Is the new Common Core science curriculum talking about Haarp here?

page: 1
1

log in

join

posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Hi all, while researching this Common Core since it's rearing it's ugly head here in my children's school district I came across this while reading the new common core Science curriculum being implemented this year in the schools. Is this haarp? lol.
I don't know how to insert a picture so here is a link to the page. If you scroll down you will see the letters HS-ESS3-4. and the paragraph next to it...read it and you will see ""to large-scale geoengineering design solutions (such as altering global temperatures by making large changes to the atmosphere or ocean).""

That struck me as odd. what do you all think. :-)

Thanks.



Common Core science curriculum




posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by hapablab
 


Geo-engineering is mainstream science, if that's what you're asking. The idea that the HAARP facility in Alaska is related to it is considered fringe.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by hapablab
 


HAARP and other such facilities utilize radio frequencies to excite the ionosphere.

HAARP and other such facilities have nothing to do with geo-engineering; rather, a typical use is to determine how communication via radio transmission can be improved during electrical disturbances occurring in the ionosphere.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by hapablab
 

Evaluate or refine a technological solution that reduces impacts of human activities on natural systems.* [Clarification Statement: Examples of data on the impacts of human activities could include the quantities and types of pollutants released, changes to biomass and species diversity, or areal changes in land surface use (such as for urban development, agriculture and livestock, or surface mining). Examples for limiting future impacts could range from local efforts (such as reducing, reusing, and recycling resources) to large-scale geoengineering design solutions (such as altering global temperatures by making large changes to the atmosphere or ocean).]

www.nextgenscience.org...

The paragraph you are talking about.

The surrounding HS-ESS3-(n) points (or paragraphs) talk about recycling, minimizing human impact on the environment, creating models to reduce acidity in the ocean, etc.

I don't really smell the stench of HAARP "evil conspiracy schemes" here.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 06:50 PM
link   
The way I understood it lol. One day they found a hole in the upper layer of air, cause is unknown so tried to fix it.

Ozone layer is what I heared it to be. Anyways it went to somehow weather control, depolulation, and even crazy ideas floating around so we wonder about them things so create something out of nothing.

If you go way back to a time when we Seeded Clouds, would be more like it just on a deeper level. So they; gov messed with something and now the idea is to fix it. So instead of fixing the core of the problem some great mind came up fixing the hole and not the cause.

Somehow I really do not think anyone really knows how the hole in the ozone layer happen. Could have been there since 1700's for all we know. We do know it's getting hotter, storms should be renamed, and when was the last time we actually have just a nice rain without the damage?

Peace



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Chamberf=6
 


Of course not - this thread is just another example of how febrile minds will invent BS about HAARP.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by hapablab
 



Examples for limiting future impacts could range from local efforts (such as reducing, reusing, and recycling resources) to large-scale geoengineering design solutions (such as altering global temperatures by making large changes to the atmosphere or ocean).]


what happened to cutting pollution/emissions and cleaning up toxic waste and ceasing and desisting with the generation of same? Very interesting excerpt you posted.
HAARP and other ionospheric heating facilities, is, imo, way beyond the kind of pollution addressed in this course. HAARP, imo, is spiritual pollution in that it changes or alters or modifies the natural frequencies of all things it deigns to touch. (There is a HAARP effort afoot to re-direct radioactive particles from the radiation belts onto magnetic field lines and this could be considered a sort of pollution because there is touch-down to earth in two places for each of these lines. That would be an example of added pollution, though, and not an effort to mitigate said pollution.) (HAARP also has been thought to use chemtrails as antenna but this would be an example of pollution itself so, again, imo, HAARP is not for mitigating pollution but, rather, for creating it.)



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 02:33 AM
link   
I had a long reply written but I think the following suffices:

Students should be revealing that the current "green" movements in fact harms the environment more than most current "fossil fuel" operations do because it costs more, both monetarily with regards to the fuel expended by machinery and the effects of extracting materials such as lithium and others, to acquire the raw materials required to construct "green" vehicles and generate the additional electricity at the power plants, than it does to build a current vehicle, of appropriate design of course, and burn gasoline or diesel in a self-contained engine, over the expected lifetime of said vehicles.

It takes energy to extract these products so where does that "energy" come from?

If they were 'recycled' products, where did the energy to do that come from?
edit on 2/18/2014 by abecedarian because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
1

log in

join