Friday
Feb182011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Who ya gonna call?
Feb 18, 2011 Blogs Climate: Sceptics Education Leo Hickman is asking for examples of eco-indoctrination in schools. I know a man who may be able to help him...
Reader Comments (45)
Possibly Hickman does not view what is happening in schools as eco-indoctrination. He may believe that presenting frightening 'scenarios' based on 'projections' embodying assumptions is okay. He may regard 'Inconvenient Truth' and 'Stupid' as useful and balanced teaching aids.
Who knows? He does not say. We have to ponder this ourselves.
Well I had to endure a hideous school play this December where the kinder dressed-up as penguins & carped-on about hero trees & the demon CO2 monster. No polar bears thankfully.
Orkneylad
Commiserations on your ordeal. I hope you thought of Nietzsche.
But on the bright side, at least the playwright didn't think polar bears and penguins share a habitat.
A young lady of my acquaintance posted this in response to Leo's last post :-
He didn't deign to reply though.
@BBD
Of course there were no polar bears!
They were all drownded when the Arctic ice cap finally disappeared for ever last Christmas. Did you not see that excellent true documentary 'An Inconvenient Truth?'. It was all explained by that nice Mr Gore.
Latimer Alder
;-)
On a serious note, it always makes me wonder how the bears got through the Eemian hot spot 125kya. >4m sea level high stand relative to today and probably no N Polar ice.
Something similar happened during the Holocene Thermal Maximum between 9 - 5kya.
But the bears are with us still.
Foxgoose
I'm speculating, but perhaps the lack of response might have been because of the reference to the Hitler Youth.
I am a product of eco-indoctrination (just mild indoctrination).
I think I'll present myself as an example to Hickman.
This is the official site / resource for Scottish Secondary schools:
http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/exploringclimatechange/index.asp
The first paragraph reads:
Our climate is changing. The planet is warming faster than at any time in the last 10,000 years. Global average temperatures have risen by 0.8ºC since the late 19th century, and 0.2ºC per decade over the past 25 years. Man-made greenhouse gas emissions have caused, and continue to cause, most of the observed temperature rise since the mid 20th century. Millions of tonnes of greenhouse gases are produced every day by human activity. These constant emissions into the Earth’s atmosphere continue to drive global warming.
Whether we can contain global warming to a 2ºC target will be dictated by our actions today.
This website will help you find out more about the Earth's climate and how it is changing, and what you can do to take action.
I haven't looked at it the rest recently, but when I last did I got the impression it had been written by a fully paid up Greenpeace member (overt cherry picking e.g. Arctic sea ice graph but no mention of Antarctic). I intend to formally challenge it at some point, but my eldest is only in P2 so apart from being told that polar bears are an endangered species, they haven't said much else yet. That may be because, to my utter disbelief, certain teachers has been too busy trying to indoctrinate the kids with Christianity (also illegal under the 1980 Education (Scotland) Act, to bother with climate bollocks. So I have already told my eldest not to believe everything they say at school or for that matter to believe everything he sees on TV or on DVDs.
Leo could start with himself. Silly little wonker.
http://www.puffin.co.uk/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9780141323343,00.html
From what makes Earth so special, to how scientists know for sure our climate is changing, why it's a big deal for everyone and what we can all do right now to make a difference, green expert Leo Hickman is ready to answer all your questions.
Will Jellyfish Rule the World? breaks down the causes and effects of climate change in a fresh, fun and easy-to-follow format. Packed with practical everyday things we can all do right now to make a difference, Will Jellyfish Rule the World? is a comprehensive, easy-to-use eco-handbook for budding classroom environmentalists everywhere.
In support of Mr Dimmocks 2007 claim in the High Court No. CO/3615/2007 against the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Lord Monckton included, in addition to his testimony on An Inconvenient Truth, the following comments on four short films from DEFRA.
The Four Short Films From Defra
108. I have also viewed the four short films from Defra and would comment on them briefly:
a. “Tomorrow’s Climate Today”. This is a 2 minute trailer type film that conveys the clear message that contemporary weather patterns are attributable to anthropogenic global warming and that, if left unchecked, the results will be catastrophic. The music has an ominous tone and reinforces the apocalyptic message of the film. Pictures of alternative sources of electricity (wind turbines and hydro-electric plants) are shown as the commentator states that solutions exist. Viewers are invited to visit a website for more information and “to get involved”: www.climatechallenge.gov.uk The website encourages its readers to “get involved” and spread the word”. It announces a fund with £6m to assist with the communication of this message. Given Dr Stott’s concessions and the inevitable political agenda lying behind the message, I have no doubt that this short film is inappropriate to be shown in schools.
b. “My CO2”. This is a 2 minute film which seeks to encourage its viewers to reduce their power consumption on the grounds that energy use has a resultant change on the climate. Although the premise of the film may be controversial, its overall message is not controversial: namely that a reduction in energy consumption is something to be encouraged. I would therefore not regard this film as promoting a “partisan” political viewpoint.
c. “Champions’ Diaries”. This is an 8 minute film containing a series of video diaries from [6] school children who have been involved in communicating “the message” at various events, apparently organized and promoted by the government. The message is of anthropogenic global warming and the urgent need to take action. The film reinforces the false premise that contemporary weather patterns are uncontroversially attributable to carbon emissions. Specific reference is made to the Film which is said to be “good”. This film therefore is as objectionable as the Film.
d. “Carbon Cycle”. This is a 3 minute film which describes in simple terms how the carbon element moves through the environment in its various compounds. For the most part, the film portrays uncontroversial scientific facts in a simplified form that is entirely suitable for showing in school. The film carries a moderate message with regard to anthropogenic global warming (stating only that carbon emissions contribute) and encouraging viewers to reduce energy consumption so that “we can do our bit”. I regard this film as an example of an acceptable way in which the issue could be brought to the attention of school children. Importantly it does not exaggerate the issue, does not imply that human activity is the sole cause of climate change and contains no apocalyptic threat. Neither does it attribute contemporary weather patterns to anthropogenic global warming.
Hickman also says (in comments):
Take a look at what we have in our school ... Indoctrination is the right word.
http://www.bcscience.com/bc10/pgs/links_u1.html
orkneylad
Well they were less confused than some children who write stories for my site for children:
http://www.sillybooks.net/books/kon_and_nok/kon_and_nok.html
They're winning in some respects though - Tesco showing the "carbon" impact of their products ? Unbelievable :(
CAGW - breaking it down for our children.
W - Warming. (Mann-Made Warming - The Broken Hockey Stick)
The current period of warming is not precedented. North America and the High Artic were warmer in the 1930s and 40s. The Medieval Warm Period was probably warmer than today and there has been other, longer and warmer periods during the current inter-glacial. The current rate of warming is no different from the previous rate of warming that occured in the 1930s and 40s.The current warming is well within the limits of natural variation.
G - Global (Steig Statistics - Inventing Data)
The current period of warming is not global. While the rest of world has warmed Antarctica has cooled. The penquins are safe.
A - Anthropogenic (CO2 - The Lab Experiment Gone Wrong)
The current period of warming can in part be attributed to the actions of humanity. Land change use; urbanisation, farming and forest clearance have clear and lasting impacts of local and regional climates. Particle emissions are known to impact on local and regional climate. However the evidence to show that the increase in atmospheric CO2 emissions has had an impact on global temperatures remains elusive. There is no HOT-SPOT - atmospheric CO2 does not drive temperature. Indeed Antarctic ice cores prove conlusively that increasing levels of CO2 lag increases in global temperature by 800 years.
C - Catastrophic (The politics of AGW)
The current period of warming will not be catastrophic. Historically periods of warming during the current inter-glacial has resulted in a growth of population, the flourishing of culture and a surge in economic activity. There is no catastrophic heat in the pipeline, the oceans are not storing the Missing-Heat. Geological records show that in the past much larger levels of CO2 have coincided with lengthy periods of both warm and cold climates. Attempts to attribute extremes of weather to CO2 emissions is not backed up by the real world data. All the catastropohic heat from increasing CO2 are ideological assumptions plugged into computers models.
Well, my quiet little corner of the interweb has just received a lot of visitors! The timeplot of pageviews now has an upspike that if it had been temperature data in unscrupulous hands, it would even now be being illuminated by climate modelling monks and prepared for triumphant release to the media. Thanks Bish!
'Climate Lessons' the blog is less than a year old, which age I presume is one of high infant-mortality on the interweb. One ambition not yet realised is to get more information published on it from within schools, and from teachers and parents. So I wish Leo Hickman every success in learning more about what is going on in them. To repeat his final paragraph here:
'But it might be interesting if readers could also supply their own experiences. Which specific films are being shown in your local schools? More generally, how is the subject of climate change being raised in your schools? Teachers, governors, parents, pupils – all views and experiences are welcome.'
I would also find such inputs very interesting, and would endeavour to make use of them on the blog, anonymised if and as requested. I found this video of three, what shall I call them?, anti-CO2 enthusiasts, sketching out and enacting climate lessons in a geography class very troubling, since their clear intent was to produce 'little climate activists': http://climatelessons.blogspot.com/2011/02/classroom-climate-conditioning-at-work.html.
There is no doubt at all that, as Johnny Ball claims, there are materials around (e.g. see http://climatelessons.blogspot.com/p/climate-sites-aimed-at.html) which are aimed at frightening children into conformance and often into political action, and that this is having some 'success' (e.g. see http://climatelessons.blogspot.com/p/climate-anxiety-reports-of-frightened.html). As to his reference to a film which asserts in his words 'the Earth may not be able to sustain human life as we know it' by 2050, I do not know of it. But it does not strike me as implausible that messages to that effect might be used. I have not had the time to view in detail all the sites and videos and 'kits' which I have come across - any help in that area would also be appreciated!
I am 8 days away from a well deserved time off at home in Cyprus and my daughter has received my copy of HSI.
I am going to be really p*ssed off if anyone gives away the plot, says who are the bad guys or tells me how it ends!
You have all been warned < sarc ;-)
Is anybody doing the same research in Australia.
How are our children being brainwashed?
AusieDan, a couple of links here about climate education in Australia: http://climatelessons.blogspot.com/p/climate-in-curricula.html
Don't Forget Climate Week:
http://www.climateweek.com/supporters/find-your-sector/education/
Education
Education organisations backing Climate Week:
Association of Teachers & Lecturers
Camp Kernow
Central Saint Martins College of Art and Design
City and Guilds
Climate Change Schools Project
Environmental Association for Universities and Colleges
Geographical Association
Institute of Energy and Sustainable Development, De
Montfort University
National Association of Headteachers
National Oceanography Centre, Southampton
National Primary Headteachers Association
New Engineering Foundation
North West Universities Association
Open University
OASES – Outdoor and Sustainability Education Service
Patteran Projects CIC
PSHE Association
Religious Education Council of England and Wales
Scotland’s Colleges
Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, University of Oxford
Specialist Schools and Academies Trust
Steiner Waldorf Schools Fellowship
StudentForce for Sustainability
Student Hubs
Sustainable Consumption Institute SCI
Sustainability and Environmental Education (SEEd)
The Royal Forestry Society
University of Cambridge Programme for Sustainability Leadership
University of the Arts London
University of Sunderland
Western Education and Library Board
A couple of links..
http://www.religiouseducationcouncil.org/
https://www.sciencelearningcentres.org.uk/centres/north-east/climate-change-schools-project
If you are not one of them they do not want to know:
http://www.climateweek.com/about-us/faqs/
What is different about Climate Week?
Climate Week aims to engage those who believe that climate change is happening and want to do something about it. It is not focused on convincing those who don’t believe climate change is happening or do not want to act.
This post on Harmless Sky last year is informative. It was triggered by a loaded question taken from a textbook used in UK schools: http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=340
The first of 415 comments is this one:
'JunkkMale, the question bears absolutely no resemblance to the sort of questions I faced when doing my GCE O-Levels in Physics and Chemistry back in the late 1970s, which were to do with actual science. In fact, it fills me with utter dismay, reading this. If it is representative of the general quality of education now at GCSE level, then our schools are clearly no longer fit for purpose.'
Later comments include some discussion of climate education in Australia, and the role of CSIRO in particular.
Barry Woods
Heh. We all know what happens to them, don't we?
You guessed correctly! That scores you 10/10 on this test children!
This is not an example from schools, but from the University of Oxford, Linacre Lecture Series 2011 entitled "Riding the Perfect Storm"
It includes an essay competition - sponsored by npower - (prizes £500, £250)
Second rate science teachers up and down the land must be on their knees thanking the Green fairies every morning for CAGW.
Instead of the hard slog of real science which they barely understand themselves they can teach this nonsense AND feel ethically superior to the rest of the ignorant evil carbon-emitting world to boot.
DR, I like the use of scare quotes around "2030". Is that meant to be some sort of mythical year? Or a time we'll never reach? Or just an admission that they have no idea what they're talking about?
I note that as usual disaster is 20 years ahead - long the favorite timescale for doom mongering. Perhaps that's what "2030" means? 20 years from "now" whenever now happens to be.
DR
Given the supposed calibre of said undergraduates, let's hope at least one submission points out that renewables decrease security of supply and will weaken the UK's ability to withstand this hypothesised 'perfect storm'. But I wouldn't bet on it.
While we're on the vexed '39 year' quote from Johnny Ball, let's not forget that Kevin Anderson (ration energy now!) has been going around claiming the rise will be something like 4 - 6C by 2060...
Ball has a point. He is claiming that the alarmists are claiming planetary catastrophe by about 2050. They are. And they should stop bloody well pretending that they aren't when someone calls them out over it.
I stumbled across the following site last night:
http://www.greencarreports.com/blog/1055509_rearchers-100-percent-green-energy-possible-by-2050
I downloaded the linked PDF paper, and after the standard warmist alarm in the abstract it goes on to suggest that it's possible to do away with ALL fossil fuels by 2050...
Amongst other things a mere 3.8 million 5mw wind turbines are needed - that should keep China busy mining and destroying the environment to make the rare earth materials needed. Many references to large grids and "smart" metering were included.
Unfortunately I couldn't read much further without risking a severe headache. This may be of interest to others.
dave ward
Jacobson is an energy fantasist. You can safely ignore this paper.
dave
Apologies - posting in haste: I should have said why you can safely ignore this paper.
It fails properly to take into account the projected rise in global demand for energy. It fails to adequately address, in terms an engineer would accept the nightmarish problems of a hydrogen distribution network. It proposes a wide-scale integration of disparate renewable generation (wind, solar, hydro, pumped hydro) magically integrated by interconnectors and fails to point out that it isn't scalable to rising global energy use.
1.5 billion people are currently without access to electricity. From this (and other) papers, I get the impression that if the fantasists have their way, the grandchildren of the 1.5 billion benighted will also grow up in the dark.
Orkneylad
"No polar bears thankfully."
Careful, you'll make a polar bear cry..!
(Refrain from song in this programme: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00y92mn)
WRT Hickman, I politely enquired if he thought his career might be affected if he ever found himself won over by the sceptical view, and was quickly moderated into oblivion! I guess it rather reinforces the point.
Thanks BBD. I have now managed to scan through the bulk of both papers, and I was concerned by the number of uncertainties and assumptions variously referred to. It's almost laughable to expect 25% of the magical new battery car fleet to be plugged in and available to back up the network when the wind stops blowing....
And what's even more relevant now is the recent civil unrest in North Africa. There was talk of a massive solar plant in the Sahara linked to Europe with a superconducting EHV cable. I think the chances of that happening now are somewhat less than zero.
The whole idea is based on world wide political agreement - quoting the rapid developments in post war USA are meaningless as they were all within one political domain.
dave ward
Agreed wrt the daft saharan solar array and the almost childish naivety about pan-African politics. Is any future federation of African nations just going to let us white folks use the Sahara for our own needs? I think not.
And that's the optimistic future when there is a federation of African nations instead of the more likely outcome - instability.
Our very own David MacKay (chief scientific advisor to the UK government and author of an optimistic take on renewables which you can see online at http://www.withouthotair.com/) makes the same proposal.
I imagine a winter with:
1. Anticyclonic weather (no wind over UK for days at a time)
2. A fault in the French Interconnector (so the UK cannot import electricity from French nuclear plant).
In just one night, >25% of the electric fleet will be immobilised with flat batteries, and there will be a massive shortfall in supply. In bitterly cold weather. Things would go downhill very fast.
This is not exactly what I imagine when people talk of 'energy security'.
dave ward
Apologies. There's clearly something missing from the above comment ;-)
You said:
And I should have made that clear before rattling on:
I've now become nervous about even posting on this blog. I've tried really hard to stay on-topic, courteous, scientific (ie with stuff I know I can back up with balanced evidence), and relevant but still seem to miss something here. Yet I care profoundly and I'd like to get the interaction right. Or perhaps I've worried too much. Anyway.
I wrote my whole Primer precisely to contribute what I could to helping the current inquisitional science shed its corruption and indoctrination... by telling my own story of U-turn (so I understand all points of view pretty well) and explaining the science, as I'd come to understand it, in all the basic areas of Climate Science. In about the only attempt I did to publicise it outside sceptics' circles, I got several very encouraging responses from readers of Times Higher Education Supplement. IOW, a milieu of teachers, educators, lecturers, university students AFAIK. Generally responses have been good, and have trickled in over time. Recently I did a major update (I had hardly touched it since before Climategate) and I'd be over the moon if it could go out to precisely the teachers and educators implicated here in this thread. But first I would really appreciate comments from people here, so that if a little tweaking will make a difference, I can do that. Also, what is possible in the way of getting this publicised if people here like it. I promise you that you will find very little controversial there. I am a loyal team member - I hope - for our team, that is! But if, even so, you find too much controversial material, I am happy to reconsider and rewrite.
Click my name to read my Primer.
@lucy
Hi
I just found your post and the link to your website. At first glance it looks very good. I don't have time to study it all right now, but a couple of presentational points spring to mind.
1. Put a cover page with just the summary of the argument - one page only.
In corporate sales we used an idea called 'the elevator pitch'. The idea was that you got stuck in the lift with the Chief Exec of the customer who politley asked 'how are you doing', and you have 30-45 seconds only to summarise your pitch. Three or four points only, positively expressed. Idea is that she gets out of the elevator more inclined to buy your stuff and understanding the big picture.
Its hard to do, but realy crystallises your argument. Great way of writing your summary para on a CV as well.
2. Split up the text more. At the moment it looks very 'dense'. An uncommitted reader with limited time (presumably your target audience), would possibly take fright. I really like the graphs and the boxes and so on, but the text looks to be hard going. More paras, and shorter sentences.
A great initiative. I think the 'personal journey' will work well so long as you can carry it off consistently. Real people like 'stories', which is why HSI is so good and such a contrast to the dull and dry stuff that we mostly obsess about re climatology. And why scientific papers are such a crap way to communicate anything.
Didn't religious indoctrination work in the same way? As an example, telling children that they would spend forever in limbo or the fires of hell if they didn't behave in a specified way?
Guardain ARE allwing comments on the Leo piece..
I have 2 comments in pg6/7 as BBCbias
I'm even allowed to mention, that the Guardian's Duncan Clark is 10:10 Strategy Director..
Ie my childrens Infants and Junior Schools WERE part of the 10:10 campaign..
They even posted my letter to my schools headteacher.
Maybe things are dawning on some who suffered the groupthink...
Oh Dear...
still censoring at The Guardian... someone tell Leo Hickman
My second comment has now been removed.... good thing I saved it and a screen capture...
What is wrong may I ask..
Someone pass it on to Leo...he asked for evidence, the moderators remove it.
I was responding to STEB1, his comments remain....
my comment ----------------------------------------------------
Steb1 said
The video you referred to was withdrawn within 24 hours because it was crass and stupid. If you look at the Guardian article here you will see the 17th comment was mine. Anyone with any sense condemmed the stupidity of this video.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/green-living-blog/2010/oct/04/10-10-activism
------
I'll put this on my own blog as well.
I agree with Steb1 it was crass and stupid..
Did he notice someone callled John Halliday, identifying himself as a Friends of the Earth board member was also VERY crosss about 10:10 in the same coments..
Howver the Guardian seemed keen, the 10:10 Strategy director (Duncan Clark ) writes for the Guardian as well
Baroness Worthington (elevated by Ed Milliband) 10:10 board member, was instrumental in writing the 2008 UK Climate Change Act, according to Damian Carrington in the Guardian
Andrew Simms, Nef, is a10:10 board member, vey influential in getting the climate change act off the ground in the first place.
Andrew Simms - Nef Bio: 10:10 Campaign Board Member, New Economic Foundation (NEF), Greenpeace UK board member, co-author of The Green Deal Report, founder of the 100 Month initiative, Trustee of TERI Europe(alongside Rajendra Pachauri, Sir John Houghton and Sir Crispin Tickell)
Isn't it just a sign of the green groupthink that these very influential people in the political debate did NOT see it was crass and stupid, and a sign of how out of touch they are?
I don't for a second accept they did not know about it, the other 10:10 board member and founder, Franny Armstrong, had been twittering about the filing, blowing upactors, and footballers up for weeks...
---end comment
Well it all apears factual to me, Bryoony info is from the Guardain.
Andrew Simms info, is from his bio at his NEF website..
Franny Armstrong, check her twitter, was twittering about it..
Shame.
It was nearly an interesting reasonable debate with Steb1
"someone tell Leo Hickman"
Is there a reliable way of contacting him? I've had two mild comments removed, the first with a label saying so, and the second completely vaporised! Clearly, the hypothetical suggestion that Leo might change his mind and write about it was too heretical for the mods...
Lucy Skywalker, yours is an impressive achievement, and one which we could all learn from. In particular, the transition from 'true-believer accepting alarmist gospel' to 'informed-participant ready and able to critically review the evidence' is one which we must all hope many hundreds of thousands of politically-active or otherwise influential people will make in the near future if ever the awful waste of resources, and of the human spirit, due to blind faith in CAGW is to be substantially diminished.
I agree with Latimer's suggestions (and must try to follow them myself in my own more modest efforts!). Here's another idea. I think you have the makings of dozens of short '10-minute trainers' - that is relatively brief (say 5 to 50 minutes of reading or conversation) pieces, each aiming to convey one or two key points - and strongly resisting any temptation to add bells, whistles, and other extensions. I first came across these in stories about Japanese manufacturing companies creating and using them as opportunities arose, e.g. a shut-down of the production line for short while, in order to share improvement ideas, lessons-learned, and so on. You had to be ready to use them at the drop of a hat, and I found they could be very effective as templates for scheduled training sessions as well, and for consultancy work where the same problem or situation came up time and again.
I teach GCSE Core Science (AQA) to Year 10 pupils. In the text book we use, there is a double page spread about Agenda 21and a whole chapter on sustainability. As part of the biology part of the course there is a section in the specification entitled 'How do humans affect the environment?' with references to global warming and overpopulation. We also have 30 copies of 'An inconvenient truth' just in the science department. We also have a beautifully bound book by a muslim creationist in which fossils are used as evidence against evolution.
I've become well known in my school for having a sceptical viewpoint and other members of staff have in the past called me a 'denier' and 'worse than George Bush' and accused me of being inappropriate for sharing sceptical arguments with the pupils.
Eco-indoctrination of school pupils in this country is a real problem.
/steps down from soap box.
"It was nearly an interesting reasonable debate with Steb1
Feb 20, 2011 at 3:09 PM Barry Woods"
It would have been a first.
The guy suffers from the literary equivalent of verbal dysentery.
I asked himA young lady of my acquaintance asked him if he could be a bit more concise - but he got somewhat abusive.Thank you very much Latimer Alder and John Shade. I shall work on your suggestions... (time out again heh).
Further developments...
Link