Alan Johnson and David Miliband have just announced that a DVD of Al Gore's film on climate change is to be sent to every secondary school in the country. They say the debate over climate change is "over". Whatever Gore's movie's merits, it is not the job of government to indoctrinate children. I'm sure they also think the debate on many issues is "over". This is a very dangerous precedent to set.
UPDATE: As you can see by my lack of posting today, I have been otherwise engaged for most of the day (sampling fresh air in Devon, since you ask). I have now read through the Comments on this and the various posts on other blogs linking to it. It seems people seem to want to badge me with being a 'Climate Change Denier' just because I take issue with this movie being sent to schools. I would have exactly the same opinion if a government sponsored DVD giving the other side of the argument was being sent to schools.
The fact is that this tiny island has very little effect on the climate compared to bigger, more populous countries.
ReplyDeleteHowever that fact doesn't help when it comes to taxing everything that moves or doesn't move, does it?
Who pays for this?
ReplyDeleteThis is propaganda, hardly education.
How about sending DVDs around proclaiming the untainted success of the New Labour Project?
The precedent was set in Scotland a couple of weeks ago when Gore visited & the Scottish Executive decided to show this to all the bairns.
ReplyDeleteThe LibDem minister for Things Taking Place Outdoors Ross Finnie said at the time that anybody who didn't think this film was an accurate & impartial documentary rather than propaganda was "from Mars".
Eco-fascism in full spate.
Perhaps Piers Corbyn could produce a movie to be sent with the Gore piece?
ReplyDeleteThere is already DVD on NL success. £5 from HQ.
The Indie led with "All Pupils To Be Given Lessions In Climate Change".
ReplyDeleteShouldn't the Government be given some first?
It's a good watch for kids, but only out of choice, it does nothing to reassure you that the good old U.S. of A, China, or India are going to clean their acts up of course!
ReplyDeleteAnother good reason to educate ones children at private school or at home - really scary. To save the cost of delivery, can Blair/ Brown et al take a copies with them when they tour the schools during their programme of speeches and photo-oportunities. They can give the children a half day holiday as well to really cheer them up.
ReplyDeleteIf the debate is over, how come the Government hasn't got any green policies?
ReplyDeleteRetrospective flight tax increases and monitoring our driving habits aren't really going to help.
Quick Iain, find a friendly scientist to do a film for 18DS about variations in sunspot activity, Milankovitch cycles and the like, and then demand that schools show that too.
ReplyDeleteOf course they won't, coz Milliband wouldn't know what orbital precession was if it jumped up and bit him on his face. His beautiful face! (Sorry, couldn't resist!!)
Oh Iain ! You are, I'm afraid a bit too late to the party. George Monbiot and Naomi Klein have been warning for years about the dangers of children being indoctrinated by propaganda in schools. Have you only just realised?
ReplyDeleteThe fact that you are referring to this as a precedent only shows how ignorant you are of what is going on in education today.
For example, PepsiCo, makers of Walkers crisps, have been sponsoring education 'factsheets' for years.
In America there were school materials teaching children to 'count the M&Ms'-sponsored by Mars.
They have 'School TV' there where it is COMPULSORY for the kids to watch the advertising, in exchange for the FREE TV and satellite equipment.
Kellogg's do exactly the same thing.
McDonald's do it, promoting a diet which is 'balanced' if it contains burgers as well as fries, salad as well as their crappy milkshakes.
Cadbury's have worksheets which are paeans of praise to the wonders of chocolate treats.
Iain, I am really disappointed in you. If showing the film of 'An Inconvenient Truth' in schools is all you've got to worry about, well all I can say is, it is a little piece of liberal news in a sea of market propaganda that the kids are being exposed to without their consent.
Go and read 'No Logo' and 'Captive State' then make your facile points about the 'precedent' this sets.
Anonymous 11:40... There's an order of magnitude's difference between blatant advertising (Cadbury et al) and eco-propaganda posing as "science".
ReplyDeleteWell, what do you expect?
ReplyDeleteIt's cheaper than teaching the kids real science.
Another example of this government not understanding what it governs. The film is going to schools in England, the other countries of the union do their own thing.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous troll 11.40
ReplyDeleteTwo wrongs don't make a right.
"This ought ye to have done, and not left the other undone."
I am not going to make any comment on someone who uses the disrespectful 'handle' of 'little black $@mb*' and a racist avatar.
ReplyDeleteClimate change propaganda:
ReplyDeleteBritishness propaganda:
Citizenship propaganda.
GCSE Science now lacks much science.
Our kids could end up believing anything and then believing nothing.
We may need a written constitution to constrain these crooks.
Apocalyptic belief in climate change is the new religion - State and liberal approved, of course unlike the old-fashioned 'real' sort embodied in Christianity
ReplyDeleteSo who, other than the government of the day, should decide what is taught and what is not taught in our state education system?
ReplyDeleteA serious threat to Audi drivers everywhere!
ReplyDeletehttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6321351.stm
ReplyDeleteWake up and smell the coffee, folks.
The phrase 'an ostrich in denial' is the one that comes to mind..
ReplyDeleteglobal warming is a myth.
ReplyDeletenext you will tell me that paul daniels turns water into wine.
It can only be considered propaganda if you are a member of the flat earth society...
ReplyDeleteFrank Lee Speaking: You're quoting Steve Milloy to back your argument up? *rolls eyes*
ReplyDeleteThe man doesn't believe in Passive Smoking either. Of course he makes sure he runs everything via Phillip Morris while taking their cash first. He's also funded by the big oil companies.
But what else would you expect from a Fox "expert" ?
I'm not that happy about kids having to watch this DVD, but a good science teacher would use it as a starting point to explain the science, how research works and how the media report it.
There just aren't many good science teachers left.
Vote Blue, go Green ... or the planet gets it ...
ReplyDeletePrince Charles has better things to say on the environment. Rather him than loser Gore or snivelling little toadie, Milliband
ReplyDeleteOf course, it may be sent to schools but will they show it?
ReplyDeleteThis strikes me as a typical New Labour headline-grabbing ploy. It makes it seem like they're doing something useful when in reality it's going to make no difference whatsoever to the underlying problem.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do not think it can be called propaganda. Denying global warming is on a par with denying evolution. The evidence is there for all to see, despite what a few self-proclaimed 'junk science deniers' might say. Why would hundreds of scientists from around the world invent such a 'conspiracy'?
The Government has no proper policy on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and is using global warming as an excuse for raising taxes. It is true that any reductions in British emissions will be offset by rises from China, India and other developing economies. That does not mean that we should just shrug our shoulders and do nothing. The transition to a low carbon economy and lifestyle will have to be made in the future, so we might as well start as soon as possible. Why shouldn't British industry be at the forefront of developing new technologies?
The Government's approach to the problems of global warming is typically New Labour: full of spin and bluster and lacking in sensible and effective action. Do not let criticism of this become a denial of global warming.
Of course, one Inconvenient Truth is that almost all the money spent buying crude oil from OPEC to make this filthy road fuel goes to Muslim governments - who show remarkably little interest in saving Al Gore's Planet.
ReplyDeleteBet they don't debate that in the schools of Birmingham.
Cadburys and McDonalds are not spreading propaganda, they are advertising. There is a big difference.
ReplyDeleteThat aside, as Little Black Sambo said, two wrongs do not make a right.
It can only be considered propaganda if you are a member of the flat earth society...
Even if you believe that climate change is happening, and that we are responsible, it still doesn't follow that Al Gore's film is not sensationalist, misleading and generally politically motivated.
So who, other than the government of the day, should decide what is taught and what is not taught in our state education system?
ReplyDeleteTeachers, parents???
Make all schools independent and selective and then see what gets taught. I am sure that those that teach real subjects, that focus on the basics and that get good results will soon out number the PC brigade.
*sigh*
ReplyDeletei really despair of our present government when i read such things.
while they are giving out DVDs in yet another "eye catching initiative", meanwhile the Americans are rolling their sleeves up and getting on with the hard graft of developing alternative fuel technology, as laid out in the State of the Union address.
For example-
ReplyDeleteWhy did Al Gore emote about the snows leaving Kilimanjaro when he knows there has been no rise in temperature and it is entirely the result of deforestation and consequent dehydration ? He is absolutely aware of this ;even if you are not .
Questionable science and I cannot help but notice that Climate chnage is compulsory and so is RE. With RE they cannot wait to have contrary views , with this new religion if you lack faith its your fault
Why doesn't millicreep send them to his battery hens to entertain them while busily becoming as nourishing as the organic chickens roaming the field outside, who have got far bettter things to do than watch that crap, such as entomological research into the palatability of various species of insect.
ReplyDeleteAnonimous - showing this film to kids is not "liberal" it is fascism aimed at children pure & simple.
ReplyDeleteThe comparison would be with sitting the kids down to a feature film in which Cocal Cola spends an hour & a half explaining that their drink improves IQ - I know of none such.
Incidentally anybody who thinks Gordon Gecko (named after a lizard) is the hero of the film hasn't understood. Try Danny DeVito in Other People's Money - a genuinely pro enterprise film but psooibly sufficiently clever not to be noticed.
Look, lets face it, the planet is buggered beyond anything man can do to repair it. But, you cry, what are we to do? Well, you can cycle your Chardonnay bottles down to the recycling centre; or stick up a windmill that has cost a billion units of energy to build but which only generates fourteen; or replant your Christmas tree; or save all your carbon credits for a coach trip to Bognor rather than a flight to Bangkok. All of which wonderfulness will of course be obliterated by China opening the ninth new coal power station this week. But we have to do something...
ReplyDeleteOr you could do like me. Just give up on it.
My manifesto? Don't have kids, sod the pension, work for big oil, drive an SUV, fly everywhere, live wildly beyond your means on stuff built by Jonny Foreigner - and scoff endangered species and McDonalds. What do I care if generations of the ever-breeding Rodents of Chav die of melanoma/thirst/hunger in a drowned country a third of the size with summer temperatures at 50 degrees Celsius? Serves them right for voting Labour in three consecutive elections...
Tonbridge Blog - Your 13-year old son does NOT "already understand many of the issues" if what he "understands" is one-worlder, anti-capitalist, anti-industrial propaganda.
ReplyDeleteGiving your 13-year old son the notion that he is important enough to influence the universe is to encourage paranoia. Mankind is not big enough to control the activity on the sun's surface, so calm down.
BTW, during the Ice Age, tens (hundreds?) of thousands of years ago, all those massive amounts of ice managed, over hundreds of years, to melt without any help from people burning carbon emissions in cars and planes. The climate slowly warmed up anyway and by 23 AD, the north of England was a wine area,like the Languedoc. Nature did it all by itself.
Well said, Serf! And have elected schoolboards, as they do in the United States. The state does not control schools, the schoolboards do.
Perhaps the Iraq WMD Dossier should be sent to all schools
ReplyDeleteI agree with most of the film but still think this is a ridiculous idea. It is purely a gimmick, spin interfering with our children's education, and, as has been said, cheaper than a real science curriculum.
ReplyDeleteI noticed you used the word propaganda which in light of today's worrying news seems a bit unfair.
ReplyDeleteHave to admit that my kids are very aware and concerned about climate change, and they have not seen the movie.
Sadly this generation will have to make a lot more sacrifices to try and halt climate change than any other previous generation since the dawn of the industrial revolution.
Sorry Iain, but anyone who thinks that you can indoctrinate a teenager in this day and age, with the information technology they have plugged into the wall of their bedroom is not clued up on kids today.
In what class are they going to show this film? It surely can't be science because I've not heard one bit of science that comes close to proving that the current global warming trend is manmade. Maybe Creative Writing would be more appropriate.
ReplyDeleteAs Aussiegooner79 alludes to, compelling evidence with regard to sunspots, Milankovich cycles, deforestation and general evidence that there is a fairly regular cycle have been categorically ignored and/or suppressed by Governments and media. The fact that the Kyoto protocol would cost many billions of pounds or dollars for a (apparent) reduction in temperature of less than 0.05 degree is not mentioned, nor is the fact that anything Britain did would have virtually no effect. This is just handwringing from the Liberal Left and an attempt to extort (yet more) tax from the Government and an attempt from environmental activists to damage big business by restricting it.
I must say here that I do not dispute that the Earth is warming at the moment. But there are several reasons that I dispute that this has anything to do with man.
1. As Mark Steyn puts it: "Here’s an inconvenient truth for “An Inconvenient Truth”: Remember what they used to call “climate change”? “Global warming.” And what did they call it before that? “Global cooling.” That was the big worry in the ’70s: the forthcoming ice age. Back then, Lowell Ponte had a huge best seller called The Cooling: Has the new ice age already begun? Can we survive?
The answer to the first question was: Yes, it had begun. From 1940 to 1970, there was very slight global cooling. That’s why the doom-mongers decided the big bucks were in the new-ice-age blockbusters.
And yet, amazingly, we’ve survived. Why? Because in 1970 the planet stopped its very slight global cooling and began to undergo very slight global warming. So in the ’80s, the doom-mongers cast off their thermal underwear, climbed into the leopard-skin thongs, slathered themselves in sun cream and wired their publishers to change all references to “cooling” to “warming” for the paperback edition. That’s why, if you notice, the global-warming crowd begin their scare statistics with “since 1970,” an unlikely Year Zero which would not otherwise merit the significance the eco-crowd invest in it...
...In 1968, in his best-selling book The Population Bomb, scientist Paul Ehrlich declared: "In the 1970s the world will undergo famines -- hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death."
In 1972, in their influential landmark study The Limits to Growth, the Club of Rome announced that the world would run out of gold by 1981, of mercury by 1985, tin by 1987, zinc by 1990, petroleum by 1992, and copper, lead, and gas by 1993.
In 1977, Jimmy Carter, President of the United States incredible as it may seem, confidently predicted that "we could use up all of the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade."
Now, in 2002, with enough oil for a century and a half, the planet awash in cut-price minerals, and less global famine, starvation and malnutrition than ever before, the end of the world has had to be rescheduled. The latest estimated time of arrival for the apocalypse is 2032."
Sorry folks, but eco-scaremongering has been around for a long time, and the whether they're predicting heat or ice, flood or famine, there's one thing that's absolutely consistent about these predictions - they've all been totally, hopelessly wrong. I'm sure someone called anonymous will immediately try to discredit this argument by saying I've quoted Steyn - ask yourself, are any of these facts wrong?
2. The suppression of healthy debate on the issue. Milliband telling us "The Climate Change Debate is Now Over" would be fine if we'd actually had a debate in the first place. There has been no challenging of the science, or requests for alternative views from dissenting scientists. Indeed, many scientists have dissented and challenged the veracity of man-made global warming, and have found themselves smeared, denounced as in thrall to big business and had their funding withdrawn, consequently threatening their livelihood. If everyone's so convinced that the dissenters are wrong, why try to suppress them?
3. And most importantly, in presenting the most convincing scientific evidence for global warming, the "hockey stick graph", history has been rewritten. In the 14th century the Vikings were growing crops in Greenland - for this to happen, temperatures would have to have been far higher than anything experienced today. A few centuries later, Britain was exporting wine from vineyards in North Yorkshire. Go figure. Yet according to the hockey stick graph, these periods did not exist, despite the fact that it is documented as historical fact.
Any science that needs to rewrite history in order to be correct is not worth the paper it's written on.
Man made climate change is a hoax on a giant scale that has no categorical proof. In 20 years' time I am sure there will be some totally different impending ecological armageddon. I'm sure the truth will out in the end.
Hi Iain,
ReplyDeletei think this raises a really important debate: where do we draw the line between 'citizenship' and 'indoctrination'? How political do we want education to be? And do we have a choice?
I've written a short response over on the Demos blog [http://www.demos.co.uk/blog/wedontneednothoughtcontrol ]
Apocalyptic belief in climate change is the new religion
ReplyDeleteThis morning I heard a Sky News anchorperson, discussing the latest 2,500-scientists-can't-be-wrong report, describe people who do not accept the arguments against the notion of man-made global warming as "apostates". He appeared to be perfectly serious.
woops sorry, should have been "arguments FOR the notion"
ReplyDeleteAny head worth his salt should refuse to show it. Who do these people think they are, its a dictatorship and it is still not proven.
ReplyDeleteJohnny Norfolk - It's not proven because it cannot be proven because it is a tissue of manipulative lies.
ReplyDeleteI don't care if they want to spout this ridiculous garbage at adults who can make up their own minds. But to be indoctrinating children in state run, taxpayer funded schools is a criminal abuse of impressionable young minds.
How did the Earth manage, all by itself, to come out of the Ice Age without recourse to long-haul flights?
On what basis do you think the Stern Review is wrong, Iain?
ReplyDeleteDo you disagree with the discount rates? Or maybe the marginal utility function? Or maybe you feel that the assumptions about growth are wrong?
Do tell.
There is no more serious debate over whether evolution happened, and it is taught in school. Similarly, there is no more serious debate about whether climate change is 'real' or not, except by wingnuts.
It should be remembered that the 1966 Education Act section 406 requires that "The local education authority, governing body and head teacher shall forbid .... the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school." Section 407 requires that "where political issues are brought to the attention of pupils .... they are offered a balanced presentation of opposing views."
ReplyDeleteTo show the Gore propaganda film in isolation would surely be in flagrant breach of this.
In any proper treatment, pupils should learn about a number of things, many of them already mentioned e.g:
Milankovich cycles
Sunspot cycles
Maunder minimum
Little Ice Age
Medieval warm period (airbrushed out of Gore's agitprop)
Absorption properties of CO2, H20, methane
Evidence from ice cores showing that CO2 increases follow, not precede, temperature rises.
Methods and problems measuring, or even defining, the earth's temperature.
They might also ponder such questions as:
Why is Greenland called Greenland?
When Hannibal crossed the Alps, did he provide his elephants with ice axes?
I don't think that Gore has ever pretended that his film is a complete guide to global warming. It would be impossible to get a detailed discussion of, for example, the contribution made by sun spots to global warming into a 2 hour film. But school children have to start somewhere, and while a decent science teacher doing some teaching would be best, I think that showing this film to kids isn't the worst thing that could happen.
ReplyDeleteAnd I still don't see how showing this film is a partisan political act as johnse18 suggests. Global warming is not a left wing conspiracy.
I find it odd that otherwise intelligent people have such a blindspot about global warming. Just because the Labour Government are using it as an excuse to raise taxes does not mean it isn't happening.
Swift, I don't think anyone is denying that global warming is happening, but there are a multitude of good reasons to doubt the fact that global warming is either (a) a permanent fixture in the future, and (b) man-made.
ReplyDeleteJohnse18's post as well as my previous one give several very good reasons to be skeptical, none of which have been addressed by either government or media.
Johnse18 - What an interesting post! I hadn't thought about Hannibal crossing the Alps before! And, of course, Greenland. The clue is in the name ...
ReplyDeleteA side point which may or may not be relevant ... there is plenty of evidence that the Vikings got to N America hundreds of years ahead of Christopher Columbus, although they didn't stay and settle it. They didn't set off and do the whole journey in one. There are islands like Greenland, or smaller, across the far N Atlantic, and they were presumably fertile enough to provide the sailors with sustenance to take on the next leg of the journey.
This post is clearly racist.
ReplyDeleteA little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.
ReplyDeleteGreenland is called Greenland because the southwestern part of it (where the majority of the population have always lived) is ice-free and is very green in the summer. And the name served as a bit of publicity to encourage other settlers (just as the Cape of Storms was changed to become the Cape of Good Hope). Hannibal crossed the Alps in summer just as people have done for thousands of years. There are things called passes. You don't have to reach the summit of Mont Blanc to cross them. The Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period did exist, but locally. The whole point about global warming is that it is a global phenomenon. While temperatures may vary locally, it is the overall picture that counts.
Solar activity is responsible for less than 10 percent of global warming according to the IPCC (human activity since 1750: radiative forcing of +1.6Wm-2; changes in solar irradiance since 1750: radiative forcing of +0.12Wm-2).
Anonymous 3:27
ReplyDelete"On what basis do you think the Stern Review is wrong, Iain?"
Perhaps this commentator is worthy of consideration. But perhaps not from somebody who cannot be bothered - or is unable - to get him/herself a unique (and anonymous) blogger name to use on this and other threads.
Verity the "as every skule boy do know" an on Greenland . It was that it was thus named to encourage people to go there . In fact it was a desolate place and the time of its naming does not coincide with the Chaucerian warm period anyway so I `m not convinced about that one
ReplyDeleteOn the climate agree in general though
Thoughts in a Garden was written by Andrew Marvell who dies in 1678.
What a wondrous life is this I lead
Ripe apples drop about my head
The luscious clusters of the vine
About my mouth do crush their wine
The nectarines and curious peach
Into my hands themselves do reach
Stumbling on melons as I pass
Ensnared with Flowers I fall on grass
Judging by the Loire valley conditions evidently prevailing it would appear the world has got a lot colder. Then the questions keep coming …
Air taxes set at such a level as to not to make any change in behaviour?
Att the same time are airports allowed to keep growing so that by 2030 the number of passengers will have risen from £228,000,000 to £465,000,000
Other emissions ignored although there supposed to be a 2.7 times as great affect from them (International Governmental Panel on Climate Change)
Why do we continue to subsidise air travel then?
In 1421 why was a Chinese naval squadron able to sail around the North Pole and find no ice?
Why has the Antarctic been gaining ice consistently over the past 30 years ?
6000 bore holes world wide show that temperatures were higher in the middle ages than now ,
why is this problem absent from UN assessments ?
Why is the fact that the doomsday predictions of climatologists are often disproved ignored. For example James Hansen in 1988told the US Congress in 1988 that the sea would rise several feet by 2000. It rose one inch ?
Why are questions of scale so childishly misrepresented by scare mongers who openly refer to the weather as the “climate”?..and this is goin gon in today`s papers
Why are the most conspicuous consumers always the most self righteous . Prince Charles bought his “staff” bikes?
(He has asked for a Greener fleet of vehicles but will retain his Bentley , a Jaguar and an Aston Martin)
Why would the government rather monitor every car from the sky and feed that information into combined data bases than increase fuel tax ?
Why , when the UK is respnsible for 2% of emmissions do we bother with domestic policy ?
It is ,as Boris says , farting in a hurricane !
Serf,
ReplyDeleteYou asked who else should decide what our children are taught.
then read this, it could provide the answer.
http://tinyurl.com/2nwhsa
Heron, it seems that some people are denying that it's happening: frank lee speaking @12.55, anon @1.08, johnny norfolk @3.03 and verity @3.26.
ReplyDeleteAnd when you claim that your points haven't been addressed by the government or the media, well I would say that the Govt. takes advice from scientists, who most certainly have addressed these points, and have shown what they think of them in several IPCC reports and thousands of peer-reviewed articles in journals. And as for the media, I think the Fox network has certainly addressed them. The problem for you is that a sceptical investigative journalist can't just hop over to Greenland and extract a 2 mile-long ice core to expose the cover-up by all these scientists. I guess you'll just have to believe the experts...
we watched films when i was at school. on lots of different issues. to say secomdary school children can't think for themselves and begin debate as a result of watching it is patronising and wrong.
ReplyDeletethe film is a lecture by Al Gore. this isnt some clockwork orange brainwashing excercise, its the broadcast of a lecture by someone who has a certain amount of experience in the field.
Umbongo
ReplyDeleteThat commentator is most definitely not worthy of consideration. He is renowned for twisting the figures and for trying to be an expert on things he knows nothing about. It would have been better if you had linked to the responses to Stern by William Nordhaus or Richard Tol, for example.
Swift. How is your reading comprehension? Kindly point out where I denied that the earth is going through a slight warming-up cycle. As it has done, countered by cooling down cycles, since time immemorial. Time immemorial means millions of years. Millions of years before mankind evolved. Millions of years before any kind of mammal evolved.
ReplyDeleteMillions of years before jet fuel evolved. It has absolutely nothing to do with puny mankind. It is caused by changes in the surface of the sun, which is too powerful for even the lefties to control.
You write: "I guess you'll just have to believe the experts...".
I do believe the experts, of whom Al Gore (who didn't even finish law school, never mind ever have any academic involvement with science on any level) is not one.
No reputable scientist, addressing his own discipline, has written anywhere that global warming is caused by anything other than changes in the sun.
Tell me, are the left really stupid enough to think that feeble mankind is powerful enough to influence the universe, or is it just another ploy to control populations and advance an anti-progress, anti-capitalism agenda? I'm going to vote for Option Two. This is junk science and they are illegally pumping it into young minds as part of their "education". This is wrong.
its not the kids i'm worried about, the DVD should be implemented into business/ work etc everywhere.. its the adults that need to change, lets not assume our job is over and pass the buck to the next generation.... the film is not great but its a must see only to inspire more to be done.. including those with big purse strings....
ReplyDeleteHow brave of David Miliband to stand up now. What a shame that as Britain's representative speaker at the European Renewable Energy Confederation conference in Brussels earlier this week, he arrived late, spoke at length (and fluidly) about carbon credits/trading and offsetting - completely at odds with the previous speakers who had discredited these methods of obtaining reduced carbon emissions - and then immediately left the conference. Traditionally speakers take questions, but as questions were being tabled, the rather embarrassed hosts had to hurriedly explain that Mr. Miliband had gone.
ReplyDeleteQuite frankly the UK were derided for their lack of effort and co-ordination in tackling climate change, whilst their results of efforts to reduce carbon emissions are laughable when compared to virtually all other European countries. Time and again at E.R.E.C. conference, it was pointed out that whilst 'green tax' may be one element towards weaning us all off our power guzzling lifestyles - unless the proceeds of these are ring-fenced and spent on renewable energy solutions - the effect of green taxes would be practically negligible against more populous and polluting countries.
If some of the green tax proceeds were spent on R & D, then they could be a really positive step forward, not to just help the UK, but to help China, India and South America combat their rising carbon emissions.
Mr. Miliband on this occasion was out of touch, patronising and rude to his audience.
Anonymous 4:39 writes: "the film is a lecture by Al Gore. this isnt some clockwork orange brainwashing excercise, its the broadcast of a lecture by someone who has a certain amount of experience in the field."
ReplyDeleteWhat field? The only fields in which Al Gore has a "a certain amount of experience" are the tobacco fields, which his family have owned for a couple of hundred years, and the political field, where he dedicated himself with fierce ambition to becoming president of the United States.
While at Harvard, he got a BA. That means Bachelor of ARTS. He later dropped out of his course for a law degree.
Al Gore doesn't even have the slightest, glancing, micro involvement with science anywhere in his background. Nada. Zilch. Zero. Gore's a self-regarding windbag with a sense of grievance.
>Greenland is called >Greenland because the >southwestern part of it >(where the majority of the >population have always >lived) is ice-free and is >very green in the summer. >And the name served as a >bit of publicity to >encourage other settlers.
ReplyDeleteWell perhaps but is is well established that there were thriving settlements in Greenland in places which are now uninhabitable - described in the book "The Little Ice Age".
>Hannibal crossed the Alps >in summer just as people >have done for thousands of >years. There are things >called passes. You don't >have to reach the summit of >Mont Blanc to cross them.
Fair enough, but there is evidence (admittedly contested) that the ice and snow coverage was much lower a few thousand years ago.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,357366,00.html
>The Little Ice Age and the >Medieval Warm Period did >exist, but locally. The >whole point about global >warming is that it is a >global phenomenon. While >temperatures may vary >locally, it is the overall >picture that counts.
No I think it was global. See newmania's post mentioning the 6000 boreholes. (And they weren't all in Blackburn, Lancashire.)
Incidentally I'm not suggesting that the earth's climate isn't changing. It has been changing long before man was around or could have had any effect.
Not am I discounting the possibility that human activity could have an effect. But we don't know to what extent and whether we can realistically do anything about it, or whether trying to do something is the best way to direct our efforts.
The whole business of predicting climate change by computer modelling is just so messy and complex due to the vast number of variables, the multiplicity of physical mechanisms coupled together in various weak or strong ways, the complex interplay of timescales and feedback mechanisms, and the highly non-linear and chaotic nature of some of the mechanisms involved.
We cannot predict home things will change with any certainty and maybe never will.
As long as we appreciate that then we have a grip on reality. As someone said, "It's not what a man doesn't know that makes him a fool. It's what he does know that ain't so."
The Gores and Millibands and assorted Beeboids not only don't know what they are takling about. They don't even understand what it is they don't understand.
They've just caught religion.
Martin Fathead writes: "Quite frankly the UK were derided for their lack of effort and co-ordination in tackling climate change." Derided by whom? Who else would attend such a lame-brained conference but controlling eco-freaks?
ReplyDeleteMankind cannot control the sun.
How brave of David Miliband to stand up now. What a shame that as Britain's representative speaker at the European Renewable Energy Confederation conference in Brussels earlier this week, he arrived late, spoke at length (and fluidly) about carbon credits/trading and offsetting - completely at odds with the previous speakers who had discredited these methods of obtaining reduced carbon emissions - and then immediately left the conference. Traditionally speakers take questions, but as questions were being tabled, the rather embarrassed hosts had to hurriedly explain that Mr. Miliband had gone.
ReplyDeleteQuite frankly the UK were derided for their lack of effort and co-ordination in tackling climate change, whilst their results of efforts to reduce carbon emissions are laughable when compared to virtually all other European countries. Time and again at E.R.E.C. conference, it was pointed out that whilst 'green tax' may be one element towards weaning us all off our power guzzling lifestyles - unless the proceeds of these are ring-fenced and spent on renewable energy solutions - the effect of green taxes would be practically negligible against more populous and polluting countries.
If some of the green tax proceeds were spent on R & D, then they could be a really positive step forward, not to just help the UK, but to help China, India and South America combat their rising carbon emissions.
Mr. Miliband on this occasion was out of touch, patronising and rude to his audience.
Who pays for it, propaganda etc...irrelevant.
ReplyDeleteWhat is relevant is that it is a load of cobblers like most of the global warming industry propagate the snouts in the trough routine...
Reminds me about the y2k bollocks with computers...
Your post is based on false, non-scientific - but oh, so political! - assumptions. We didn't need you to post it twice, seven minutes apart.
ReplyDeleteSorry, my previous post was addressed Martin Fatguts.
ReplyDeleteBTW, whatever happened to "global cooling"? Europe was going to turn into a tundra with hairy mammoths and bison roaming about the place. That was the 70s. Different gig. Cycles of climate change take several hundred years; not 30.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteIf they want to expose young minds to things with a DVD, how about "Who killed the Electric Car"!
ReplyDeleteRight now China will wipe out any good we do unless they are on side. Right now they are supporting the Sudan to the extent that any UN sanctions will be utterly ineffective. The UK will be fiddling while Rome burns, all the time making it weaker and less competitive.
In the meantime, the UK should consider buying into IEC Fusion power perfected by Dr Robert Bussard - a snip at £100m vs the billions spent on ITER Fusion that does not even work...and we spend £250m on "renewables" which basically means subsidies for companies to sell stuff under cost - a lie, in other words.
(Sorry: this is kinda long)
ReplyDeleteWhat is the penalty for forcing school children to watch known lies, when presented to them as incontrovertible truth? Here are just 25 examples from Gore's film.
If this propaganda film is OK for schools, what can we expect next? Triumph des Willens? (At least it's a better film, as a film.)
(To be fair, Gore probably doesn't know these are lies. He has absolutely no science background, and even imagines—like Milliband, etc., that just because a lot of scientists agree, that means they must be right. In actual fact science is not a democracy. Time and time again science has progressed because one scientist has demolished a consensus—with EVIDENCE.)
1. Carbon Dioxide’s Effect on Temperature.
The relationship between global temperature and carbon dioxide (CO2), on which the entire scare is founded, is not linear. Every molecule of CO2 added to the atmosphere contributes less to warming than the previous one. The historical levels of CO2 shown on the graph are disputed. Evidence from plant fossil-remains suggest that there was as much CO2 in the atmosphere about 11,000 years ago as there is today.
2. Kilimanjaro.
The snows of Kilimanjaro are melting not because of global warming but because of a local climate shift that began 100 years ago. The authors of a report in the International Journal of Climatology “develop a new concept for investigating the retreat of Kilimanjaro’s glaciers, based on the physical understanding of glacier–climate interactions.” They note that, “The concept considers the peculiarities of the mountain and implies that climatological processes other than air temperature control the ice recession in a direct manner. A drastic drop in atmospheric moisture at the end of the 19th century and the ensuing drier climatic conditions are likely forcing glacier retreat on Kilimanjaro.”
3. Glaciers.
Glaciers around the world have been receding at around the same pace for over 100 years. Research published by the National Academy of Sciences last week indicates that the Peruvian glacier probably disappeared a few thousand years ago.
4. The Medieval Warm Period.
Al Gore says that the “hockey stick” graph that shows temperatures remarkably steady for the last 1,000 years has been validated, and ridicules the concept of a “medieval warm period.” That’s not the case. Last year, a team of leading paleoclimatologists said, “When matching existing temperature reconstructions…the timeseries display a reasonably coherent picture of major climatic episodes: ‘Medieval Warm Period,’ ‘Little Ice Age’ and ‘Recent Warming.’” They go on to conclude, “So what would it mean, if the reconstructions indicate a larger…or smaller…temperature amplitude? We suggest that the former situation, i.e. enhanced variability during pre-industrial times, would result in a redistribution of weight towards the role of natural factors in forcing temperature changes, thereby relatively devaluing the impact of anthropogenic emissions and affecting future temperature predictions.”
5. The Hottest Year.
Satellite temperature measurements say that 2005 wasn't the hottest year on record — 1998 was — and that temperatures have been stable since 2001. Here’s the satellite graph:
6. Heat Waves.
The summer heat wave that struck Europe in 2003 was caused by an atmospheric pressure anomaly; it had nothing to do with global warming. As the United Nations Environment Program reported in September 2003, “This extreme wheather [sic] was caused by an anti-cyclone firmly anchored over the western European land mass holding back the rain-bearing depressions that usually enter the continent from the Atlantic ocean. This situation was exceptional in the extended length of time (over 20 days) during which it conveyed very hot dry air up from south of the Mediterranean.”
7. Record Temperatures.
Record temperatures — hot and cold — are set every day around the world; that’s the nature of records. Statistically, any given place will see four record high temperatures set every year. There is evidence that daytime high temperatures are staying about the same as for the last few decades, but nighttime lows are gradually rising. Global warming might be more properly called, “Global less cooling.” (On this, see Patrick J. Michaels book, Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media.)
8. Hurricanes.
There is no overall global trend of hurricane-force storms getting stronger that has anything to do with temperature. A recent study in Geophysical Research Letters found: “The data indicate a large increasing trend in tropical cyclone intensity and longevity for the North Atlantic basin and a considerable decreasing trend for the Northeast Pacific. All other basins showed small trends, and there has been no significant change in global net tropical cyclone activity. There has been a small increase in global Category 4–5 hurricanes from the period 1986–1995 to the period 1996–2005. Most of this increase is likely due to improved observational technology. These findings indicate that other important factors govern intensity and frequency of tropical cyclones besides SSTs [sea surface temperatures].”
9. Tornadoes.
Records for numbers of tornadoes are set because we can now record more of the smaller tornadoes (see, for instance, the Tornado FAQ at Weather Underground).
10. European Flooding.
European flooding is not new. Similar flooding happened in 2003. Research from Michael Mudelsee and colleagues from the University of Leipzig published in Nature (Sept. 11, 2003) looked at data reaching as far back as 1021 (for the Elbe) and 1269 (for the Oder). They concluded that there is no upward trend in the incidence of extreme flooding in this region of central Europe.
11. Shrinking Lakes.
Scientists investigating the disappearance of Lake Chad (p.116) found that most of it was due to human overuse of water. “The lake’s decline probably has nothing to do with global warming, report the two scientists, who based their findings on computer models and satellite imagery made available by NASA. They attribute the situation instead to human actions related to climate variation, compounded by the ever increasing demands of an expanding population” (“Shrinking African Lake Offers Lesson on Finite Resources,” National Geographic, April 26, 2001). Lake Chad is also a very shallow lake that has shrunk considerably throughout human history.
12. Polar Bears.
Polar bears are not becoming endangered. A leading Canadian polar bear biologist wrote recently, “Climate change is having an effect on the west Hudson population of polar bears, but really, there is no need to panic. Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear (sic) to be affected at present.”
13. The Gulf Stream.
The Gulf Stream, the ocean conveyor belt, is not at risk of shutting off in the North Atlantic. Carl Wunsch of MIT wrote to the journal Nature in 2004 to say, “The only way to produce an ocean circulation without a Gulf Stream is either to turn off the wind system, or to stop the Earth’s rotation, or both”
14. Invasive Species.
Gore’s worries about the effect of warming on species ignore evolution. With the new earlier caterpillar season in the Netherlands, an evolutionary advantage is given to birds that can hatch their eggs earlier than the rest. That’s how nature works. Also, “invasive species” naturally extend their range when climate changes. As for the pine beetle given as an example of invasive species, Rob Scagel, a forest microclimate specialist in British Columbia, said, “The MPB (mountain pine beetle) is a species native to this part of North America and is always present. The MPB epidemic started as comparatively small outbreaks and through forest management inaction got completely out of hand.”
15. Species Loss.
When it comes to species loss, the figures he gives are based on extreme guesswork, as the late Julian Simon pointed out. We have documentary evidence of only just over 1,000 extinctions since 1600 (see, for instance, Bjørn Lomborg’s The Skeptical Environmentalist, p. 250).
16. Coral Reefs.
Coral reefs have been around for over 500 million years. This means that they have survived through long periods with much higher temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations than today.
17. Malaria and other Infectious Diseases.
Leading disease scientists contend that climate change plays only a minor role in the spread of emerging infectious diseases. In “Global Warming and Malaria: A Call for Accuracy” (The Lancet, June 2004), nine leading malariologists criticised models linking global warming to increased malaria spread as “misleading” and “display[ing] a lack of knowledge” of the subject.
18. Antarctic Ice.
There is controversy over whether the Antarctic ice sheet is thinning or thickening. Recent scientific studies have shown a thickening in the interior at the same time as increased melting along the coastlines. Temperatures in the interior are generally decreasing. The Antarctic Peninsula, where the Larsen-B ice shelf broke up is not representative of what is happening in the rest of Antarctica. Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, Professor Emeritus of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University, acknowledges, “Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems.” According to a forthcoming report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, climate models based on anthropogenic forcing cannot explain the anomalous warming of the Antarctic Peninsula; thus, something natural is at work.
19. Greenland Climate.
Greenland was warmer in the 1920s and 1930s than it is now. A recent study by Dr. Peter Chylek of the University of California, Riverside, addressed the question of whether man is directly responsible for recent warming: “An important question is to what extent can the current (1995-2005) temperature increase in Greenland coastal regions be interpreted as evidence of man-induced global warming? Although there has been a considerable temperature increase during the last decade (1995 to 2005) a similar increase and at a faster rate occurred during the early part of the 20th century (1920 to 1930) when carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases could not be a cause. The Greenland warming of 1920 to 1930 demonstrates that a high concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is not a necessary condition for period of warming to arise. The observed 1995-2005 temperature increase seems to be within a natural variability of Greenland climate.” (Petr Chylek et al., Geophysical Research Letters, 13 June 2006.)
20. Sea Level Rise.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change does not forecast sea-level rises of “18 to 20 feet.” Rather, it says, “We project a sea level rise of 0.09 to 0.88 m for 1990 to 2100, with a central value of 0.48 m. The central value gives an average rate of 2.2 to 4.4 times the rate over the 20th century...It is now widely agreed that major loss of grounded ice and accelerated sea level rise are very unlikely during the 21st century.” Al Gore’s suggestions of much more are therefore extremely alarmist.
21. Population.
Al Gore worries about population growth; Gore does not suggest a solution. Fertility in the developed world is stable or decreasing. The plain fact is that we are not going to reduce population back down to 2 billion or fewer in the foreseeable future. In the meantime, the population in the developing world requires a significant increase in its standard of living to reduce the threats of premature and infant mortality, disease, and hunger. In The Undercover Economist, Tim Harford writes, “If we are honest, then, the argument that trade leads to economic growth, which leads to climate change, leads us then to a stark conclusion: we should cut our trade links to make sure that the Chinese, Indians and Africans stay poor. The question is whether any environmental catastrophe, even severe climate change, could possibly inflict the same terrible human cost as keeping three or four billion people in poverty. To ask that question is to answer it.”
22. Energy Generation.
A specific example of this is Gore’s acknowledgement that 30 percent of global CO2 emissions come from wood fires used for cooking. If we introduced affordable, coal-fired power generation into South Asia and Africa we could reduce this considerably and save over 1.6 million lives a year. This is the sort of solution that Gore does not even consider.
23. Carbon-Emissions Trading.
The European Carbon Exchange Market, touted as “effective”, has crashed.
24. The “Scientific Consensus.”
On the supposed “scientific consensus”: Dr. Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California, San Diego, did not examine a “large random sample” of scientific articles. She got her search terms wrong and thought she was looking at all the articles when in fact she was looking at only 928 out of about 12,000 articles on “climate change.” Dr. Benny Peiser, of Liverpool John Moores University, was unable to replicate her study. He says, “As I have stressed repeatedly, the whole data set includes only 13 abstracts (~1%) that explicitly endorse what Oreskes has called the ‘consensus view.’ In fact, the vast majority of abstracts does (sic) not mention anthropogenic climate change. Moreover — and despite attempts to deny this fact — a handful of abstracts actually questions the view that human activities are the main driving force of ‘the observed warming over the last 50 years.’” In addition, a recent survey of scientists following the same methodology as one published in 1996 found that about 30 percent of scientists disagreed to some extent or another with the contention that “climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes.” Less than 10 percent “strongly agreed” with the statement. Details of both the survey and the failed attempt to replicate the Oreskes study can be found here.
25. Economic Costs.
Even if the study Gore cites is right, the United States will still emit massive amounts of CO2 after all the measures it outlines have been realized. Getting emissions down to the paltry levels needed to stabilise CO2 in the atmosphere would require, in Gore’s own words, “a wrenching transformation” of our way of life. This cannot be done easily or without significant cost. The Kyoto Protocol, which Gore enthusiastically supports, would avert less than a tenth of a degree of warming in the next fifty years and would cost up to $400 billion a year to the U.S. All of the current proposals in Congress would cost the economy significant amounts, making us all poorer, with all that that entails for human health and welfare, while doing nothing to stop global warming.
Finally, Gore quotes Winston Churchill — but he should read what Churchill said when he was asked what qualities a politician requires: “The ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn't happen.”
Anonymous 4:39 this isn't some clockwork orange brainwashing exercise
ReplyDelete(Some of your spelling and punctuation has been corrected to protect the innocent)
Actually, that is exactly what it is. Verity, as usual, makes a very good argument. This is not good science and has been written by a delusional self-publicity freak whose only talent seems to be serial election-losing and poor beard cultivation.
I am furious that my tax money is subsidising this blatant tree-hugging propaganda and associated nonsense.
How about 18DS making a rebuttal film? If the Govt wouldn't subsidise distribution and LEA's refused to distribute it then the PR bonus for the forces of Lght and Truth would be huge.
I must ask "anonymous 2:59" what on earth an 'anchorperson' is? Does he mean 'newsreader'?
Verity - you are very entitled to your opinions, what is so rude and offensive, is your derision scientists other than those whose views coincide with your own.
ReplyDeletePlease re the IPCC report - a (yes, talk about fiddling whilst rome burns) culmination of 5 years study by 3,000 scientist world wide. As already pointed out global warming is so alarming, because it is just that - global! This is worrying for many scientists, and the element who scoff as you do and profess that there is nothing we can do, are frankly, even more worrying.
For those with 15 mins of oxygen to spare and some karma to burn, may I highly recommend taking the time to read the long post by "2br02b".
ReplyDeleteThere are some truly excellent points in there and it is very well written. In it there are scientifically demonstrable facts which have been collated by scientists lucky enough to not have to rely on the eco-fascist funding trough in order to finance their laboratories.
On the other hand we have "MartinFatGuts" who, in the absence of arguments to support his point of view merely resorts to abuse. Yawn.
I apologise Verity for accidentally posting twice - something else that clearly provokes you into yet more rudeness.
ReplyDeleteI didn't think i was being political by criticising David Miliband's performance at the European Renewable Energy Conference earlier this week, i was frankly embarrassed for the UK. If your attitude is typical, then i despair. If you don't believe in the effect of carbon emission upon global warming, are you comfortable to have virtually all of your energy supplies reliant upon the goodwill of governments in Russia, The Middle East, Venezuela, and Nigeria. And if you are happy with this situation at the moment, are you sure that you are happy for this situation to continue for the next 50 years?
Did i resort to abuse?
ReplyDeleteI am sorry
I must have been somehow infected.
"MartinFatGuts" Not sure about your current levels of infection, but I would regard your dismissal of Verity as "rude and offensive" rather than tackling the point at hand as rather unfortunate.
ReplyDeletePlay the ball, not the man (or woman)
Our gracious host allows us to argue on his forum. Let us do him the courtesy of keeping it on-topic and civilised.
After reading all these excellent comments , and being a thicky , I have noticed we have changes in the weather ,22 years ago we had a bad winter ,after that they started to get milder and winter has started to come a bit later ,all I see is mother nature deciding what she wants to do ,it's let's get on with it
ReplyDelete1-I dont need a bearded sandal wearer to work out that burning carbon for 150 years has an effect
ReplyDelete2-I dont need to be threatened by people that if I dont turn off a light the planet is doomed
3-I dont consider any movement, eco-babble or anything else, supported by Gore, Clinton, Bliar, Milliband etc to be credible
4-I dont think that any government can solve the problem. These people are utterly fukin useless at everything so please get your heads out of your arses when promoting 'green' taxes.
5- I want some credible, independent scientists tell me what the problem is, the magnitude of the problem, outline possible solutions and quantify how long it will take to see some verifiable benefits/changes
6-I will then do something about it
No wonder so many people don't see how much of a danger climate change is.
ReplyDeleteThey are brainwashing us.
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2004397,00.html
I bet some of the people posting here aren't yet convinced that smoking is dangerous. Unlike you, I don't want to tell my grandchildren the polar bears have disappeared, that I knew climate change was man made, and I did fuck all to stop it happening. A journey of a thousand miles starts with one step. Not blaming China for being a long way from us and saying 'I can't be arsed'...
6:27 PM
ReplyDeleteIs the guardian where you get your ideas from , can't you think for yourself , we do have the internet
I'd like to endorse Geoff's endorsement of the excellent post above by 2b02b. It is full of real scientific knowledge and quotes real scientists who are actually involved in the field. Unlike Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and all the lefty, controlling, one-worlder, anti-capitalist scaremongers.
ReplyDeleteThank you 2br02b for a really good, informative read. I am going to go back and read it again and try to absorb more.
Geoff, you were right to mention Al Gore's scientific qualifications being the losing of a presidential election and poor beard cultivation but you forgot his expertise in hanging chads! Quite a scientific portfolio to bring to the international "global warming" arena.
Al Gore: "be afraid - be very afraid"
ReplyDeleteAl Gore travels the world by private jet, to spread his message.
Miliband: "be afraid - be very afraid".
Miliband's government: - still pushing Heathrow and Stansted Airport runway expansion plans.
The BBC: "be afraid be very afraid"
The BBC's digital future: "every household must by law have a digi box by 2011. (if left on 24/7, such boxes increase average household electricity consumption by 5%).
Meanwhile the Sun's 11 year warm period is thought to be coming to an end.
Unfortunately, Hypocrisy doesn't seem to be sun-spot activity related.
How very Soviet.
ReplyDelete"Tell your parents not to buy a large car!"
Indoctrination, certainly, but I'd rather the little mites were being force-fed Gore's gibberish than Mary Lives With Colin and Keith.
ReplyDeleteOnly when the Government is whiter than white on pollution can they lecture us.
ReplyDeleteOnly when the UK is whiter than white on pollution can we lecture China et all.
One day this will happen then we can impose a Pollution Tax on imported goods and China et all will take notice.
This will never happen under a Labour Government - they simply don't have the brains to accomplish it.
The very first thing a new Tory Government has to do is get rid of all the Civil Service dross that Labour has hired.
We need first class minds not incompetent party members.
Good to read these interesting facts on both sides of the argument.
ReplyDeleteDredging my old memory banks I think you have ALL missed the most important point: the Roman soldiers when they came to Britain (55BC?) WORE SKIRTS, even up at Hadrian's wall.
I know this for a fact because I saw the picture in my school book.
So it must have been much warmer then than it is now. We don't need some scientist to take a soil sample and argue the point. (Well, he can argue to the trees about it if he wants to, but there's no need for the rest of us to feel obliged to indulge his ego by listening).
The Romans did admittedly wear underpants, unlike the kilted Scots. I know this because I saw the letters found in Northumberland on the Romans little waxed wooden message boards, one of which has been translated and the legionnaire is thanking someone down south for sending him some spare pairs of underpants for sentry duty.
So, is anyone really suggesting that they would have marched so far north in their skirts if it had been really freezing at any time of year? And, as someone else has pointed out, they subsequently planted vineyards in England so they could really enjoy life here.
No, one doesn't have to be a egghead, or even need the clarity induced by a cup of Prince Charles' excellent Nettle tea, to conclude that certain overpaid politicians, elected more's-the-pity by the generally unthinking urban masses, have found "climate change" another mighty convenient bandwagon to be associated with.
They know that regardless of whether there may be a kernel of truth in some of what is said on the subject, and a load of lies in the rest of it, IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER, because our system doesn't provide any adequate sanction to deter them from doing virtually anything to us taxpayers in the name of "climate change".
They can regulate us to the nth degree, or permit us to be regulated by people in a foreign country; employ endless extra people in non-jobs to watch those of us in proper jobs; take our money and spend it on anything they want; indoctrinate our children; change the school textbooks; cover our countryside with concrete; encourage our purchase of foodstuffs from outside the country and let homeproducers go to the wall; tax us again on death on assets which have already been taxed; etc etc WITH IMPUNITY.
That's the way our communist ... er democratic system currently works. Who could argue that it's not time for a change?
I'm sick to death of all this climate change stuff in schools.
ReplyDeleteOur school has already began the process of indoctrination. There is no attempt made at debate. Today, in an assembly about our upcoming 'responsibilities' as prefects, global warming came up again. In our Science lessons, global warming. In our Pastoral lessons, global warming. In the School Council meetings, global warming. So far as I know, the only heating up is my temper.
It's aggravating to know that I'm probably one of about two or three people in my year who's actually bothered to look at BOTH sides of an argument that always seems to swerve in a single direction. Once, I did try to actually create some form of debate on the issue in a Science lesson. Of course, all the cases I put forward were falseries created by the evil American oil tycoons. Besides, I had to 'hurried up' as we had to move onto the more important matter of figuring out a way that the Chancellor can tax cows for their methane output.
It shouldn't be strange to us, however. Comprehensives were designed for the very purpose of 'social cohesion', in effect. The idea, of course, comes from the USA where they were designed to convert members of many different immigrant and ethnic groups into the same American community.
In Britain, I do not doubt they have more than likely been used at some point or another to drum ideas of one shape or form or another into the minds of youth. Before global warming, I noticed there were a number of "Isn't the EU great?!" displays around the school. Even in primary school we were taught an almost Dickensian view of capitalism, with the fur-collared overcoats and diamond-topped canes replaced by flash, designer suits and mobile phones.
How we will solve this problem I shall not venture to discuss. For me, it is another debate for another time.
As someone who does not own a car and has not been on a plane for two years but who has traded energy for a living I think I can fairly say I know both sides of the climate change debate pretty well.
ReplyDeleteI have yet to see any politician from any political party stand up and and actually tell the whole unvarnished truth about what dealing with climate change will actually involve at the individual level.
The truth is that dealing with climate change will require everyone to travel to work/school on public transport, take only one flight per year to go on holiday and spend £25k to upgrade their property to environmental standards seen in Scandinavia.
We can talk about emissions trading schemes, carbon credit cards and low energy light bulbs all we like but it is only a really serious change in lifestyle that will make any difference at all.
The fact is that we as individuals are simply not prepared to make those changes and politicians know that. If they try and force us they know we will vote them out of office and that is why they talk about it but run scared of doing anything radicle.
The environmental lobby groups and climate change academics funded by Government money know that truth too and fear the flow of grant money to them will be cut off if the public turn against the idea of climate change.
If we as a society do not want to do anything about I think we should stop talking about it. We need to make up our minds.
Anonymous 11:30 - "If we as a society do not want to do anything about I think we should stop talking about it. We need to make up our minds."
ReplyDeleteCheck. I've made up my mind. It's bullshit.
Sam Tarrant. Hang in there, guy!
I make a point of test-driving at least one SUV every week or so - not that I can afford to buy one, I just do it to burn some petrol for free! Just to do my bit to cheese off the blind devotees of the cult of environ-mentalism! I need some new suggestions as to how to continue my protest. Are there any good websites out there, reviewing all the best gas-guzzlers? I want to deepen my carbon footprint. Let my epitaph read "Tyler never achieved great fame in this world, but he burned some serious fossil fuel!"
ReplyDeleteFor those with short memories...may I remind you that Al Gore is the tosser who "invented" the internet etc. Yeah right!
ReplyDeleteMe thinks he is "inventing" global warming according to Al to suit his own political purposes.
A read of Christopher Monckton's rebutal of Stern et al is a good place to start.
Additionally, Nigel Lawson's rebutals of this nonsense are also worthy of peoples time.
off topic
ReplyDeleteIain
check yahoo groups politics blair terrorism
Whatever your personal views Iain, it is a shame that there are still so many climate change denyers posting here, largely anonymouslyly. I would have imagined if their views were credible and believable they would be keen to post with their name and details.
ReplyDeleteNorfolk Blogger writes: "I would have imagined if their views were credible and believable they would be keen to post with their name and details."
ReplyDeleteDetails, eh? And your details, Norfolk Blogger are?
Would you really "have imagined if their views were credible and believable (tiny pleonasm here) they would be.... blah blah blah."???
I would have exactly the same opinion if a government sponsored DVD giving the other side of the argument was being sent to schools.
ReplyDeleteThe "other side of the argument" being about as credible as people arguing that Fulham won the 1975 FA Cup Final, to use a reference that, unlike this argument, you might actually understand.
Poor little manipulative (failed) Norfolk Blogger: "it is a shame that there are still so many climate change denyers".
ReplyDeleteThis offends me even beyond the illiterate spelling.
How dare you compare people who do not accept a non-proven, politico-faux scientific "theory" with the real deaths of millions of Jews in Germany? How dare you try to call up an echo of "holocaust denier"?
How bloody dare you try to call up the shadow of those millions of dead for your purposes, you cheap little thing?
It strikes me as strange that the people who think that they can predict the distant future are the mainstream, whilst the people who think prognostication is an imprecise science are considered wacko rebels.
ReplyDeleteWell said,Diogenes!
ReplyDeleteI like the fact that the proponents of gloabl-warming-will-kill-us-in-20years say that active intervention (soot in the atmosphere etc) can't have its effects predicted....
ReplyDeleteSane version
1) Global warming is occuring.
2) The percentage of that that is man made is undecieded.
3) The precautionary principle suggest that we recude carbon emissions.
4) The precationary principle also suggests we develop active mitagtory methods. The passive (CO2) reductio won't start slowing the change (accroding to all the models) until decades more rise.
5) The enviro nazis who find this "diststeful" should be kicked.
6) The electric car has faled up to now because it takes all night to charge and has short range. This includes the EV1. Thanks to the US military, teenage mobile phone users , laptop users and the evil of capitalism, billions are being invested in better batteries. Hence Tesla Moters.
7) Wind farms are not much of a solution - not dense enough.
8) Wave power sounds like a nice idea - stopping it getting pounded to bits is very difficult.
9) A zero carbon economy will cause the collapse of the economies in much of the Arab world, Russia and parts of Africa and South America. We are talking about countries which derive 90% plus of their GDP from oil. What do you think they are going to say? No one seems to be thinking about that one yet.
10) Petrol is used as a fuel beacuse it has pretty much the ame energy per kilo as TNT, yet is pretty stable. Diesel is similar.
11) The most promising ideas for hydrocarbon replacement are *artifical hydrocrbon replacement* - yes, biofuel currently requires too much land (though it is energy positive). Look up the work with algae.
If you want to chages things, fine. But claiming that there is a big conspiracy stopping solar power, electric cars etc is crap.
One last point. In the UK we have an effective oil price of $250 barrel, due to the atxes on petrol. At that price evry single scheme for petrol replacement is economic - hell, alot cheaper. The reason that none are put into operation? The treasury loves the stealth tax on petol. If they taxed the alternatives so that they were (say) 50% cheaper at the pump, thy would have to give up bilions and billions in tax. It's Gordon Brown who is addicted to oil, not us. This is why the government is pushing hydrogen as a replacement - it can be taxed without effecting other consumers, unlike electricity
You want to reduce petrol usage in this country - get a cross party agreement to promise to hold the final cost of zero emission fuel to 50% of the pump cost of petrol for 25 years.
It may be propaganda but I still say - show it to them.
ReplyDeleteWhen they are teenagers they will forget all about it when they want the latest mobile phone and the latest computer to chat to their friends.
Do you fancy standing in front of an 18 year old who has just finished their A-levels and telling them that they can't spend their gap year travelling the world because it is bad for the environment?
The environmental movement is a classic example of "bottom up" politics that has managed to persuade people largely without government support. Maybe it should stay that way.
re Diogenes said...
ReplyDeleteIt strikes me as strange that the people who think that Jesus was the son of God, was born of a virgin, died and rose again are the mainstream, whilst the people who think he was a normal man who had descendents who are around today are considered wacko rebels.
Millipede, Johnson and the rest of this bossy lot have failed to notice something about older children and young adults. They can see through cant and they rebel. The more you try to indoctrinate them the more fiercely they resist. The more obvious you make it that they are expected to conform to current received wisdom, as decided by big powerful grownups, the more vigorous the raspberry you get in return. This shameful, opportunistic piece of blatant propagandising will get the reception it deserves, with people like Sam Tarran above leading the way. Good on you Sam.
ReplyDeleteDon't worry about the propaganda working. People who think children really care about the environment should see the litter on a school playground after break.
ReplyDeleteStill no sign of Labout taking the 'tough choices' they keep whining on about - so I guess a bit of media fluff is a good stop gap.
ReplyDeleteBut why not circulate David Attenborough's film on climate change? It's 100 times better and doesn't expose our kids to Al Bore.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteMillipede, Johnson and the rest of this bossy lot have failed to notice something about older children and young adults. They can see through cant and they rebel....
Really? I don't see too many of them rebelling against our celebrity obsessed, shopping-mad, dumbed-down, consumer society.
Too many people believe scientists are noble searchers after Truth. The ones I know sit in their own, seperate staffroom, read the Gaurdian to improve themselves (whilst their lab assistants do the work) and moan that they should be running the school, because of their qualifications.
ReplyDeleteStill, It has boosted your posting traffic and page views, so where's the harm...
ReplyDeleteIt's an ill wind...
verity - can you take your tedious little rantings to another blog now?
ReplyDeleteWe are really tired of your whining adolescent foot-stamping rantings.
And if you can't take being called a 'climate change denier' - perfectly valid labelling if ever I heard it, then don't bring your specious, lame arguments here. If we screw up the climate, the number of dead will make dwarf the numbers lost in WW2.
Entertaining thread.
ReplyDeleteanon 10:23
Well, there's climate change, and then there's climate change.
The overall consensus in the Russian and Chinese climatology journals is that this century will be much colder than the last, many expect it to cool enough by about 2050 to affect some grain-growing areas in the northern hemisphere.
My advice - ignore the MSM, the politicians, the activists; instead read the scientific journals themselves. You'd be amazed how much doesn't get reported, how contradictory the models are.
The truth is - last century overall temps went up by about 0.6 C.
And that's it.
Why that happened is arguable. There's fairly recent evidence that the rise in CO2 followed the temp rise, i.e. is the result of warming rather than the cause - though it's still not certain. And what happens next is all speculation - and how you program your computer simulation, of course.
Too many people believe scientists are noble searchers after Truth
ReplyDeleteNo scientific report on anything is complete without its valedictory sentence: "Naturally a great deal more research will be needed to answer these important questions." Too many scientists seem to be ignoble searchers after more funding.
Wev'e listened to scientist's for years now, over all sort's of issue's and they keep telling us garbage ,why do you think they are shoving this DVD onto the kids for because they know they have a better chance of advertising it to them ,the scientists are like the politicians always on the grab
ReplyDeleteVerity, sorry you appear to be a bit dim, but clikc on my title "Norfolk Blogger" and you can get thorugh to my blog. Clikc on your name verity and , oh, nothing. That is what I mean about mean anonymous.
ReplyDeleteIf we were serious about cutting CO2 the obvious, inexpensive & effective way would be by going for nuclear, which in fact would mean a 50% cut in generating costs. That the strongest enthusiasts for climate catastrophe are are also the strongest opponents of nuclear prove that they, at least, believe it is all hooey designed merely to push their own Luddite agenda.
ReplyDeleteWhen the French government decided to prove their commitment to saving the planet by switching off the lights on the Eiffel Tower for 5 minutes they must have been aware that France is 85% nuclear & 15% hydro both CO2 free. This was pure showbiz with nothuing to do with saving the world - so is the rest of it.
Verity
ReplyDeleteKeep up the good work. Excellent to see these droids being upset with the truth.
Talking of which, the bbc (of all things) has let slip that the viability of fusion power is expected to be established around 2010. That's the reason the pointy heads have stepped up their efforts to undermine Western economies: they know their time is running out.
And yes, another great post from 2br02b.
The renowned poster "Anonymous" addresses me personally - not the subject at hand: "verity - can you take your tedious little rantings to another blog now?
ReplyDelete"We are really tired of your whining adolescent foot-stamping rantings." "We?"
Excuse me?
From the low quality of your writing, I assume you are friendless and are using the royal "we"?
As this blog isn't your property, I don't know that you can order people around on it, so get the chip off your shoulder and try to engage in the debate.
"And if you can't take being called a 'climate change denier' - perfectly valid labelling if ever I heard it, then don't bring your specious, lame arguments here." Zero marks for reading comprehension. I find the intentional echo of the Jewish Shoah to be facile, toxic and repellent. I thought I made that clear.
"If we screw up the climate, the number of dead will make dwarf the numbers lost in WW2." Read 2br02b's heroic post further up the page. It is long and a bit complicated, but you can follow it on the screen with your forefinger and 15 minutes of heavy mouth breathing.
Interesting to note that on any answers on Radio 4 today, the Dimbleby devoted the whole show to answers on climate change. Which is either a measure of how all consuming this subject is - or that they couldn't get any callers to support the PM on the question of whether Blair should resign! (Seems they can't even wheel Gould out to do the job after he made such a complete arse of himself on PM yesterday...)
ReplyDeleteBy the way, the most effective way to reduce your carbon footprint on the planet is to HAVE NO KIDS. I've signed up to do my bit - how about you, Iain?
Ano
ReplyDeleteThe viability of fusion has been expected real soon now for 40 years. However we don't need it because fission is entirely viable. If fusion actualy became available I am sure the Luddite Tendency would immediately notice that holding a hydrogen bomb in a magnetic bottle might breach the precautionery principle. FoI only ever support technology that doesn't work.
To return to the point of Iain's post, should public money be spent on perpetrating this politically convenient myth? Should the government be pumping unproven doctrinaire pseudo-science without, at the very least, making clear that it is unproven and also presenting the opposing view?
ReplyDeleteneil craig,
ReplyDeleteFusion is in reach now. Google Dr Richard Bussard and IEC. Do not be fooled by the Statist Monolithic ITER experiments. Dr Robert Bussard expects to need £100m to get a working version - heck, we are pouring more than that into companies so people can buy a "cheap" windmill from B&Q. Fission is a mess in comparison, but not as bad as relying on Russian gas.
If NueArbeit is honest about climate change and especially if the FibDumbs, then they should invest in IEC NOW and as a backup a Nuclear building programme should go ahead.
verity said...
ReplyDelete"To return to the point of Iain's post, should public money be spent on perpetrating this politically convenient myth?"
My parent’s taxes paid for the 3 years of the compulsory "Religious Education" I had to attend in a state comprehensive school. The lessons were 99.9% Christian and bible-inspired, with only a sneering reference to other schools of thought and belief.
This unproven propaganda and attempted indoctrination was delivered to us by a man, later sectioned for mental health problems, who claimed god mysteriously made FA cup tickets appear in his pocket and a washing machine full of money in his garden. He would throw board-erasers at any pupil who giggled at these oft-repeated claims.
I'm sorry; I just don't see the problem with an interesting lecture being distributed on DVD to school. It appears to be just one of many state-supplied lesson aids. Multimedia is the reality of modern day education - in my day it was repeats of Open University programmes on a worn out VHS. Now pupils have the opportunity, via the internet, to question the facts presented to them, to research alternatives in a media rich environment...all paid for by the same taxes supplying this DVD. My classmates and I never had such a facility and had to decide whether what we were being "taught" was truth or fiction. This decision was influenced by the beliefs of the family and those around us, as is the case with this issue.
Kids today are in far more danger of being the indoctrinated victims of commercial interests than they are from being sat in front of a TV screen for a couple of hours and told about El Nino. I suspect most of them will be sending text messages to their mates instead of paying attention anyway. The point is that your hysteria and bile is once again directed at those that comment with an opposing view or who accidentally make a typo or spelling mistake, rather than taking a step back to see the debate in a balanced and wider context.
So that's why they call State Education
ReplyDeleteIdeological State Apparatus to program the hardware with an operating system
Neil Craig said
ReplyDelete"The viability of fusion has been expected real soon now for 40 years."
No, for most of those 40 years it was thought that viable fusion power was 50 years away. The difference now is the expectation of proven viability in three years.
You are, of course, right about the Luddite Tendency. That's why these 'eco' efforts are intensifying to undermine the West while they still can.
Dr Bussard is certainly a man of repute but even with the best will in the world the distance from needing money to build a prototype to powering the world is a step that will take many years. Our current reactors are going offline now & much of our coal will go in 2115when new emission standards come it. Building a current reactor can be done in 4 years (though Labour intend to first spend 5 licencing French or Canadian designs & deciding if the sites used by current reactors can be used by reactors.
ReplyDeleteWe need to start building last year if we are not to have blackouts.
Sorry 2015.
ReplyDeleteI don't know where brO2b copied that lengthy tract from, but he, along with all the others who thought it was wonderful, clearly has no idea what he's talking about. Just to take a few examples, as I can't be bothered to go into a full-length rebuttal, and because I have (scientific) work to get back to...
ReplyDelete'30 percent of global CO2 emmissions come from wood fires used for cooking'. Even if the figure is as high as that, which I doubt, it's meaningless as far as any global warming debate goes. Trees absorb CO2 as they grow; burning wood releases that CO2. There is no net addition of CO2 to the atmosphere, unlike burning fossil fuels.
'Statistically, any given place will see four record high temperatures set every year'. Rubbish.
Species loss: quoting Bjorn Lomborg only exposes your ignorance. Apart from the fact that 'only' 1000 extinctions in 400 years is actually quite a lot, the use of the word 'documented' shows where he is wrong. We don't know how many species are on this planet; new species are discovered every year, and at the microscopic level we really have no idea. It is therefore certain that many species have gone extinct without us even realising. For every hectare of tropical forest that is destroyed by human activity, it is likely that some tiny, unkown species has been made extinct.
As for the rest, I can no longer be bothered to argue with people who have little or no understanding of science yet who unthinkingly spout regurgitated rubbish as though they know best.
And Verity - you really are a foul-mouthed headbanger.
Thanks for your nice post!
ReplyDeleteToday as we are facing global worming now a days and one of the main reason of global worming is due to the reduction or cutting down of green forests. so we all can play a role in saving the environment for the future and for our children this is the right time to start developing small gardens in our houses back yard as its has become necessity act before its to late. So start your journey with us .
ReplyDelete