem.

          But he’s just not 100% certain that it will be.

          From the letter (emphasis ours):

          It seems highly likely to me that climate change poses a major problem for the planet. I say “highly likely” rather than “certain” because I have no scientific aptitude… It would be foolish, however, for me or anyone to demand 100% proof of huge forthcoming damage to the world if that outcome seemed at all possible and if prompt action had even a small chance of thwarting the danger.

          This issue bears a similarity to Pascal’s Wager on the Existence of God. Pascal, it may be recalled, argued that if there were only a tiny probability that God truly existed, it made sense to behave as if He did because the rewards could be infinite whereas the lack of belief risked eternal misery. Likewise, if there is only a 1% chance the planet is heading toward a truly major disaster and delay means passing a point of no return, inaction now is foolhardy. Call this Noah’s Law: If an ark may be essential for survival, begin building it today, no matter how cloudless the skies appear.”

          • I’m very familiar with Pascal. His Pensees is an eye-opener into the irrationality of ideological movements. His wager is logical; your arguments are not. ThePentagon only accepts the BS because they’ve been ordered to an d Warren Buffet is the ultimate crony.

        • Tom, you look ridiculous trying to deny the obvious. You would be much better off simply trying to explain why natural gas still is a reasonable response. That itself is becoming a taller and taller challenge as it is.

          • You’re not interested in the facts; that’s why it looks ridiculous to you and you are actually willing to let your youself believe there’s a 97% consensus on anything.

        • Stop with the sneering, ad hominem nonsense. I did reply, you just don’t like my responses. If I didn’t reply directly, it’s because I view your comments as non-sequiturs.

          • Again, it is too much work to to go beyond this type of
            class-based, ad hominem attack, and in this case you
            conveniently forget that I grew up in Appalachia,
            surrounded by mobile-homes.
            “Take Me Home Country Road” by John Denver
            is one of my all-time favorites.

  5. What’s the matter here? Science isn’t science unless it agrees with your conservative ideological purity?

    Furman (and many others) will never get over that the reason they are politically irrelevant is that their “it’s all a big conspiracy” is absurd and makes them look foolish to the public. The anti’s are just as ideologically constipated with their all or nothing programs, and ultimately they are just as counter-productive as the climate deniers.

    The vast majority of scientists (and the public) believe that climate change is real and happening now. The fact that this is part of the education is just as necessary as putting questions about evolution on biology tests. Even if you don’t believe in climate change, can you make it work for you?

    I’ve said it before here: If you want “Natural Gas Now”, make natural gas the solution to other peoples’ problem. It should be obvious that the anti’s are trying to delay natural gas as long as they can, while they try to get renewables off the ground. If gas can replace coal and oil faster than renewables, then the gas facilities will be in use for the next 20-25 years before they need replacing. This is unacceptable to the anti’s because it will slow down the adoption of renewables. It should also be obvious that the anti’s are so far behind in the construction of renewable facilities, that even having 50% renewables by 2040 is highly unlikely.

    Got a Plan B? Why, yes I do. It’s cleaner, cheaper, stimulates the local economy and helps pay school and property taxes. It gives time for renewables to develop technology that might make them more reliable and efficient. If not, gas will let us develop more efficient ways to extend the responsible use of the resource through technology and conservation.

    • “It should also be obvious that the anti’s are so far behind in the construction of renewable facilities”

      That’s actually not true. Solar on a utility scale becomes economically competitive this year.


      “Wind power is now the cheapest electricity to produce in both Germany and the U.K., even without government subsidies, according to a new analysis by Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF). It’s the first time that threshold has been crossed by a G7 economy.

      But that’s less interesting than what just happened in the U.S.

      To appreciate what’s going on there, you need to understand the CAPACITY FACTOR. That’s the percentage of a power plant’s maximum potential that’s actually achieved over time.

      Consider a solar project. The sun doesn’t shine at night and, even during the day, varies in brightness with the weather and the seasons. So a project that can crank out 100 megawatt hours of electricity during the sunniest part of the day might produce just 20 percent of that when averaged out over a year. That gives it a 20 percent capacity factor.

      One of the major strengths of fossil fuel power plants is that they can command very high and predictable capacity factors. The average U.S. natural gas plant, for example, might produce about 70 percent of its potential (falling short of 100 percent because of seasonal demand and maintenance). But that’s what’s changing, and it’s a big deal.

      For the first time, widespread adoption of renewables is effectively lowering the capacity factor for fossil fuels. That’s because once a solar or wind project is built, the marginal cost of the electricity it produces is pretty much zero—free electricity—while coal and gas plants require more fuel for every new watt produced. If you’re a power company with a choice, you choose the free stuff every time.

      It’s a self-reinforcing cycle. As more renewables are installed, coal and natural gas plants are used less. As coal and gas are used less, the cost of using them to generate electricity goes up. As the cost of coal and gas power rises, more renewables will be installed. “

      • And, once agin, you ignore the subsidies required and the extraordinary extra costs associated with the sort of distortions of the market produce, as you articulate. This is what the European model of subsidies is collapsing and you want more of it here.

        • Tom, oil and gas is subsidized as well. It was especially so in it’s early days, as is every industry. O+G still benefits from subsidies. Who pays for the roads that the cars that use all that gas need to drive on? The American taxpayer. If ExxonMobil was truly subsidy-free, they and the auto industry would pay for those roads.

          Btw, the rail industry also receives tax subsidies.

          Once an industry reaches market parity, the incentives are rolled back. NYSERDA is already cutting back on solar subsidies. I know because I am renovating a home at the moment for my sister-in-law.

          • Tom Shepstone on March 24, 2016 at 9:58 am said:

            Highways are subsidies? Well, by that definition, everything is.

            And, I got YOU to say it..

  6. Vic’s got this one covered. Astute and articulate as always, Vic. Please keep talking, so people can hear the truth, though they don’t want to believe.

  7. “Antis” of a variety of causes have been perfecting twisting “science” and “scientists” to their activist agenda for nearly 70 years. A perfect example is the Alar scare. It was initially based on “science” that was later proven to be completely bogus. But by the time the truth came out it was too late. A perfectly good and useful product had been tarred and feathered and publicly executed to suit the hidden agenda of anti activists.

    The “anti” and “environmental” industry has grown into a self promoting, self serving, self justifying “industry” continuously cooking up the next “big scare” to drive membership, donations, and reason for existence so as to promote the hidden agendas of the elitist progressive funders looking for useful idiots to serve their profit driven causes. Those funders are no different than any other capitalists. They’re trying to serve their own gain. They’re just using a corrupt, “smoke filled backroom” way of doing at the expense of society.

    What do I base this on? For starters read Patrick Allitt’s “Climate of Crisis”. It does a great job of even handedly describing how objective science has been perverted by, and to, activism. And not necessarily just by the environmentalists. Politicians, government, and industrialists have played role to a lesser extent as well as the book points out.

    Global Warming (renamed Global Climate Change when the data didn’t fit the Global Warming label) is the latest and greatest example of how the funding opportunists can cook up an issue, cook up some “science”, and mas market it for the sake of their agendas and profit.

    Basically, the environmentalists shouldn’t be trusted any more than the media, politicians, government, or industrialists. They’re just as profit driven, corrupt, secretive, and self serving.

  8. We have another form of indoctrination that is documented here:

    You’ve got activists visiting college campuses, telling a bunch of lies about ‘evil industry’ to young pliable minds, and trying to recruit more arrestees (aka ‘fresh useful idiots’) for the Crestwood Gate protest.

    And here’s why they are recruiting: In the last 10 arrest days, about 65% of the arrestees were repeats! Two have been arrested 7 times!

    The data indicates they have burned-through the major pool of fools to recruit around Ithaca and Geneva, and are now branching out to Geneseo.

    • Hey, way better to get training in peaceful, nonviolent witness than get your nickers in a twist cause the Feds won’t let you pack heat in the Republican Presidential Convention 2016.

      Way better. Just sayin’.

Leave a Reply

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

 Powered by Max Banner Ads