(LifeSiteNews) – This spring, Harvard Medical School is slated to begin implementing a new curriculum geared toward getting future doctors to incorporate climate activism into their practices.
The Boston Globe reports that instead of adding new classes specifically devoted to the subject, the curriculum approved in January will be incorporating into existing classes material on how “climate change” affects human health, how health care systems supposedly contribute to the phenomenon, and how doctors can “be part of the solution.”
Examples included amending lessons on health problems caused by extreme temperatures to include claims that “climate change” is the underlying cause of those temperatures, and “climate advocacy as a way for medical students and physicians to support their patients” incorporated into an introductory course on the “responsibilities and expectations of medical students and doctors,” something Harvard already did last year and the new curriculum will expand upon.
“We thought about [courses] individually and, one by one, worked on curricular content in close collaboration with both the faculty course directors who run the course and faculty experts,” said Julia Malits, a fourth-year student and member of the student group that convinced school administrators to adopt the curriculum.
“I really commend students for leading the charge here and across the country,” said Dr. Gaurab Basu, Harvard Medical’s new climate and health curriculum theme director and co-director of the Cambridge Health Alliance’s Center for Health Equity Education.
As of 2022, 55% of medical schools in the United States teach students the health effects of “climate change,” according to an Association of American Medical Colleges survey. That amount, up from just 27% in 2019, has been attributed in large part to student activists.
At a time when the response to COVID-19 has resulted in unprecedented mistrust for the medical profession, however, pushing future physicians to incorporate yet another left-wing cause into their practices is likely to exacerbate that mistrust further still.
Activists claim there is a “97 percent scientific consensus” in favor of anthropogenic global warming (AGW)—the view that human activity, rather than natural phenomena, is primarily responsible for Earth’s changing climate—but that number distorts an overview of 11,944 papers from peer-reviewed journals, 66.4 percent of which expressed no opinion on the question; in fact, many of the authors identified with the AGW “consensus” later spoke out to say their positions had been misrepresented.
Further, contrary to claims that people are dying due to “climate change,” data from the International Disasters Database show that “climate related deaths” (i.e., deaths due to floods, droughts, storms, wildfires, and extreme temperatures) have dramatically and steadily declined since the 1920s.
AGW proponents suffered a blow in 2010 with the discovery that their leading researchers at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, East Anglia Climate Research Unit, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration had engaged in widespread data manipulation, flawed climate models, misrepresentation of sources, and suppression of dissenting findings.
In March 2019, Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore called AGW alarmism a “complete hoax and scam,” a “kind of toxic combination of religion and political ideology” that is “as bad a thing that has happened to science in the history of science.”