Chelsea Clinton — whose major claim to fame continues to be offspring of lying Democrats Hillary and Bill — has been striving hard over the last few months to make a name for herself.In doing so, she’s said and done a number of things that have made her the laughing stock of the internet.
And, she’s done it once again.
This time, Clinton created a Twitterstorm after pushing a climate change lesson plan.
Via Twitchy:Chelsea Clinton is concerned that there might be some teachers who won’t automatically be pushing man-made climate change propaganda and might be exposed to other opinions on the issue:
— Chelsea Clinton (@ChelseaClinton) April 27, 2017
Here’s the response her brilliant piece garnered:
"Science teachers, what can we do to convince you to teach socialist propaganda as science?" https://t.co/jSo04FxaL4
— Slovydal (@Slovydal) April 27, 2017
Doubt is such an unscientific concept. https://t.co/BLzmBX6PBw
— Cuffy (@CuffyMeh) April 27, 2017
@ChelseaClinton Ah, so skepticism and doubt are now unscientific.
You and your teachers should be embarrassed
— (((Physics Geek))) (@physicsgeek) April 27, 2017
Science at its very core sows doubt.
Quit trying to close the case on something we don't fully understand. https://t.co/CMay8BKfdQ
— Sarah (@sarahrstevenson) April 27, 2017
How about teaching the scientific method and to think for themselves instead of deferring to appeals to authority? https://t.co/aAj8VpNLlZ
— Jon Runoff (@dustopian) April 27, 2017
— Max (@maxnrgmax) April 27, 2017
It doesn’t take a genius to see that this isn’t quite the response dear Chelsea was hoping for, but it’s definitely the one she deserved.
The science of climate change is hardly settled, and numerous scientists have stated that some of the data has been cooked, while other information hasn’t been studied adequately enough to draw the conclusion climate change is caused by human beings.
“Poor” Chelsea takes a hammering with every offering on Twitter, yet she presses on. Perhaps she has the thick skin necessary for that rumored run for office?
[Note: This article was written by Michael Cantrell]