Thursday
Mar242011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill School brainwashing works
Mar 24, 2011 BBC Climate: other Education The BBC has just published the results of an opinion poll of schoolchildren. Asked to rank the biggest risks facing the world today, children seemed impressed by arguments for catastrophic global warming, placing it second behind terrorism, with 49% suitably scared.
I guess the relentless propaganda pumped out by schools and the BBC has had some effect.
Reader Comments (75)
When asked to choose the 3 biggest threats to the world from a list of 9
I wonder what was on that list. I also wonder how many kids would have identified climate change as a threat if it were an open question.
In my son's school, the kids had a poster set up, where they listed what scared them.
It was the usual stuff, spiders, sharks etc. Not one mention of climate change (or terrorism for that matter).As Shub points out, this isn't what kids think about. Adults are trying to shoehorn in their views
I can 100% guarantee that if they ran that same poster set now, the number one item would be "earthquake". Mother nature has been a hard mistress in NZ this year. It's real and it is now, not some hypothetical threat.
Hengist
Then you have not understood my comment at all.
John Shade has that post he was referring to up on his blog now, and very good it is:
http://climatelessons.blogspot.com/2011/03/under-cloak-of-climate-change.html
And there's a follow up story in the local paper:
http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/lingwood_children_visit_strumpshaw_fen_1_839612
It would appear that "Global Warming" IS still alive and well - I thought it was Climate Disruption or something similiar now?
BBD:
"The Environment Agency really didn't cover itself in glory on this one."
Does your statement imply that you actually have an example of when they did cover themselves in glory? :-)
A little of topic, but...I thought a child's greatest fear was losing his or her parents, or of being abandoned, which is a common theme of those lovely Disney movies like Bambi (mother shot by a hunter at the start of the movie) and The Lion King (father killed by the evil uncle at the start of the movie).
My daughter brought home her grade 7 science text recently (Nelson Publishing - Ontario, Canada). I think the title was "Energy and the Environment." The cover features a photo of a forest fire blazing out of control. The first sentence mentions David Suzuki (a well-known "warmist" in Canada). Other tidbits; "scientists" believe we will run out of oil within a few decades, and "scientist" believe human activity (burning fossil fuels) is causing dangerous global warming.
Andyscrase asked:
“ ’When asked to choose the 3 biggest threats to the world from a list of 9’ I wonder what was on that list?”
Top of the list (and therefore most prominent) was Climate Change. 7th on the list was Extreme weather, which scored 17% mentions. How can you tell the difference? What possible justification can there be for putting both on the same (extremely restrictive) list of possible threats?
"anti-GM sentiment fostered by a fuzzy 'environmentalist' 'mindset'"
Typo..? :)
Its actually that many of us love science and have spent more than 2 minutes reading about the "wonders" of GM.
If GM was so bleading great..then show us the 100`s of published peer reviewed papers pointing out no problems with animal trials..cricket sounds..
if it was so great..then the NET incomes of farmers using these crops would be amazing..they aint..if it was so great..we would not have debacles as we are seeing in Western Australia where a farmer has to take gm farmers round him to court for contamination his high yielding/high value "organic certified" cereal crops..Monsanto is supporting the gm farmers....
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/13/3112367.htm
He is technically liable for prosecution for having copyrighted crops growing on his property without paying Monsanto royalties..
And look at the debacle when Pusztai did his work on gm..and he supposted it initially.
http://www.freenetpages.co.uk/hp/a.pusztai/
Yes..the wonders of GM.. LOL
Hengist
You stop 'misrepresenting' what Donna what was trying to say, by her article, and I'll stop 'misrepresenting' what you wrote.
The question is very simple: Is it unreasonable to expect the IPCC to employ the best available expertise to formulate its reports, especially when it proclaims so, itself?
Is it unreasonable to expect the purported expert status of the IPCC contributors to be independent, and to independently originate, of the contributors' IPCC author status?
In other words, is is OK by to call someone an 'expert' and get them to be in the IPCC authors lists, and then point out their IPCC authorship as proof of their expertise?
Thanks for the plug, Dave, and the kind words. I was coming here to sneak in a link myself, but now I don't need to! BBD, I'd appreciate a copy of that picture you mentioned: jsclimatelessons at gmail. Lots of food for thought and intersting links in the comments here -as per usual for BH.
Tom
I can't find the book you mention on Amazon anywhere, which is deeply disappointing! Perhaps I should be looking under Fiction..?
James P, Tom - managed to find the book info on Amazon; it's there if you search for "Engaging with Climate Change: Psychoanalytic Perspectives" by Sally Weintrobe, in hardback it's a bargain at £60.
Avid climate psychology fans will have to wait a while though, publication date is end of July 2012...
Search for "Beyond the Couch" on YouTube, however, and you will be rewarded with a number of videos from the Oct 2010 event, with Bob Ward et al. I haven't watched a lot of this material so far, but promises to be fascinating.
@PFD
Nurse... Nurse..... NURSE!! where's my medication?
couldn't resist that
In the mean time, acquaint yourself with your defective thought processes :
The Green Living Blog
The up herself Ms Weintraube-trobe does not like being criticised....
She's litigous! - shock!
And on the 'elf front get a load of these folk
"The Wave" eh? - I demand a drugs test, On this evidence = they've been raiding the pharmacy.....
@James P
The book isn't published yet from what I can see... it's been given an ISBN 0415667607 and
Google finds quite a bit about it....
Amazon Link
Not quite on the specific subject, but I had to write to The Sunday Times tv guide people when I came across this:
'Culture' section - Critics Choice for programmes today (Thursday 24th March).
The Wind of change - Wind Farm Wars (BBC2, 7pm).
'The spectre of climate change looms ever nearer, the need for renewable energy is growing in urgency, and yet there is still anti-wind-turbine feeling about.'
Er - too right there is - because a) climate change (as implied) is not looming; b) the need for renewable energy (as implied) is pie-in-the-sky, and c) wind turbines are useless eyesores which profit only the developers...
Balance - what's that..??
Actually - the programme didn't go out - don't know why because I missed the start - 'Coast' was on, which is FAR more entertaining...!
Shub, next thing we know, Hengist will be criticizing the IAC review committee whose recommendations specifically included:
They would hardly need to make such a recommendation if there were any truth to Pachauri's 2007 claims:
Contra Pachauri, the IAC review committee had also observed (pp. 14-15) :
Mind you, I suppose one shouldn't overlook the possibility that "expert" and "transparent" are words that have, well, a different connotation in IPCC-speak - i.e. not unlike "trick" for example (or even "peer review"), they have been, uh ... redefined ;-)
Like others, I find the list of threats in the survey somewhat bizarre:
Question 24: “What do you think poses the biggest threats to the world right now? Choose up to 3 of the following answers:” Responses: Climate change / Nuclear weapons / Infectious diseases such as Swine flu, AIDS etc / Gap between rich and poor / Terrorism / Cyber Crime / Extreme weather / I don't know / other / I'd rather not say.
It's interesting to note that apart from terrorism, which came top, the issues were ranked by the children in almost exactly the same order as they were listed in the question (graph on p29 of the link).
Slightly O/T, but we have a conference kicking off in Wellington NZ next week. Speakers include Fred Pearce.
Climate Futures - pathways for society
One of the four main agenda points is "communication between science and society".
Shame I can't make it as I have work commitments.
DR - so, if 'climate change' had been put down just before 'I don't know' - the likelihood is that the kids would have left it in that position.
Which leads us to think, does it not, that the little darlings ARE being brainwashed...
@BBD "Then you have not understood my comment at all."
Let me guess. Would you be implying the economy cannot be decarbonized ergo the scientists must be wrong ?
Further to my comment on the Wellington conference, I see that it is a little more relevance to this post:
Speakers include:
Dr Bronwyn Hayward is a senior lecturer in political science at the University of Canterbury specializing in children's issues, democracy and citizenship in environmental change. She is also a Researcher with the Sustainable Lifestyles Research Group, a UK research consortium funded by the UK Government (ESRC), Scottish Government and UK Department of Food and Environment. Between 2008 and February 2011 Bronwyn was a Visiting Fellow with RESOLVE: centre for Research on values, lifestyles and environmental change, University of Surrey, UK and the Tyndall Centre for Climate Research (University of East Anglia). Bronwyn is an advisor to the Children and Climate Change project (University of Oslo)
(my emphasis)
http://www.confer.co.nz/climate_futures/speakers.htm
David - indeed. Question order makes a big difference, if someone has no clear preference, so I'd tend to blame the survey design in this case (though I don't dispute your point about brainwashing in general).
And this seems a very poorly designed question, with a number of obvious choices missing. What about overpopulation, water shortages, rainforest destruction, GM foods - the sort of 'headline' threats that might have been expected to feature?
I'm stepping back from the details and wondering why this survey was even carried out at all ?
Childhood should be a time for optimism, enthusiasm, and wonder. A time for growth and looking upwards and forwards. A time of excitement and energy.
How about a survey on "my favourite things" or "what I want to when I'm older".
Hengist
No.
If they are going to "educate" kids about climate change, then making it fun might be a good start.
Try this one:
Tapping into the power of a well told tale, the Climate Advocates devised a teaching pack accompanying the classic Dr. Seuss story, The Lorax, to educate children aged between seven and nine of the issues around sustainability, consumption of goods and the future of the planet.
link
The teacher can engage children in activities which help them recognise the difference between things they need and luxuries and understand advertising as a means of encouraging or discouraging people to buy things. The children can also play games reusing rubbish and old socks.
Hmm, Playstation 3 or rubbish and a pair of old socks? Difficult choice for a kid eh?
According to the Chinese philosopher Meng Zi, education must awaken the innate abilities of the human mind.
He denounced memorization and advocated active interrogation of the text, saying, "One who believes all of a book would be better off without books." One should check for internal consistency by comparing sections and debate the probability of factual accounts by comparing them with experience.
If the 'developed West' had followed his advice, the AGW scare would long ago have blown away like a dried-up chicken turd.
Was the survey "anonymous", a secret ballot arrangement? Or were the kids performing in public?
BBD;
The most convinced skeptics are almost universally the ones who had their bubbles popped by some glaring discrepancy that inspired independent investigation, usually centering on the reliability and honesty of sources. Rage and disgust at having been conned is the usual outcome.
The term "useful idiots" is pertinent here. These are idealistic "insiders" who present a sincere and persuasive front during the run-up to "Revolution". They are slated for quick execution after the Revolution because they are too well positioned to become disillusioned and do real damage to the process of consolidating power.