Mike Huckabee's Disinformation Series of Children's Books

[durangodawood]

We really need the Skeptisaurus right about now.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

We really need the Skeptisaurus right about now.

Some of those books you mention aren't as heavy on outright propaganda and lies, even if they are heavily emphasizing one viewpoint. Just discussing atheism or science with your kids isn't the same as "indoctrination".

I think skepticism is a good quality to have...

Obviously I ended up as an atheist despite growing up in a southern Baptist household, so clearly I was skeptical of some of the things around me the adults were saying.

But shouldn't that be a universally accepted quality? Why is being skeptical of the pastor's claims of an afterlife or being skeptical of traditional gender norms being seen as empowering or "expanding ones mind", but being skeptical about biases of news anchors, or being skeptical of the degree to which climate activists are portraying the immediacy and severity of problem (and their proposed solutions to go with it) is considered some form of "propaganda"

For context, I'm a person who believes that climate change is happening, I believe that human activity is the cause, and I think we'd be smart to try to get off of fossil fuels sooner than later.

However, people aren't completely unreasonable in being skeptical about claims pertaining to climate change, specifically the ones in the theme of "if we don't do this (or stop doing this) by <insert date here>, <insert catastrophic event here> is going to happen by <insert another date here>"

There is a certain track record of the actual outcomes not being anywhere as bad as the predictions:
1970: Harvard biologist (and Nobel Prize winner) George Wald sate that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years [by 1985 or 2000] unless immediate action is taken”

1982: The Executive Director of the UN climate program said that "entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels due to global warming by the year 2000."

1988: Drinking water supplies will dry up in the Maldives by 1992, and the Maldives will be completely under water by 2018.

1990: UN says rising seas could obliterate nations by 2000 (doubling down on their prediction from 8 years prior)

2004: Pentagon Climate officials claim that Britain will have a Siberian-like climate by 2020 if something isn't done immediately.

2008: NASA climate scientists estimate that the artic will be free of sea ice within 5-10 years

2009: At the COP climate conference (with keynote speaker Al Gore), it's predicted that if something isn't done immediately, the North Polar ice cap would be gone in 5 years (as well as echoing some of the predictions NASA had made the previous year)

2014: French climate scientists predict that if something isn't done, there would be "climate chaos" within 500 days.


There's other examples, but you get the point.


There's prudent climate protection proposals and concerns, and then there's alarmism. I think over the last 30-40 years, we've had as much of the latter as we've had of the former. Can you really fault some folks when they have a bit of a "yeah yeah, I've heard this spiel before" attitude when they hear the latest round of predictions?

Had it not been for the dozens of previous instances of "crying wolf" "we'll all be dead in 5 years if you don't support this new carbon tax", people likely would've taken it a little more seriously when they predicted a few years ago that we were going to start seeing big shifts in weather patterns, and more intense storms and more intense wildfire seasons (which they obviously ended up being right about as we've seen over the past year)

 

[Pommer]

If ANY books should be banned from public libraries, these ought to top the list. Just imagining what is inside each title makes me cringe, and while I hope that libraries wouldn't waste their money on them, I am not a book banner and would just hope parents would have the good sense not to take them out.

I guess the first one was Kids Guide to Coronavirus (even the title seems to breed contagion). There is also Kids Guides to Immigration, Law Enforcement, the truth (?) about Climate Change, the Reagan Revolution, Media Bias and Fake News, Cancel Culture....

Former gov and first dad Mike Huckabee churns out new right-wing kids' book on climate

Via the OP link:

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is selling climate change denial to children now, and it can be yours for only $1.

Huckabee’s newest, “The Kids Guide to the Truth About Climate Change,” is part of a growing library of books and resources the first Gov. Huckabee has been marketing for years to Christian schools, homeschoolers and the evangelically minded.

Put out by EverBright Media, co-founded by the Huckster himself, the books are branded as anti-woke truth-telling to “help children learn all about important subjects that schools refuse to teach.”

[emphasis mine]
This is how televangelists have made mucho bucks over the years “giving” (or very cheaply selling) books; they’re also the publisher. Donations that would be unethical to use directly as income for the person, are used to buy books from “the publisher”, who is often the same person or family member of the person.

 

[durangodawood]

I think skepticism is a good quality to have...

Obviously I ended up as an atheist despite growing up in a southern Baptist household, so clearly I was skeptical of some of the things around me the adults were saying.

But shouldn't that be a universally accepted quality? Why is being skeptical of the pastor's claims of an afterlife or being skeptical of traditional gender norms being seen as empowering or "expanding ones mind", but being skeptical about biases of news anchors, or being skeptical of the degree to which climate activists are portraying the immediacy and severity of problem (and their proposed solutions to go with it) is considered some form of "propaganda"

For context, I'm a person who believes that climate change is happening, I believe that human activity is the cause, and I think we'd be smart to try to get off of fossil fuels sooner than later.

However, people aren't completely unreasonable in being skeptical about claims pertaining to climate change, specifically the ones in the theme of "if we don't do this (or stop doing this) by <insert date here>, <insert catastrophic event here> is going to happen by <insert another date here>"

There is a certain track record of the actual outcomes not being anywhere as bad as the predictions:
1970: Harvard biologist (and Nobel Prize winner) George Wald sate that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years [by 1985 or 2000] unless immediate action is taken”

1982: The Executive Director of the UN climate program said that "entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels due to global warming by the year 2000."

1988: Drinking water supplies will dry up in the Maldives by 1992, and the Maldives will be completely under water by 2018.

1990: UN says rising seas could obliterate nations by 2000 (doubling down on their prediction from 8 years prior)

2004: Pentagon Climate officials claim that Britain will have a Siberian-like climate by 2020 if something isn't done immediately.

2008: NASA climate scientists estimate that the artic will be free of sea ice within 5-10 years

2009: At the COP climate conference (with keynote speaker Al Gore), it's predicted that if something isn't done immediately, the North Polar ice cap would be gone in 5 years (as well as echoing some of the predictions NASA had made the previous year)

2014: French climate scientists predict that if something isn't done, there would be "climate chaos" within 500 days.


There's other examples, but you get the point.


There's prudent climate protection proposals and concerns, and then there's alarmism. I think over the last 30-40 years, we've had as much of the latter as we've had of the former. Can you really fault some folks when they have a bit of a "yeah yeah, I've heard this spiel before" attitude when they hear the latest round of predictions?

Had it not been for the dozens of previous instances of "crying wolf" "we'll all be dead in 5 years if you support this new carbon tax", people likely would've taken it a little more seriously when they predicted a few years ago that we were going to start seeing big shifts in weather patterns, and more intense storms and more intense wildfire seasons (which they obviously ended up being right about as we've seen over the past year)

Sure, skepticism all around! But seriously, we dont have a huge looming problem because people are or were believing those^^^ things. I follow this topic pretty closely and I cant even remember most of those tiny blips.

The problem is people believing the same fossil fuels / "conservative" propaganda they did all along and ignoring the basic science. And now theyre too personally invested to change course without feeling like dupes. Of course I fault them for that. They have brains and access to information. But instead theyve abandoned their discriminating intellect in favor of the comfort of tribal affiliation.

Otoh, maybe I overrate the human capacity to think straight, and underrate the need people have to feel coddled. In fact, I probably do.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Rob, I guess that reading one was enough.
I looked to see if they might be on our online library service, but they weren't.
The very titles of these books point to a slanted, biased negative view destined to make these homeschooled kids rush out tilting at windmills at every turn.

Are we still talking about the books in the OP or Gender Queer and the 1619 Project?

Christian nationalists are not the most persecuted people in America. No one wants to destroy their way of life. They just want to stop them from interfering with everyone else's.

I don't see a whole lot of Christian nationalists interfering with anyone's lives. If they are a real group that has any real numbers....and not merely a new boogeyman to paint the political right as (because the labels "nazi" and "fascist" have lost their bite and "white supremacist" is a difficult label to stick to the growing number of black, latino, and Asian conservatives and just sort of makes the left look crazy)....then as far as I can tell, Christian Nationalists are just playing by the rules of our democracy.

They have manufactured a false history and are now trying to squeeze it into the Constitution, but like a Rubenesque lady trying on spanx, it just doesn't fit.

The left cheered the 1619 Project and gave it awards, literally, despite being a disproven and false history. I haven't seem any national platforms that have been proposed by any "Christian Nationalists" that seem to run afoul of the Constitution like I've seen from the left. DEI initiatives are basically against the civil rights amendments against non-discrimination on the basis of sex and race so unless the left wants to roll back those amendments (and it appears to want to) I'd suggest that the new mainstream left is a bigger and relevant threat to the Constitution. I mean, they quite literally want to create a Ministry of Truth to censor political speech online.

Unless you are on the left and you were against all these things I don't know why anyone would take your concerns seriously now.

 

[BPPLEE]

If ANY books should be banned from public libraries, these ought to top the list. Just imagining what is inside each title makes me cringe, and while I hope that libraries wouldn't waste their money on them, I am not a book banner and would just hope parents would have the good sense not to take them out.

I guess the first one was Kids Guide to Coronavirus (even the title seems to breed contagion). There is also Kids Guides to Immigration, Law Enforcement, the truth (?) about Climate Change, the Reagan Revolution, Media Bias and Fake News, Cancel Culture....

Former gov and first dad Mike Huckabee churns out new right-wing kids' book on climate

So you have not seen what’s in any of the books, much less read any of them?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Sure, skepticism all around! But seriously, we dont have a huge looming problem because people are or were believing those^^^ things. I follow this topic pretty closely and I cant even remember most of those tiny blips.

1. The left hasn't realistically done anything more than the right in terms of climate change. Entering into agreements that the left either can't or doesn't comply with is just virtue signaling.

2. The left has vigorously defended policies that sped up climate change. For example, the 5 million people Joe and the left encouraged to enter the has a vastly larger carbon footprint here than in the nation they left. The average Guatemalan has an annual carbon footprint of about 1.4 metric tons. Here in the US? 16 metric tons. It's nice you believe in the problem but the left isn't actually fixing it

The problem is people believing the same fossil fuels / "conservative" propaganda they did all along and ignoring the basic science.

Beliefs don't fix the problem.

And now theyre too personally invested to change course without feeling like dupes. Of course I fault them for that.

Of course you do...blaming someone else allows you to continue your own rampant consumption guilt free.

They have brains and access to information.

Right...so what's the left's excuse? This administration added somewhere between 50 and 75 million metric tons of CO2 emissions because they want cheap labor.

But instead theyve abandoned their discriminating intellect in favor of the comfort of tribal affiliation. Otoh, maybe I overrate the human capacity to think straight....?

You've underestimated the capacity of some people to scapegoat others for their own comfort.

 

[Pommer]

Oh lookie, there’s a book review of this fine educational product by people who do climate news as a business.

 

[FireDragon76]

I think skepticism is a good quality to have...

Obviously I ended up as an atheist despite growing up in a southern Baptist household, so clearly I was skeptical of some of the things around me the adults were saying.

But shouldn't that be a universally accepted quality? Why is being skeptical of the pastor's claims of an afterlife or being skeptical of traditional gender norms being seen as empowering or "expanding ones mind", but being skeptical about biases of news anchors, or being skeptical of the degree to which climate activists are portraying the immediacy and severity of problem (and their proposed solutions to go with it) is considered some form of "propaganda"

For context, I'm a person who believes that climate change is happening, I believe that human activity is the cause, and I think we'd be smart to try to get off of fossil fuels sooner than later.

However, people aren't completely unreasonable in being skeptical about claims pertaining to climate change, specifically the ones in the theme of "if we don't do this (or stop doing this) by <insert date here>, <insert catastrophic event here> is going to happen by <insert another date here>"

There is a certain track record of the actual outcomes not being anywhere as bad as the predictions:
1970: Harvard biologist (and Nobel Prize winner) George Wald sate that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years [by 1985 or 2000] unless immediate action is taken”

1982: The Executive Director of the UN climate program said that "entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels due to global warming by the year 2000."

1988: Drinking water supplies will dry up in the Maldives by 1992, and the Maldives will be completely under water by 2018.

1990: UN says rising seas could obliterate nations by 2000 (doubling down on their prediction from 8 years prior)

2004: Pentagon Climate officials claim that Britain will have a Siberian-like climate by 2020 if something isn't done immediately.

2008: NASA climate scientists estimate that the artic will be free of sea ice within 5-10 years

2009: At the COP climate conference (with keynote speaker Al Gore), it's predicted that if something isn't done immediately, the North Polar ice cap would be gone in 5 years (as well as echoing some of the predictions NASA had made the previous year)

2014: French climate scientists predict that if something isn't done, there would be "climate chaos" within 500 days.


There's other examples, but you get the point.


There's prudent climate protection proposals and concerns, and then there's alarmism. I think over the last 30-40 years, we've had as much of the latter as we've had of the former. Can you really fault some folks when they have a bit of a "yeah yeah, I've heard this spiel before" attitude when they hear the latest round of predictions?

Had it not been for the dozens of previous instances of "crying wolf" "we'll all be dead in 5 years if you support this new carbon tax", people likely would've taken it a little more seriously when they predicted a few years ago that we were going to start seeing big shifts in weather patterns, and more intense storms and more intense wildfire seasons (which they obviously ended up being right about as we've seen over the past year)

I don't believe skepticism is inherently good. It depends on the context. Somebody that is skeptical of science is being foolish, for instance. Being skeptical that there are little fairies living under my window, on the other hand, is much more wise.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I don't believe skepticism is inherently good. It depends on the context. Somebody that is skeptical of science is being foolish, for instance.

Exactly, I remember just a couple years ago these foolish people were all like "the Wuhan virus was made in a lab" and I was like look, just because there's a lab studying the virus in exactly the place it came from, that happened to have a history of safety violations, and happened to delete all their data on the virus, and happened to be funded by international institutions that our top virus guy worked for and approved gain of function research and all these other stupid virus guys were saying it looked "lab made" and it went on to kill some 6 million people.....doesn't mean it was made in a lab....fools.

You know how I know? Because that same top virus guy said so. Pay attention to the science people. Geez. BTW, when big pharma comes out with an untested vaccine that just kinda kills a few people and they get billions of dollars to do so, guaranteed free of any legal consequences, you better believe them when they tell you it works. You're 100% protected from the virus and 99% protected from the vaccine at least on the ride home from the CVS you got the shot at....so quit complaining about losing your small business and life savings and healthy people dropping dead a day or two after getting the vaccine and "authoritarian regimes" and all the rest of that nonsense and listen to Rachel Maddow for Pete's sake. She's never been wrong about anything. She gets paid to tell you the facts.

I swear....the unbelievably foolish people in this nation.

Being skeptical that there are little fairies living under my window, on the other hand, is much more wise.

Their called non-binary children. Fairies is a bit politically incorrect these days.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The problem is people believing the same fossil fuels / "conservative" propaganda they did all along and ignoring the basic science. And now theyre too personally invested to change course without feeling like dupes. Of course I fault them for that. They have brains and access to information. But instead theyve abandoned their discriminating intellect in favor of the comfort of tribal affiliation.

Do you think the aforementioned instances of alarmism helps with the efforts of dispelling fossil fuel company propaganda, or does it play into their hand by giving them easy talking points about "look at all the times the those scientists were wrong" whenever they want to plant seeds of doubt?

Another thing I see as a major contributing factor here, is that climate science is one of the few facets of science where society has left the public messaging up to almost exclusively pop culture figures and uniquely unqualified people.

When people hear about climate change, they're, more often than not, typically hearing about it via preachy celebs, or seeing footage of unconstructive protest efforts from young college activists...

I think that adds a polarizing element to the conversation that doesn't need to be there as well as removes an element of seriousness from the conversation.

We've all seen the jokes about "a bunch of celebs go to Climate benefit in Switzerland on 15 separate private jets", or the countless Gretta "How Dare you" memes, or videos of kids gluing themselves to paintings and snooker tables.

Having the messaging almost entirely dominated by groups of people who many staunch conservatives are already inclined to feel are preachy and annoying (or have made insulting comments about them in the past) isn't really helping with the goal of getting more conservatives to take climate change more seriously.

I think some of those same missteps were a contributing factor to the polarization surrounding covid as well. I don't think Hollywood A-listers making instagram posts from the back yards of their lavish estates telling everyone to stay home really helped convey that message in a productive way.


If you notice, not all aspects of science are met with the same "spiteful inclination to take the opposing side" by many staunch conservatives.

For instance, you don't really see that same "desire to reject" for topics like "smoking causes cancer", "what contributes to diabetes", cancer research, nuclear energy, the formulas NASA uses for determining how many light years away a particular star is, etc... (sure, you may find the occasional flat earther or person who believes in alternative quack treatments), but not to the same degree we see/saw for things like climate and covid.

However, if Alyssa Milano started making selfie vids telling everyone they had to stop eating sugar, I have no doubt that a certain percentage for that camp would gravitate toward a "sugar truther" position.

I really do think that the "those people who I think are annoying are trying to tell me what to do" aspect is one that people aren't giving enough weight to.


In all honesty, one potential silver lining I see about RFK Jr's new found popularity among some on the right (albeit, for some questionable reasons), is that being that he's an environmental guy, maybe it'll remove the ideological taboos surrounding the topic in some conservative circles.

 

[durangodawood]

I don't believe skepticism is inherently good. It depends on the context. Somebody that is skeptical of science is being foolish, for instance. Being skeptical that there are little fairies living under my window, on the other hand, is much more wise.

I think its very valid to be skeptical of scientific claims. It just needs to be applied on a rational basis. If you havent studied the issue personally, then appeal to the findings of people who have. Dont favor the extreme outlier without knowing precisely why their position is the minority one.

Most people do not study scientific issues themselves, or even have the slightest scientific background. Yet so many feel competent to adjudicate scientific matters on their own or on the basis of political ideology.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

So who would be an authority on climate change. accepted by everyone?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) collects, reviews, and summarizes the best information on climate change and its impacts, and puts forward possible solutions. The IPCC was created by the United Nations Environment Programme in 1988 and is widely considered the world’s top authority on climate science. Its reports are written for policymakers and scientists, but they are available to everyone. They often provide useful knowledge and data for teachers and journalists, like an encyclopedia.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a United Nations body widely considered the world’s top authority on climate science.

climate.mit.edu

United States Environmental Protection Agency?

Climate Change | US EPA

Comprehensive information from U.S. EPA on issues of climate change, global warming, including climate change science, greenhouse gas emissions data, frequently asked questions, climate change impacts and adaptation, what EPA is doing, and what you can do.

www.epa.gov

Who is Mike's authority?

In 2013, the Center for Media and Democracy reported that the State Policy Network (SPN), an umbrella group of 64 U.S. think tanks, had been lobbying on behalf of major corporations and conservative donors to oppose climate change regulation.

 

[durangodawood]

....For instance, you don't really see that same "desire to reject" for topics like "smoking causes cancer", "what contributes to diabetes", cancer research, nuclear energy, the formulas NASA uses for determining how many light years away a particular star is, etc... (sure, you may find the occasional flat earther or person who believes in alternative quack treatments), but not to the same degree we see/saw for things like climate and covid......

Big tobacco was big. But really it was a tiny fraction of the size of fossil fuels, which used its muscle to make climate denial a badge of personal and political identity.

Also, even smokers could feel personally and viscerally that the habit was unhealthy and gross. Its hard to mount a sustained pushback against that. Climate otoh is "a bunch of eggheads talking about a few degrees F in the atmosphere, over the edge of some time horizon." It makes a pushback much more feasible.

All the celebrity this and that should be a sideshow for modestly rational people. You may have a point tho, to the extent that people are not all that capable of intelligent discrimination - and to the extent they crave tribal-political identification.

 

[FireDragon76]

Big tobacco was big. But really it was a tiny fraction of the size of fossil fuels, which used its muscle to make climate denial a badge of personal and political identity.

Also, even smokers could feel personally and viscerally that the habit was unhealthy and gross. Its hard to mount a sustained pushback against that. Climate otoh is "a bunch of eggheads talking about a few degrees F in the atmosphere, over the edge of some time horizon." It makes a pushback much more feasible.

All the celebrity this and that should be a sideshow for modestly rational people. You may have a point tho, to the extent that people are not all that capable of intelligent discrimination - and to the extent they crave tribal-political identification.

I've watched political tribalism growing in my own family. It's a scary thing to see happening. And it's all being driven by too much smartphone and social media.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Big tobacco was big. But really it was a tiny fraction of the size of fossil fuels, which used its muscle to make climate denial a badge of personal and political identity.

Also, even smokers could feel personally and viscerally that the habit was unhealthy and gross. Its hard to mount a sustained pushback against that. Climate otoh is "a bunch of eggheads talking about a few degrees F in the atmosphere, over the edge of some time horizon." It makes a pushback much more feasible.

All the celebrity this and that should be a sideshow for modestly rational people. You may have a point tho, to the extent that people are not all that capable of intelligent discrimination - and to the extent they crave tribal-political identification.

Another recent example I can think of that ties into what I was mentioning earlier...

After the "cowspiracy documentary" (and all of the many of the same types of celebs, etc...) started pushing for plant based dieting, there was a conspicuous uptick in staunch right wing types wanting to gravitate toward "the carnivore diet" (with people like Tucker Carlson even promoting it in a few instances)


The tribalism aspect you mention actually presents a problem on both fronts.

While we've covered the problems with it causing people to "reject it for the wrong reasons", supporting it for the wrong reasons comes with a different set of challenges.

If the only reason a person is claiming "pro-environmental status" is so they can be perceived as "being on the correct team", there's a lack of seriousness there that will likely make them stop short of actually making any meaningful changes.

And another conflating factor is that every solution proposed in the name of "fighting climate change" isn't always a good one, and a rejection of those proposals is often portrayed as "climate denialism". For instance, one can be against the "Green New Deal" proposal for a variety of reasons while still acknowledging climate change, however that's not the way it's portrayed, it's often a "you either give support to every idea we propose that's in the name of fighting climate change, or you're anti-science"

 

[Fantine]

Way back when, Al Gore wrote a book and directed a film, "An Inconvenient Truth." I know one of the climatologists who assisted Gore in this project.

The book and documentary were well-researched and eye-opening, but the right took every opportunity to call him a wacko, saying that he claimed to have "invented the internet" and other nonsense.

Michael Bloomberg wrote a book with the retired founder of the Sierra Club. He talked about, among other things, how little things NYC did resulted in far less electricity use. One was requiring businesses with flat rooves to paint their rooves white. They might have grumbled but they wound up saving a considerable amount of money on electricity.

Most of what I've read about climate has been researched and accurate, but the "new" conservatism just wants to attack and label.