|
|
Location: Southeast Essex | Big Dave's Gusset - 27/9/2007 22:19 Martin North - 27/9/2007 22:09 The problem here is that it is not shown or taken as one mans take on ACC. It is shown to students as a factual public information film. This is not right and parents should have the right to stop their children being shown this governmental propaganda... They should be able to opt out... So we're all experts in education now? "package of resources for use in science, geography or citizenship lessons." Maybe it's possible that pupils will be encouraged to review what they see critically. Has anyone bothered to find out? Well I for one credit children with rather more critical intelligence than others are obviously prepared too. I am quite certain that many of them will question what they see and not simply accept it as the unequivocal truth, they are not exactly enamoured of politicians and their spoutings. What next, maybe we shouldn't show children the horrors of the Nazi genocide because it's "one sided"? If they were being shown only C4s Great Climate Change Swindle would the rightous few be up in arms about that. The frack they would... Mr Gusset, On a subject like climate the new generation will always tend to believe the last generation because children know and understand that one builds up a picture of what to expect on climate through experience. If one can only recal ten years of weather then its not logical to argue that young people will question a grandparentr's words for instance that the weather has changed in their lifetime. As you say you credit children with rather more inteligence and they do understand that climate is not hypothetical, its real and tangible. Therefore I disagree with your view that the young will be critical of elders recalling climate change experience so easilly. |
|
| |
|
Manager
Location: Machynlleth, Mid Wales | According to our lorry driver himself: ""Climate change is important, but it should be taught to children in a neutral and measured manner. Indoctrinating school children in this manner is unprecedented and unacceptable." So he recognises it is an issue - he just doesn't like the Gore approach. I may have more in common with him than I thought! Cheers - John |
|
| |
|
Location: Dartmoor, Devon | Uskys - 28/9/2007 11:26 Peter H - 28/9/2007 09:49 Without evidence that's just hearsay I'm afraid.
No, I was commenting on the BBC's coverage of the court case and how they are showing the 'other' side more....... I wasn't taking this O/T and going into the murky depths of the ipcc's claims of 2,500 of the worlds top scientists endorsing the AGW stance... as I understand those 2,500 mostly remain annonymous for fear of their career being jeopordised.... and those that remain nameless are only reviewers of a tiny part of the AGW IPCC take on the subject...  . Sorry, Andres, to be clear, I'm talking about your report that '...somebody on to review the papers who stated that many climate scientists are begging the ipcc to take their names off the list of those who believ in AGW..'. Imo that's hearsay - not by you, by the 'somebody'. I'd love to see a list of, say, just ten scientists who are 'begging' to be removed. Btw, anyone is free to count the number of names listen in the IPCC AR4 as lead authors, contributing authors and in cited papers. |
|
| |
|
Location: Southeast Essex | It does occur though Peter. Also the IPCC is a hand picked pannel that only supprt the theory so non-believers dont get a chance to voice any objection. |
|
| |
|
Location: Dartmoor, Devon | Village - 28/9/2007 11:49 It does occur though Peter. Also the IPCC is a hand picked pannel that only supprt the theory so non-believers dont get a chance to voice any objection. Vill, stating it to be so doesn't make it so. Only fools (to use a word you seem to be fond of atm) would accept something controversial without at least some concrete evidence.
Edited by Peter H 28/9/2007 05:54
|
|
| |
|
Location: Southeast Essex | Peter,
But the IPC is hand picked is it not? The IPC is hand picked only by the promoters and beneficiaries of the CO2 climate theory are they not? This is common knowledge is it not? |
|
| |
|
Manager
Location: Machynlleth, Mid Wales | It's handpicked from the most outstanding climate scientists of our time with an understanding of their respective branches of climate science that is vastly superior to that of the likes of you and I! Cheers - John |
|
| |
|
Manager
Location: Brecon Beacons, Wales, UK. 1,100' ASL | I've yet to see a list of the 2,500 scientists named - maybe its out there? - there were rumours some were to be published in the latter part of this year. There are also reports of scientists taking legal action against the ipcc so that their name is not associated with the report.(not that it is ifykwim!!!) The big point is that most of the 2,500 don't endorse the report, just the tiny bit of it they reviewed- that seems to be common knowledge.
This court case is not about the ipcc though - is al gore connected with the ipcc? - its about political indoctrination of the public - forcing them to swallow huge taxation increases on the sly - and making the gap between rich & poor a chasm. Indoctrinate children and your future is secure.
And this is even if AGW is here and IF it was whether there was muck all we could do to change it - it shouldn't be preached in this method and peeps shouldn#'t be taxed more to combat it.................
|
|
| |
|
Location: Southeast Essex | They dont want to publish because the names will not acurately reflect the balance of scientific feeling on the subject. Currently the IPCC is heavilly outbalanced with pro CO2 warmers <br /> |
|
| |
|
Location: Dartmoor, Devon | Village - 28/9/2007 12:38 They dont want to publish because the names will not acurately reflect the balance of scientific feeling on the subject. Currently the IPCC is heavilly outbalanced with pro CO2 warmers Strewth  Read the IPCC AR4 all the coordinating lead authors, lead authors, and contributing authors are listed. it's all public domain.
|
|
| |
|
Location: Dartmoor, Devon | Uskys - 28/9/2007 12:35 I've yet to see a list of the 2,500 scientists named - maybe its out there? - there were rumours some were to be published in the latter part of this year. There are also reports of scientists taking legal action against the ipcc so that their name is not associated with the report.(not that it is ifykwim!!!) The big point is that most of the 2,500 don't endorse the report, just the tiny bit of it they reviewed- that seems to be common knowledge. This court case is not about the ipcc though - is al gore connected with the ipcc? - its about political indoctrination of the public - forcing them to swallow huge taxation increases on the sly - and making the gap between rich & poor a chasm. Indoctrinate children and your future is secure. And this is even if AGW is here and IF it was whether there was muck all we could do to change it - it shouldn't be preached in this method and peeps shouldn#'t be taxed more to combat it................. No one is preaching or making politics out of it (this is tit for tat alert, Andres) bar sceptics - in other words, we can all say such things. As ever what it needed to help win a case is evidence. Lets see those ten scientists I asked for....
|
|
| |
|
Manager
Location: Brecon Beacons, Wales, UK. 1,100' ASL | That IS Entirely what this thread is about Peter, a court case on the indoctrination of children in the uk from a political pov.
I am YET to see a list of 2,500 (Two thousand five hundred) scientists backing the ipcc report. There is no list I've seen of 2,500 names on the ipcc website you suggest http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html , just a list of 850 reviewers and 600 contributors to the ar4 report. |
|
| |
|
Location: Dartmoor, Devon | Uskys - 28/9/2007 13:28 That IS Entirely what this thread is about Peter, a court case on the indoctrination of children in the uk from a political pov. The court case has not yet made a judgement? I am YET to see a list of 2,500 (Two thousand five hundred ) scientists backing the ipcc report. There is no list I've seen of 2,500 names on the ipcc website you suggest http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html , just a list of 850 reviewers and 600 contributors to the ar4 report. Why this insistence on a list? Where has it come from? Was there ever even a list? Is it relevant to what the thread is about? 2500, 850+600 who cares, it's a lot and I'm still to see you list me just ten (10) scientists who want to be removed from the IPPC reports. |
|
| |
|
Location: Southeast Essex | John Mason - 28/9/2007 10:30 According to our lorry driver himself: ""Climate change is important, but it should be taught to children in a neutral and measured manner. Indoctrinating school children in this manner is unprecedented and unacceptable." So he recognises it is an issue - he just doesn't like the Gore approach. I may have more in common with him than I thought! Cheers - John I would go much further and ban faith schoolsin the UK. Period. What further evidence can one have of outright indoctrination of young minds than single faith schools. Its pure corruption of young delicate minds and the same is now being allowed to happen on the subject of climate change. Its simple indoctrination to a generation that havent lived long enough to experience enough decades of climate to draw their own proper conclussion on the subject. |
|
| |
|
Executive
Location: Evesham, Worcs | One could argue the same about history 
And what about they way they're indoctrinated into believing a big lump of rock killed all the dinosaurs?
The fact is, of course, that we only want our children to be taught what we think it true - and not taught stuff we think it either wrong or open to interpretation.
So I guess all children should be taught from home?
I do agree that Gore's film (like Durkin's) is not the best way of teaching climate change issues. Although it may have a place in other classrooms |
|
| |
|
Location: Reading | But at least history exists Andy! |
|
| |
|
Manager
Location: Brecon Beacons, Wales, UK. 1,100' ASL | The IPCC have touted 2,500 scientists have signed saying ( in my words) they agree with AGW(the ipcc report) time and time again. but theres no substance it seems to their claims.....so it could be argued that the science behind the report is not all its claimed to be .
I am not rising to any challange to find scientists who challenge the agw theory, just by you asking this seems to suggest you don't think there are any!
|
|
| |
|
Executive
Location: Evesham, Worcs | PaulKn - 28/9/2007 14:00 But at least history exists Andy! Ah, but who's fault is it? Who really caused the war or burnt the cakes? 
|
|
| |
|
Location: The Netherlands, -2,3 m msl | The judge will rule next week.
Schools will have to issue a warning before they show pupils Al Gore's controversial film about global warming, a judge indicated yesterday.
The move follows a High Court action by a father who accused the Government of 'brainwashing' children with propaganda by showing it in the classroom.
Stewart Dimmock said the former U.S. Vice-President's documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, is unfit for schools because it is politically biased and contains serious scientific inaccuracies and 'sentimental mush'.
He wants the video banned after it was distributed with four other short films to 3,500 schools in February.
Mr Justice Burton is due to deliver a ruling on the case next week, but yesterday he said he would be saying that Gore's Oscar-winning film does promote 'partisan political views'.
This means that teachers will have to warn pupils that there are other opinions on global warming and they should not necessarily accept the views of the film.
He said: 'The result is I will be declaring that, with the guidance as now amended, it will not be unlawful for the film to be shown.....cont'd'
|
|
| |
|
| Andy Mayhew - 28/9/2007 14:56
One could argue the same about history
And what about they way they're indoctrinated into believing a big lump of rock killed all the dinosaurs?
We know the past, we don't know the future. History is taught at school, futurology NO.
So what is in Al Gore's film about the flooding of WTC, Shangai, Florida, climatic refugees, mass extinction, more devastating hurricanes... is just endoctrination based on catastrophist speculations.
Young minds know the difference between reality and fantasy when what they see is labelled film, cartoon, game... So Al Gore film should be labelled film, not "documentary" and it has nothing to do in school hours. |
|
| |
Lorry driver in challenge to Gore school film
Speciality Forums and Forecasts -> Climatic Discussion & Analysis
