Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

Govt. propose removal of AGW from under 14s curriculum, Guardianistas outraged

Oh dear, so sad, too bad. I am motivated to play a tune on Nick’s micro-violin.

Debate about climate change has been cut out of the national curriculum for children under 14, prompting claims of political interference in the syllabus by the government that has failed “our duty to future generations”.

Climate change? Let’s inject some honesty here, Juliette. When you say climate change you actually mean Anthropogenic Global Warming. You know, that humungous politico-scientific scam that has finally been falsified to the point that even warmist scientists pro-AGW climatologists activists are admitting their evidence climate models were not merely wrong but very wrong. All the accruing, real life evidence to the AGW contrary has a lot of warmists on the run; at least the ones who are astute enough to see which way the empirical wind is blowing. To be frank, I see this draft, should it be adopted, as a welcome reversal of the political interference that forced AGW into the curriculum and propagandised our kids, scaring them stupid with visions of a greenie auto-da-fe. And this was initiated by the very same government that spectacularly failed in its duty to ensure that future generations weren’t burdened with the biggest debt in UK history.

The latest draft guidelines for children in key stages 1 to 3 have no mention of climate change under geography teaching and a single reference to how carbon dioxide produced by humans impacts on the climate in the chemistry section. There is also no reference to sustainable development, only to the “efficacy of recycling”, again as a chemistry subject.

What’s this? An outbreak of common sense regarding sustainable development? Can’t have that…

The move has caused alarm among climate campaigners and scientists who say teaching about climate change in schools has helped mobilise young people to be the most vociferous advocates of action by governments, business and society to tackle the issue.

Yes, all those brainwashed pre-fabricated neo-inquisitors little activists lost to the cause. What a tragedy.

“What you seem to have is a major political interference with the geography syllabus,” said the government’s former science adviser Prof Sir David King. He said climate change should be taught alongside the history of – successful – past attempts to curb chlorofluorocarbon (CFC), which is blamed for the depletion of the ozone layer, and air pollution caused by coal fires and cars.

And King, who took the Labour coin as its chief scientific advisor, wasn’t politically motivated by his paymaster’s agenda at all.

“If all of these aren’t issues for geography classes, then where should they be taught?” asked King. “It would be absurd if the issues around environmental pollution weren’t core to the curriculum.I think we would be abdicating our duty to future generations if we didn’t teach these things in the curriculum.”

Assuming that carbon dioxide is a pollutant – which it isn’t.

The draft contrasts with the existing curriculum: under the heading of geography, there are several mentions of the interdependence of humans and their environment and the impact of that on change, including “environmental change”. The current syllabus explicitly discusses sustainable development and “its impact on environmental interaction and climate change”.

The current syllabus is explicitly biased when it comes to the warmist interpretation of “climate change”. No sensible person would argue against a balanced curriculum. So what does that make you and your pals, Juliette?

“It’s just hollowed out argument,” said John Ashton, the government’s climate change envoy until last summer, and a founder of the independent not-for-profit group E3G. “Climate change should have as much prominence as anything in teaching geography in schools.”

If you listen hard enough you can hear the sound of this rent-seeker’s P45 being printed out. How I love the sound of greenie wailing and gnashing of teeth. It’s so cathartic.

The shift of any mention of climate change from geography to chemistry “makes me more concerned, not less”, said Ashton. “What’s important is not so much the chemistry as the impact on the lives of human beings, and the right place for that is geography.”

Because who cares what atmospheric chemists and physicists have to say. Science has no place in climatology. Yes, I can see that now…

The proposed changes, which are still under consultation by the Department for Education (DfE), were broadly welcomed by other groups, including the Geographical Association which represents more than 6,000 geography teachers, and the Royal Geographical Society.

So the geographers are happy about the proposed changes. That kind of puts a spanner into the greenies gears, surely.

“In the past, in some instances, young people were going to start on climate change without really knowing about climate,” said Rita Gardner, the RGS director, who does, however, want climate change taught at GCSE and A-level. “What we have got [in the new draft] is a much better grounding in geography, and it has the building blocks for a much better understanding of climate change and sustainability.”

That’s all good and dandy. I don’t have a problem with climate change being on the curriculum but let’s make sure it’s based on science and not on faith, okay? And let’s hear both sides of the sustainability ideology. And how it measures up to the fact that if CO2 is such a dangerous pollutant why are we about to burn millions of tons of US trees in a ludicrous attempt to decarbonise ourselves back into the pre-industrial era?

A DfE spokesman said the idea that climate change was being excised from the national curriculum was nonsense: “All children will learn about climate change. It is specifically mentioned in the science curriculum and both climate and weather feature throughout the geography curriculum.”

Three cheers for the science curriculum. So long as it isn’t dumbed down with AGW bias as it currently is.

Supporters of the government’s move pointed out that geography teachers could still teach specific issues such as “how human and physical processes interact to have an impact on and form distinctive landscapes”.

Putting the geography back into geography and (hopefully)removing the pro-AGW activism. What’s not to like?

Other potential lead-ins to climate change include specified teaching about ecosystems, the accumulation of toxic materials in natural life, and the difficulty for some species in adapting to changes in their environment.

Yes, but let’s not limit that accumulation of toxic materials to non-toxic CO2, eh? And please let me witness the struggle of greenies as they twist in the wind (sic) to prevent changes to their cosy little authoritarian environment.

A source at the Liberal Democrat-led Department for Energy and Climate Change said they were relaxed about the changes: “There’s nothing from the DfE that says climate change is off the agenda or will never be taught. Sensible teachers will look at that as the broadest of signposting.”

So how come the LibDem-led DECC refuses to look at the broadest of signpostings that AGW is one huge crock of the proverbial?

However, the UK Youth Climate Coalition (UKYCC) said climate change was too important to be left to the whim of individual teachers.

Christ on a pogo stick! If the Guardian scrape the bottom of the activist barrel much harder they’ll run out of barrel.

“It appears climate change is being systematically removed from the curriculum, which is not acceptable when this is the biggest challenge our generation is going to face, the biggest challenge future generations are going to focus on,” said Camilla Born, an international expert at UKYCC.

Sadly hyperbole isn’t being systematically removed from the greenie rhetoric which is clearly too big a challenge for those suffering from a failure of logic and the ability to read the draft correctly.

Critics also point out that the danger of waiting until GCSE courses to teach about climate change in any depth is that only a minority of pupils study geography at that level.

But strangely those same critics fail to point out that despite brainwashing children to the greenie cause, the majority dump the main subject pushing the AGW BS hypothesis at the first available opportunity. Looks suspiciously like the kids are far smarter than the greenies want to believe.

Sarah Lester, a policy researcher specialising in climate change education at the Grantham Institute of Climate Change at Imperial College, London, said also rejected the argument that pupils first needed to learn the “building blocks” before they were taught about climate change. Such issues were already taught in the three sciences, even religious education and citizenship – and “all come together in geography”, said Lester. “I don’t think that’s what’s being done: I think it [climate change] is just being stripped out of the curriculum.”

Ah, the fragrant aroma of warmist rent-seeker panic. Shame it can’t be bottled.

8 Comments

  1. NickM says:

    Lynne,
    There are at least four sciences. Yes, I am pretty much a mathematical platonist and 2+2=4 whether we like it or not. Anyhow, what about geology and I’m not going to even get into how a historical science like astrophysics is different from an ahistorical science like particle or solid-state physics. Let’s be honest here. Science is learning to use a tool. It is partly learning to work the levers of the Universe and it is partly knowing when Prince Chuckles is opening a Garden Party “tackle out”. Yes, it is partly knowing a cock when you see one (and also a bull). I totally wasted my time. GCSE, A-Level, Undergrad, Postgrad etc.. And yeah, winding-up via a path from general rel to fuild D. And they are arguing whether 14 year olds can grasp this? I am smarter than the average bear (though I don’t wear a pork-pie hat, a shirt that almost covers my bum and a tie but no trousers and don’t even have a mate called Boo-Boo). I’m just Homo, Sapiens Sapiens. (In my school biology class some joker said, “But Miss, isn’t that calling us all just botters”). I gotta get outta this place… so thought me…

    So essentially in much the same way you or me might be charmed by the sexual allure of Uma Thurman or George Clooney we don’t, we can’t fall for the “discussion” of probable virgins on matters of science in exactly the same way some kid without more than a teasing of hair “down there” makes any of us roll-over in the bed and think…

    Yeah, think… Well unless you are Jimmy Saville, obviously.

    But the very idea of “discussing” scientific ideas when you don’t know Ohm’s law is beyond my ken. I’ve had it. I once taught maths to GMAT types in Leeds and there was an obnoious Russian. “Your English mathenatical logic is different and inferior to our Russian logic.” There were a couple of folk on the course (maths for passing the GMAT – the eam for getting into a US MBA who actually wanted to learn but they were shouted down by this cunt who I assume got bank-rolled by the power of bribes and an AK-47 through his entire neducation). Yeah, I tried my best and I ignored him (and the Chinesese giggling at the back) and taught to he Indian lad, the Malaysians and the lass from Singapore who like wanted to learn and told me so out of lessons. And couldn’t stick the Russian.

    Science education is not politics. It is about freedom, not believeing the party line.

  2. john in cheshire says:

    I keep thinking about the parable from Jesus about the Prodigal Son. When the son returns home, the father kills the fatted cow to have a feast for his return, having seen the errors of his ways. The son who stayed behind to do all the work is outraged that this wastrel is to have a feast but he, the faithful and hard-working son is to have none. Well, as I recall, the father says something like ‘you get the farm, while your brother gets a feast for his return’. It is the same for any climate hysterics who see the error of their ways, I suppose. But, bad Christian that I am, I can’t help wanting them to be punished for what they’ve done. Still, repenting and perhaps trying to make amends is the best path to follow.

  3. Stonyground says:

    I thought that this comment from the Bishop Hill blog was interesting:

    ” What is wrong with “teaching” both sides of the argument? I was a Geog teacher until a few years ago and “Global Warming” was part of the syllabus. We also received Al Gore’s film and were told to show it to pupils. I refused unless I was allowed to show “The Great Global Warming Swindle” (have I got the title right?) as a counter argument. The topic used to stimulate great (often heated!!) discussion and debate and there were some fantastic projects produced. Not only that, but it stimulated pupils’ interest in weather and climate (I had to do a lot of swotting up to keep up with some pupils – even those in year 9!) who suddenly became interested in all aspects of climate and weather – when a 14 year old suddenly starts asking about Jet streams and adiabatic lapse rates, and what the winter of 1963 was like you know they have found something interesting (although being asked if I remembered the frost fairs on the Thames didn’t amuse me!!). Some pupils did an incredible amount of research in their own time.
    The topic can lead to so many other different areas – ice ages etc and even continental drift (Sir, if chalk was formed under a semi-tropical climate, and coal was fromed under tropical conditions was the climate of Britain much hotter or was Britain nearer the the equator?).
    Global Warming/Climate change/Climate disruption, call it what you will, is in the news all the time and we have a duty to educate pupils about “it” – after all, it’s going to affect them in some way, in my view through energy policy rather than Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Disruption etc. (but, of course, as a teacher I should remain impartial!!)

    Mar 17, 2013 at 8:48 PM | PhilW ”

    It seems to me that we could once again be a great nation if we taught our future citizens to think and engage in this way. Of course, a thinking population would give our politicians a rough ride, curb their troughing and weed out the stupid and self serving ones. This would be good for the country, rather less good for the self serving elite.

  4. RAB says:

    Oh good! The Green Jesuitisation of our youth has had a crimp put in it.

  5. Schrodinger's Dog says:

    For those of you old enough to remember It Ain’t Half Hot, Mum as Sergeant “Shuddup” Williams used to say: “What a pity. How sad. Never mind.”

  6. John Galt says:

    @Schrodinger’s Dog:

    Unfortunately your memory is failing. it was “Oh Dear. How Sad. Never Mind.”

  7. Andrew Duffin says:

    I am glad that I went to school in the days when they taught you how to think, rather than what to think.

    @Stoneyground: “(but, of course, as a teacher I should remain impartial!!)”

    Why? I would have expected a good teacher to point out the facts. Science is not a ball game requiring a referee. Did you give equal prominence to the Phlogiston theory as well?

  8. Nick says:

    AGW could always be taught as part of the religion syllabus.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: