“Not Science” stamp on top of the report cover that the Heartland Institute mailed to teachers during spring 2017. The report misrepresents climate science.

Déjà vu all over again: Heartland Institute Peddling Misinformation to Teachers about Climate Change

, senior climate scientist | April 7, 2017, 9:15 am EDT
Bookmark and Share

I have had the thrill of sharing the latest discoveries in the classroom with students who asked probing questions, when I was a faculty member of a University.  That journey of discovery is one that parents and family members delight in hearing about when students come home and share what they have found particularly intriguing.

What if the information the student shared was not based on the best available evidence?  Misinformation would begin to spread more widely.  If corrected, the student might distrust the teacher who may have not known the source material was compromised.

This scenario is not fiction.  It has happened and may still be occurring in some U.S. schools.  Anyone concerned about this can learn more with an update forthcoming from those who keep track – the National Center for Science Education (NCSE).

According to the NCSE, during October 2013 educators received a packet chock full of misinformation about climate change.  The report includes an abbreviation that looked similar to a highly respected source – the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – for international climate assessments.

It has happened again (starting in March 2017).  Many teachers found a packet in their mailbox with a report from the same group that spread the misinformation back in October 2013.  This report has a “second edition” gold highlight with a cover image of water flowing over a dam and a misleading title.

Heartland Institute Report Cover Spring 2017 with "Not Science" stamp

“Not Science” stamp on top of the report cover mailed to teachers during spring 2017. The report misrepresents the fact that nearly all climate scientists agree about human-driven climate change.

The report runs counter to the agreement among scientists who publish on climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. More than 97% of scientists agree that climate change is caused by human activities

The Heartland Institute is infamous for its rejection of climate science and unsavory tactics.  According to a reported statement by the CEO of Heartland Institute, they plan to keep sending out copies to educators over the weeks ahead.

If you see any student or teacher with this report or DVD please let NCSE know about it and share what you have learned to help stop the spread.

Posted in: Global Warming Tags:

Support from UCS members make work like this possible. Will you join us? Help UCS advance independent science for a healthy environment and a safer world.

Show Comments

Comment Policy

UCS welcomes comments that foster civil conversation and debate. To help maintain a healthy, respectful discussion, please focus comments on the issues, topics, and facts at hand, and refrain from personal attacks. Posts that are commercial, self-promotional, obscene, rude, or disruptive will be removed.

Please note that comments are open for two weeks following each blog post. UCS respects your privacy and will not display, lend, or sell your email address for any reason.

  • pwmorg

    Vile Koch brothers

  • rlburgs

    Sounds like a reply from the “Flat earth Society”

  • Brandie Freeman

    I am a high school environmental science teacher. I was so disgusted with this mailing that I wrote open letter to other teachers with a chapter-by-chapter analysis of the BS in the book. http://sustainableschoolteacher.blogspot.com/2017/04/an-open-letter-to-teachers.html?m=1

  • Roggie Mac

    only people with very small minds, with limited thought processes and the inability to grasp the magnitude of our biosphere/earth, can even begin to believe that mankind can truly affect the climate in any significant way. people that say otherwise have their own agenda, and are attempting to manipulate you for their own ends. as they say, “follow the money” , as a prime example take Al Gore, look at how rich/wealthy he has become pushing this nonsense. take scientists that were ‘nobodies’ now they’re up on pedestals with crowds of people just waiting with baited breath for every word of wisdom floating from the mouths,they are now important and have money, as they say a ‘twofer’, what a bunch of baloney!

    here is a simple test as to the importance manmade climate change; when you start to hear from scientists, government officials and other self appointed guardians that call for the removal of carbon dioxide(the stuff that makes soda drinks fizzy)from sodas/soft drinks ,such as Coke, Pepsi, and all the other carbonated drinks, then and only then maybe we should start to believe them.

    least anyone think otherwise that i believe that we can do whatever we want; Can mankind cause pollution and make the world unbearable to live in? yes it can. should we fight against every form of manmade pollution? yes ,by all means. it is everyone’s responsibility to do so.

    • Xerxes

      Or the problem could be that you have limited thought processes and the inability to grasp the magnitude of our pollution, and the chain reaction effects that it causes (such as receding permafrost exposing large pockets of methane that have been trapped beneath the frozen soil).

      • Roggie Mac

        of course the climate changes. not denying that. but answer my question , where is the outcry about intentional adding Co2 to sodas/ soft drinks ? if we are really worried about Co2 would not that be a simple and easy starting point, to stop the intentional release of Co2 .

      • Take a deep breath

        It could be the fact that the CO2 added to sodas is an off-product from some other CO2 generating process, so that CO2 would have to be permanently sequestered (unlikely) or it would become available as a commercial gas product. The HFC refrigeration of sodas undoubtedly creates waaayyy more greenhouse gases than the fizzy bubbles from sodas, beer and champagne. Look up some (legitimate) comparisons of the CO2 from carbonated beverages compared to CO2 from internal combustion. Or methane leakage from gas and oil fields or gas transmission systems. Or methane from animal waste or melting permafrost. Or HFC’s. Or CFC’s. Or a warmer ocean’s decreased ability to store CO2. There are a lot of greenhouse gas sources that produce greenhouse gas in orders of magnitude greater than the CO2 from soda. That’s a poor starting point.

  • John Barnes

    Look up “Unstoppable Solar Cycles” from izzit.org. I saw the DVD in a high school science classroom, as a substitute teacher. I was appalled, to say the least.