Nature Advocates Using Children To Propagandize Parents

Nature magazine has published the article “Ignorant children should be used to propagandize their more knowledgeable parents.

I might have got the title wrong (click link for actual), but it’s correct in spirit.

The authoresses (and one author) of this piece are Danielle F. Lawson, Erin Seekamp, Kathryn T. Stevenson, M. Nils Peterson, Sarah J. Carrier, Renee L. Strnad [sic], and Erin Seekamp. Their departmental affiliations are Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management, Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation Biology, Department of Teacher Education and Learning Sciences, and Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources, all at North Carolina State University.

This is important because the propaganda the authoresses (and one author) wish to push is global warming, a field in which none of them has any expertise.

Quoting the abstract “Because climate change perceptions in children seem less susceptible to the influence of worldview or political context, it may be possible for them to inspire adults towards higher levels of climate concern, and in turn, collective action.”

Reality would say, Because children are absolutely ignorant about the physics of fluid flow on a rotating sphere, their opinions of this matter should not be heeded by anyone.

Them: “Child-to-parent intergenerational learning—that is, the transfer of knowledge, attitudes or behaviours from children to parents—may be a promising pathway to overcoming socio-ideological barriers to climate concern.”

Reality: Children annoying their parents with state-sponsored propaganda may deceive the parents into accepting anything. Nice euphemism, though, for the corrupt and immoral practice of using the kiddies to spread misinformation: “Child-to-parent intergenerational learning”.

Them:

Here we present an experimental evaluation of an educational intervention designed to build climate change concern among parents indirectly through their middle school-aged children in North Carolina, USA. Parents of children in the treatment group expressed higher levels of climate change concern than parents in the control group. The effects were strongest among male parents and conservative parents, who, consistent with previous research, displayed the lowest levels of climate concern before the intervention.

Reality: A bunch of arbitrary questions with ad hoc quantified questions were given to a handful of folks in a highly controlled setting, the result of which was a “climate change concern score”, which, when put into a complicated regression model, with missing data filled in with guesses, spit out some small numbers.

But—and I have hand it to these ladies (and one man)—there are no p-values! Only regression parameters and their standard errors. This still exaggerates evidence, as all parameter-focused analysis does. But it is a step, a small one, in the direction of Reality.

Them: “Daughters appeared to be especially effective in influencing parents.”

Reality and also Them (now in body of paper): “Sons delivering the survey may trigger parents to think more about the topic as they associate science more with boys than with girls”.

Them: “We chose middle school children as the target age group for this study because early adolescence represents a developmental stage in which children are capable of understanding complex topics, such as climate change, and are still in the process of forming their own opinions on controversial subjects.”

Reality: Kids don’t know jack about these topics, but we thought we might be able to addle their wee minds so as to push our ideology.

Them: “The compulsory nature of primary and secondary education in the United States and similar systems elsewhere represent an opportunity for curricula to increase the reach of climate change communication.”

Reality: This sentence confirms why the paper wins the Pavlik Morozov Science Communication award.

Morozov, you will recall, is celebrated as the boy who ratted out his own parents to the Godless commies and was martyred for it. There used to be a statue of the rat, but it disappeared. We’ll put a new one up in honor of these ladies (and one man).

Now I say “and one man”, because I thought at first all the authors were non-males, and only discovered late that M Nils Peterson was a male. He’s a busy guy:

–“Educational attainment predicts negative perceptions women have of their own climate change knowledge (2019)”,

–“Predicting development preferences for fishing sites among diverse anglers (2019)”,

–“Developing a model of climate change behavior among adolescents (2018)”,

–“Are we working to save the species our children want to protect? Evaluating species attribute preferences among children (2017)”.

Science only progresses.

To support this site using credit card or PayPal click here

8 Thoughts

  1. Them: “Daughters appeared to be especially effective in influencing parents.”

    Hmmm but there is no difference between daughters and sons as all woke PC scientists know and aver. Maybe they (Them?) meant offspring who self identify as daughters? If not, should this be entered into their Facebook dossiers?

  2. “The compulsory nature of primary and secondary education in the United States and similar systems elsewhere represent an opportunity for curricula to increase the reach of climate change communication.”
    Spoken like true communist dictators everywhere. Kim and Mao would be proud.

    Weak-willed crappy parents have for decades let their children dicate morals and acceptable behaviors. Spineless creatures running from their obligations. Now we have a mess and karma will provide a nightmarish existence for these spoiled brats and their perversions. Several generations of them. Your unwanted, unloved children thank you.

  3. An excellent revelation of the metastasizing power of the PC-Prog belief system, growing in our culture since 1920. The transmission belts of our culture–education/academia, the media, and Hollywood were the vectors that carried this infection.

    Hatred of capitalism, which “climate change” operations are specifically designed to destroy, is a core belief of PC-Progs.

    Inserting the “we must change society” attitude into education/academia was a stunning coup. Though it didn’t pay dividends immediately (it began in 1920 with George Counts, of Columbia U.), the infection festers spectacularly today. As a reviewer of Willing Accomplices noted, the Comintern operation used “…Dr. George S. Counts, long a faculty member of Teachers College of Columbia University and its International Institute.
    “Mr. Clizbe first encountered Counts’ affinity for “progressive education” as a student at Southern Illinois University, where Counts had taught years earlier, and where his influence lingered. He traced a long paper trail back into Counts’ boyhood in the Midwest to a months-long trip to the USSR in the 1920s and eventually to Columbia. He was prominent in the “Progressive Education Association,” where he proclaimed to teachers the need for “imposition and indoctrination” in the classroom. He laced lectures with what became staples of PC: class conflict, race hatred, “industrial feudalism,” and the need for “reconstruction of society.” In one widely-distributed speech, he declared, “If democracy is to be achieved…powerful classes must be persuaded to surrender their privileges…this process has commonly been attended by bitter struggle and even bloodshed….Ruling classes never surrender their privileges voluntarily.”
    “Witting instrument of the Soviets or not, Mr. Clizbe contends that Counts’s prestigious position, and his ability to influence generations of educators, did much to influence what students heard in their classrooms all over the US.
    “As Mr. Clizbe notes, “It is not likely that any of the Comintern influence operators realized that they were creating a monster that would survive for decades. Did they succeed? Consider that Americans are bombarded daily, in he print media and on TV and movie screens, [with charges] that they are “guilty of slavery, bigotry ,oppressing minorities and women around the planet, killing the earth with their hairspray and various other sins….Obama’s cool, detached elite attitude, loathing the ‘bitter clingers’ of the heartland, is a living testament to the power and success of Muenzenberg’s covert influence operations.”

  4. Dav wrote: “Them: “Daughters appeared to be especially effective in influencing parents.” ”

    That’s because girls can – and will – weep over imaginary nothings. They will create lots and lots of drama to get what they want. And girls love to be Teacher’s Pet, so Teacher can coerce girls to go on hunger strikes at home to force their parents to join the Climate Cult.

    Also, every leftist project is subsumed in feminism, so girls are being promoted as “more valuable” than boys. Especially in anything to do with ‘education’… thus the STEM and STEAM stuff only talks about girls, politicized surveys only ask about daughters. Every UN/WHO/NGO program talks about immunizing “women and girls” or feeding “women and girls” or educating “girls”, etc

  5. David Attenborough reports that he became vocal in the global warming ‘struggle’, because his granddaughter asked him why he hadn’t been more involved. I’m thinking that it isn’t entirely true, that he was already under some considerable pressure from the BBC’s bully department. His family influenced him as a better reason to cave in.

    It’s years since David Bellamy, despite his being known for being an environmental/conservation fanatic, who, for example, lays down in front of diggers to stop forrest clearance; HE of all people was not prepared to ‘buckle’ and so was sacrificed by the press and media. His role in particular was often in children’s educational material because of his amusing voice and infectious enthusiasm for the subject of biology/botany/ecology.

    It isn’t about the children or the grandchildren, it’s about what’s true, or the closest approximation after analysis of the evidence.
    Sensible people don’t get confused about the difference between loving a child or grandchild and telling the truth. Only those who are given to self deception, maybe. It amounts to the the same thing. If you would deceive yourself you would deceive others.

  6. As aways, Matt, great stuff. I think there’s a typo …

    “Reality: A bunch of arbitrary questions with ad hoc quantified questions were given to a handful of folks in a highly controlled setting …”

    Do you mean “qualified answers”??

    Best to you and yours,

    w.

  7. That use of kid’s impressionable minds to not only indoctrinate them but turn them into climate change missionary propagandists was on full display in the video showing very young school kids trying to bully Diane Feinstein to hurry up and save the planet.

    That’s got to be easily findable online…

Leave a Reply

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