Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
LongQ said:
turbobloke said:
brenflys777 said:
Indoctrinate them early!
Sadly in terms of cars and global warming, and in general, that's typical of what's going on in schools these days.Add this to the list, it's from back in 2004.
“Our aim is to brainwash a new generation.”
George Callaghan, Schools Travel Plan Officer, Stockton On Tees Borough Council.
Many if not most school travel plans are full of AGW-based propaganda presented as fact.
There's an accidental d) in London which is to make use of public transport even more unpleasant.
Just the usual
TheExcession said:
Little Ex (9) was discussing this with me last week. In class his teacher had declared CO2 to be polluting the planet.
[He's told me] he put his hand up with a 'Please Miss, carbon dioxide is plant food gas, it's essential for photosynthesis... that's where plants and trees make sugar to grow and turn CO2 into oxygen which we need to survive....'.
He told me he was cut short, corrected and told in no uncertain terms he was wrong and CO2 is a polluant. This in front of all his peers.
If he was told that CO2 is not a plant food, then I would be having words with the head.[He's told me] he put his hand up with a 'Please Miss, carbon dioxide is plant food gas, it's essential for photosynthesis... that's where plants and trees make sugar to grow and turn CO2 into oxygen which we need to survive....'.
He told me he was cut short, corrected and told in no uncertain terms he was wrong and CO2 is a polluant. This in front of all his peers.
This is a clear example of a teacher passing on her ignorance to impressionable youngsters.
don4l said:
TheExcession said:
Little Ex (9) was discussing this with me last week. In class his teacher had declared CO2 to be polluting the planet.
[He's told me] he put his hand up with a 'Please Miss, carbon dioxide is plant food gas, it's essential for photosynthesis... that's where plants and trees make sugar to grow and turn CO2 into oxygen which we need to survive....'.
He told me he was cut short, corrected and told in no uncertain terms he was wrong and CO2 is a polluant. This in front of all his peers.
If he was told that CO2 is not a plant food, then I would be having words with the head.[He's told me] he put his hand up with a 'Please Miss, carbon dioxide is plant food gas, it's essential for photosynthesis... that's where plants and trees make sugar to grow and turn CO2 into oxygen which we need to survive....'.
He told me he was cut short, corrected and told in no uncertain terms he was wrong and CO2 is a polluant. This in front of all his peers.
This is a clear example of a teacher passing on her ignorance to impressionable youngsters.
Is there an opportunity I wonder to do something along the lines of the great dihydrogen monoxide jape? If CO2 is a pollutant then surely we don't want to be eating food that's been exposed to great quantities of that pollutant. Of course the farmers who grow vegetables in their big greenhouses pumped full of CO2 will argue it's essential to grow a healthy year round crop but they said the same about pumping cattle with steroids and antibiotics. Who are you going to believe, a money grabbing farmer or a group of concerned environmentalists who understand only too well the dangers of CO2 pollution?
Maybe some of you with kids could get the ball rolling by having a quiet word with your schools about your concerns of feeding the children food grown in a CO2 enriched environment and could the school confirm that the canteen only uses food grown in a non Co2 enriched environment. I know a few people who are into the whole organic food thing so maybe I'll have a word with them as well.
Maybe some of you with kids could get the ball rolling by having a quiet word with your schools about your concerns of feeding the children food grown in a CO2 enriched environment and could the school confirm that the canteen only uses food grown in a non Co2 enriched environment. I know a few people who are into the whole organic food thing so maybe I'll have a word with them as well.
Diderot said:
Universities also have travel plans run by the green nazi 'environmental officers', and supported of course by 'campus greening committees'. Then there are these stupid green schemes run by consultants rewarding departments for their devotion to the cause.
s.
The religion is present in every subject from art to languages to engineering, from primary school to university. s. The indoctrination is quite terrifying, but you have to give the 'correct' answers in order to pass exams. Questioning the religion is not tolerated.
Saying that, never underestimate how much your kids will pick up just by setting them straight.
No longer are teachers the all knowledgeable ones, kids can find information out for themselves and if it contradicts what they are told at home it usually ends up with the kid siding with mum and dad. One that springs to mind was when my son (6 or 7 at the time) came home spouting out stuff about Jesus.( He goes to a CofE school as its the nearest to us!). I let him finish and said that its up to him to decide if that story was true. I also said the usual stuff about dinosaurs etc and left it with him. Several weeks later I was in his classroom as I dropped him off and on the window ledge was a model of a dinosaur. I pointed at it and he suddenly laughed..."Its all rubbish isnt it Dad"..
I would be bloody furious if that st posted above came home. Absolute brainwashing bullst.
Good work for the child that stood up and questioned the teacher, and shame on him for telling a blatant lie. No wonder there is less and less respect for teachers when they are political mouthpieces rather than teaching the basics.
No longer are teachers the all knowledgeable ones, kids can find information out for themselves and if it contradicts what they are told at home it usually ends up with the kid siding with mum and dad. One that springs to mind was when my son (6 or 7 at the time) came home spouting out stuff about Jesus.( He goes to a CofE school as its the nearest to us!). I let him finish and said that its up to him to decide if that story was true. I also said the usual stuff about dinosaurs etc and left it with him. Several weeks later I was in his classroom as I dropped him off and on the window ledge was a model of a dinosaur. I pointed at it and he suddenly laughed..."Its all rubbish isnt it Dad"..
I would be bloody furious if that s
t posted above came home. Absolute brainwashing bullst. Good work for the child that stood up and questioned the teacher, and shame on him for telling a blatant lie. No wonder there is less and less respect for teachers when they are political mouthpieces rather than teaching the basics.
Maybe it's time parents lodged formal complaints against teaching children 'climate religion' and not science. First step I should imagine is to collect some of the stuff being spouted as ‘science’ being taught to your children, get it checked by a component expert in the subject, and then tackle the head master about it. And maybe the school governors as well. It would certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons !
Whether you choose to believe it or not, the fact is that all the front-line research on climate says AGW is happening. It's also a position that is uncontested by any credible scientific institute anywhere in the world.
You can claim conspiracies, corruption, fraud or whatever, but until any of that is proven - legally or scientifically - the curriculum must be based on whatever the current scientific understanding is.
Otherwise, you're literally proposing we start basing our curriculum on "stuff we've read on the internet," which would be a very dark and complex path to take.
Oh, photosynthesis is still on the curriculum too btw. Don't panic.
You can claim conspiracies, corruption, fraud or whatever, but until any of that is proven - legally or scientifically - the curriculum must be based on whatever the current scientific understanding is.
Otherwise, you're literally proposing we start basing our curriculum on "stuff we've read on the internet," which would be a very dark and complex path to take.
Oh, photosynthesis is still on the curriculum too btw. Don't panic.
Durbster, I understand your side of the argument and as an adult with nearly 50 years on this planet, I choose to view things from my experiences and own conclusions.
The vast amount of contradictory evidence that is thrown about constantly gets tiresome, though it is an entertaining way to kill some time reading on here.
However, the likes of Al Gore and his propaganda, in my view showed their true colour. Its not about saving the planet, its purely make as much money as you can while convincing the masses that we are destroying the planet. Ive not seen any politician put their own hand into their (vast) pockets towards such a noble cause.
No argument or data on earth can prove that isnt the truth. Pretty inconvenient.
The vast amount of contradictory evidence that is thrown about constantly gets tiresome, though it is an entertaining way to kill some time reading on here.
However, the likes of Al Gore and his propaganda, in my view showed their true colour. Its not about saving the planet, its purely make as much money as you can while convincing the masses that we are destroying the planet. Ive not seen any politician put their own hand into their (vast) pockets towards such a noble cause.
No argument or data on earth can prove that isnt the truth. Pretty inconvenient.
durbster said:
Whether you choose to believe it or not, the fact is that all the front-line research on climate says AGW is happening. It's also a position that is uncontested by any credible scientific institute anywhere in the world.
LOL, because YOU decide what is credible, and YOU bully people into excluding anybody that isn't AGW extreme enough, like YOU try to bully and disrupt this thread, just as people have been bullied out of associating with the GWPF, or the Australian government bullied out of the Bjorn Lomborg research centre project, and a million other examples. Then whilst the AGW camp sucks up unimaginable wealth, you accuse skeptics scratching by with no sustenance but the search for the truth of taking cash for views.The vast majority of 'credible' scientists do not believe AGW is a serious danger, that is the politicized view of a minority, not a scientific one.
And no credible scientist can tell you if/or what proportion of warming is man-made.
If you dispute that, you are not just a denier, you are a liar.
Mr GrimNasty said:
durbster said:
Whether you choose to believe it or not, the fact is that all the front-line research on climate says AGW is happening. It's also a position that is uncontested by any credible scientific institute anywhere in the world.
LOL, because YOU decide what is credible, and YOU bully people into excluding anybody that isn't AGW extreme enough, like YOU try to bully and disrupt this thread, just as people have been bullied out of associating with the GWPF, or the Australian government bullied out of the Bjorn Lomborg research centre project, and a million other examples. Then whilst the AGW camp sucks up unimaginable wealth, you accuse skeptics scratching by with no sustenance but the search for the truth of taking cash for views.The vast majority of 'credible' scientists do not believe AGW is a serious danger, that is the politicized view of a minority, not a scientific one.
And no credible scientist can tell you if/or what proportion of warming is man-made.
If you dispute that, you are not just a denier, you are a liar.
Obvious shill is obvious.
durbster said:
Whether you choose to believe it or not, the fact is that all the front-line research on climate says AGW is happening. It's also a position that is uncontested by any credible scientific institute anywhere in the world.
But it isn't uncontested by the data, as there is front line research on AGW that says it's not happening as prescribed and modelled. To believe it's happening you have to believe you can see an invisible causal human signal, or believe somebody else telling you it exists. This is nonsense and nonscience. So you choosing to believe is purely an act of faith.Also how many times does it need to be pointed out to the faithful that there are credible scientific organisations that dispute AGW (I listed about half a dozen the alst time this nonsense claim was repeated, and I'm not looping again on that score). Also that it makes no difference to the science if a small number of activists get themselves onto committees that claim to speak for the memberships and fellows but only speak for themselves. And finally, appeal to authoity is still a logical fallacy.
durbster said:
Whether you choose to believe it or not, the fact is that all the front-line research on climate says AGW is happening. It's also a position that is uncontested by any credible scientific institute anywhere in the world.
You can claim conspiracies, corruption, fraud or whatever, but until any of that is proven - legally or scientifically - the curriculum must be based on whatever the current scientific understanding is.
Otherwise, you're literally proposing we start basing our curriculum on "stuff we've read on the internet," which would be a very dark and complex path to take.
Oh, photosynthesis is still on the curriculum too btw. Don't panic.
Schools should be teaching kids to think for themselves. To take ALL inputs and make their own minds up.You can claim conspiracies, corruption, fraud or whatever, but until any of that is proven - legally or scientifically - the curriculum must be based on whatever the current scientific understanding is.
Otherwise, you're literally proposing we start basing our curriculum on "stuff we've read on the internet," which would be a very dark and complex path to take.
Oh, photosynthesis is still on the curriculum too btw. Don't panic.
If schools stray too heavily down the "facts" route, you end up with everyone believing the Earth's flat. Or that JFK wasn't indeed killed by aliens.
We need kids to push the boundaries and they can only do this if they are tooled up to research for themselves. Very few things are incontrovertible facts. Teach them what they are, and what the differences are. That's teaching them science. Not spoon feeding them political bias and rubbish.
durbster said:
Whether you choose to believe it or not, the fact is that all the front-line research on climate says AGW is happening. It's also a position that is uncontested by any credible scientific institute anywhere in the world.
You can claim conspiracies, corruption, fraud or whatever, but until any of that is proven - legally or scientifically - the curriculum must be based on whatever the current scientific understanding is.
Otherwise, you're literally proposing we start basing our curriculum on "stuff we've read on the internet," which would be a very dark and complex path to take.
Oh, photosynthesis is still on the curriculum too btw. Don't panic.
Wrong. You teach PURE science, physics, mathmatics and any other basics you need to know, and then, thus equiped, they do the climate stuff for themselvesYou can claim conspiracies, corruption, fraud or whatever, but until any of that is proven - legally or scientifically - the curriculum must be based on whatever the current scientific understanding is.
Otherwise, you're literally proposing we start basing our curriculum on "stuff we've read on the internet," which would be a very dark and complex path to take.
Oh, photosynthesis is still on the curriculum too btw. Don't panic.
Mr GrimNasty said:
Video showing no link between CO2 and sea level whatsoever in the tide gauge data, and the absurdity of the projected sea level rise scenarios by 2100 that will obviously never happen (you don't have to watch it all, you get the idea after the first dozen graphs!).
Lotus50 especially should watch this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-6aLN5EK1I
interestingLotus50 especially should watch this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-6aLN5EK1I
had a quick look for the raw data, but came across this world map of the trends http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends...
Murph7355 said:
Schools should be teaching kids to think for themselves. To take ALL inputs and make their own minds up.
Exactly, and many (secondary) schools still do that.A few less than sharp zealots still drift into courses because they think the planet needs saving and they can do it, but far more leave school wanting to buy a fast car asap.
In a poll which happened some time ago which I don't have a link to, more 17 year-olds said they would rather lose the right to vote than lose the right to drive a car (subject to passing the test of course).
As it happens this isn't entirely a good thing but it shows neatly how propaganda sticks and grows best when it hits a fertile location already loaded with manure.
MikeyC said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
Video showing no link between CO2 and sea level whatsoever in the tide gauge data, and the absurdity of the projected sea level rise scenarios by 2100 that will obviously never happen (you don't have to watch it all, you get the idea after the first dozen graphs!).
Lotus50 especially should watch this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-6aLN5EK1I
interestingLotus50 especially should watch this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-6aLN5EK1I
had a quick look for the raw data, but came across this world map of the trends http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends...
The tide gauges show the combined effect of local land movement and actual sea level rise.
This fig. puts current sea level rise into the natural context, sarcastically annotated at the end!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff