British schoolchildren are to be forced to watch Al Bore's film, An Inconvenient Truth. While most schoolchildren could be expected to be more critical and more savvy about such things than, say, John Boy Key, the fact remains that Bore's film has a shortage of facts, and an overdose of hot air - and is hardly the thing to show scientifically untrained high school students. (See for example this Skeptics Guide to Bore's misleading misanthropy, something those high school students will be unlikely to be shown in class.)In fact, Gore is a Greenhouse Gasbag says an entertaining recent attack on the man who only last fortnight side-stepped a debate on his facts with skeptical environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg.
"[An Inconvenient Truth's] glossy production,' says [scientist Bob] Giegengack, 'is replete with inaccuracies and misrepresentations, and appeals to public fear as shamelessly as any other political statement that hopes to unite the public behind a particular ideology." This from a guy who voted for Gore in 2000 and says he'd probably vote for him again."So why is Bore's celluloid shocker going to be shown to unsuspecting schoolchildren? I guess for precisely the same reason that Stuart Lockwood had to hold still while Saddam stroked his hair: because they're held hostage. Sean Gabb of the UK's Libertarian Alliance is unequivocal on this outrage.
"This is political indoctrination lifted in all but its content from Soviet Russia. Children are to be taught the at best highly questionable claims of the global warming lobby as if they were facts. They are then to be marked up or down in their examinations according to how well they can parrot these alleged facts.Dr Sean Gabb, by the way is the Director of the UK Libertarian Alliance. He is also Deputy Director of the Truancy Unit at Buckingham University and author of 'Home Schooling: A British Perspective,' published in Homeschooling in Full View: A Reader (2005) by Bruce S. Cooper (Editor). He ascribes much of his success in life to systematic truancy at school.
"To environmentalism is to be added propaganda about racism and sexism, and every other politically correct obsession. Ten years into the creeping totalitarianism of New Labour, the final link is to be severed between state schooling and education of children in the values of their parents. From now on, the function of schooling will be to produce a new nation, created in the image of George Monbiot and Yasmin Alibhai Brown.
"Our ruling class has taken to heart the old Jesuit maxim: 'Give me the child until he is seven and I will give you the man'. The only difference is that raising the school leaving age will give them the child till he is eighteen.
"The Libertarian Alliance calls on all parents to resist the brainwashing of their children."
LINKS: Will Al Gore melt? - Bjorn Lomborg and Rose Flemming, Wall Street Journal [reprinted at Peter Gordon's blog]
Al Gore is a Greenhouse Gasbag - Philadelphia Magazine
A Skeptic's Guide to An Inconvenient Truth. by Marlo Lewis, Jr - Competitive Enterprise Institute
More in the global warming hoax: Political brainwashing of UK children - Dr Sean Gabb, UK Libertarian Alliance
RELATED: Global Warming, Education, Politics-UK, Science
7 comments:
As a friend of mine said peter:
"I'm like a lot of naysayers on this site in that I would love to claim that GW just doesn't exist. That would make things a lot easier. But the balance of the evidence, along with the balance of opinion, is starting to indicate that it is going to be a real factor.
I understand the reasoning behind not just jumping on the GW bandwagon because everyone else is... that's an acceptable stance for mine. But there's also the danger of dogmatically refusing to believe any evidence of GW just because you wish it were so.
The problem with climate and environmental science is that there is never going to be a smoking gun until it is too late... only a myriad of indicators which point to likely trends which we deduce are developing. The science is not an exact science, but the growing body of evidence being developed is more accurate. I understand the scepticism related to the doomsday scenarios, but the existence of scepticism doesn't necessarily make the claim untrue".
Think about it. Why do you fundamentally disagree with the idea that Global Warming could possibly be man made, and what reasoning do you have for this? Why do you hop on your bandwagon no matter what report is released? What makes you choose anti-Global warming views over pro-Global warming views?
Apart from trying to ban me for asking such things of course. You are not being logical or objective here.
"Why do you hop on your bandwagon no matter what report is released? What makes you choose anti-Global warming views over pro-Global warming views?"
Ahhhh ....the actual evidence for starters.Many of the most damming shoot downs against GW are coming out of the IPCC's own writings...
They should give Stephen Hawkins 6 part series on the origin of the universe for the kids to watch. This Physics series is better than Gore's film. Get the school children to be familiarized with Physics at very young age, which is good for knowledge development.
This is a good link posted by Fred at DPF:
--------------------------------------
Maybe just part of the cycle....who'da thunk it?
More consensus....
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
--------------------------------------
Do you really believe that people are anti-warmist merely because they wish to be contrarian? I think the opposition is far more reasonably founded than that. It sounds like you are proposing a specious reason for opposition, that can easily be dismissed, to avoid dealing with the stronger objections.
Even if you completely believe in anthropocentric climate change it does not mean that you have to be ideologically aligned with Gore and Co. Take look a Lomborg's work. Thousands of people are dying *right now* from AIDs, malaria, poor government, bad water, inadequate health care etc. and you want to focus global attention on a problem that will not manifest itself with any severity (if at all) until the middle of the century?
""I'm like a lot of naysayers on this site in that I would love to claim that GW just doesn't exist."
Actually, if you read this site you would find that what's in contention is AGW, ie., anthropogenic (man-made) global warming.
"But the balance of the evidence, along with the balance of opinion, is starting to indicate that it is going to be a real factor."
Indeed, if you read the evidence, rather than just the opinion of your friends, you might realise the "balance of the evidence" is still leaning towards uncertainty, ie., not proven, and with the added conclusion that what is proven is neither apocalyptic nor alarmist.
George Will summarises well, for mine:
The consensus catechism about global warming has six tenets:
1. Global warming is happening.
2. It is our (humanity's, but especially America's) fault.
3. It will continue unless we mend our ways.
4. If it continues we are in grave danger.
5. We know how to slow or even reverse the warming.
6. The benefits from doing that will far exceed the costs.
Only the first tenet is clearly true, and only in the sense that the Earth warmed about 0.6 degrees Celsius in the 20th century. We do not know the extent to which human activity caused this.
The "activity" is economic growth, the wealth-creation that makes possible improved well-being—better nutrition, medicine, education, etc. How much reduction of such social goods are we willing to accept by slowing economic activity in order to (try to) regulate the planet's climate?
Sound words.
"Apart from trying to ban me for asking such things of course."
Funny kind of ban when you can come back any time you like and pretend you're anonymous.
Al Gore made a complete fool of himself the moment he suggested that a rise in sea levels would flood Holland.
Holland is already under sea level.
The irony is that the technology used to keep Holland dry will keep the rest of us dry, for a fraction of the cost that the proposed "solutions" will cost.
Post a Comment