Climate Control in the Mail

I'm a bit busy with Easter hols at the moment, but this is a thread to record the Mail's coverage of the Climate Control report, which can be seen here.

I'm aware of one very feeble critique of the report here and there have been tweets from Doug McNeall, who seems to think some things that I objected to are "hilariously neutral" (although I haven't quite worked out what yet) and Alice Bell who found it "badly researched".

Comments

[ssat]

From the link;

Tom Revell: "In a new report, the climate denying thinktank the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)....."

Responding to the study, Adam Dyster, parliamentary liaison officer at the UK Youth Climate Coalition (UKYCC), said, "The only time when brainwashing is an appropriate term is when the likes of the GWPF deny the scientific facts of climate change.”

Looks like Tom and Adam have been subject to some brainwashing about GWPF and Adam, clearly being susceptible to such, is nicely positioned to pass that on via the UKYCC. Bit of an own goal there Tom.

[jamspid]

"the likes of the GWPF deny the scientific facts of climate change.”

You only have accurate Satellite Data from 1979.That shows a slight warming followed by a 17 going on 18 year pause yeah right.

[Jake Haye]

Lord Lawson’s thinktank criticised over claims schools are ‘brainwashing’ kids with environmentalism

Revell seems to have taken a leaf out of the BBC's playbook on how to express bias with an air of neutrality.

[mike fowle]

"Parliamentary liaison officer at the UK Youth Climate Coalition"....case closed, I think.

[John Shade]

I have just come across some more criticism of the report: http://blogs.bath.ac.uk/edswahs/2014/04/09/moral-panic-in-e14/.. The author, Bill Scott, is an academic involved in the ESD (education for sustainable development) enterprise, and he does quote generously from our executive summary, thereby allowing his readers to get a fair idea right way of some of our key points. He goes on to make 4 specific observations, the first of which is a criticism of a bit of a straw man, and the other three actually add some support to our general concerns and our call for a proper evaluation of what is actually going on:

1. The notion that schools are hot beds of climate change activism and proselytising, as is implied, is such rubbish. Did these people visit any schools, I wonder? Well, if they did, they are keeping very quiet about it.
2. Does some such climate-related activism exist? Of course it does, often through clubs as much as in the formal curriculum, though the notion that it's always proselytising, is risible. And do some NGOs encourage and enable all this? Of course, although they are always complaining how little effect their efforts have. Given the sincerely held concerns of teachers and youngsters, it would be very surprising if a major social issue of the day were not considered.
3. Of course the world is full of (educational) materials and resources that some consider tendentious or biased – this report, many might well think, is an excellent case in point. But teachers are skilled at using such materials to present open-minded lessons where students are asked to make their own judgements.
4. Have some schools mis-used the morally-ambiguous idea of pester power? Yes, undoubtedly some have, and it is clearly no business of schools to use pupils to change parents habits and behaviours. Does a lot of this go on? Well, if it does, where's the evidence? Not in this report, certainly. NB, A 7-year old child of my acquaintance recently wrote to her local council (via her school) asking for better play equipment in the Borough (for 7/8/9 year-olds, of course). Is that pester power? Or is it good experience of what active citizens should do – as well as being good practice in writing letters?

He goes on to make his support quite explicit:

All this said, there is a case for knowing more about what goes on in schools about how these important issues are approached, and it's a pity that this report didn't add to our understanding of actual practice. So, should we welcome the call to Mr Gove to have a systematic evaluation of what schools do in relation to climate change and sustainability more generally? I'd say an emphatic "Yes please" ...

He, though, thinks such an evaluation might help him to argue for more on these two topics. Hopefully, we shall find out before long.

[Ptw]

Jamspid
Quite

The surface temperature is about the only documented time series by which to evaluate climate over 170y and there are many probmes with it: big gaps due to cold war, urban heat islands not taken into account, spatially averaging which conflicts with the energy physics etc

All other recorded climate events are incomplete and result in abuse by the warmish catastrophist.

The fact they rely on alynski methods proves they have no case

[diogenese2]

"Tom Revell" appears to be a prolific activist journalist named Charlotte Malone working for "Blue and Green Tomorrow"
a pale (green) mirror image of GWPF. No indication that she knows anything of science or education, just parroting the usual clichés of "denialist anti-science". whilst dredging the MSM for stories to support the narrative, (much like GWPF I suppose but at least they have more credibility in their postings and a justifiably bigger audience). I'm afraid this report is going to take a lot more effort than that to debunk. It has certainly hit home in high places. Michael Gove's red herring about "activist teachers" obfuscates the fact that the report is about the curriculum which is the responsibility of HIM and his department. That is where the activists are and my 10 years as a chair of school governors taught me that, through Ofsted, the reins are tightly held.

[Doug McNeall]

Hi Andrew,

First, if you are going to mention me in a blogpost I'd appreciate a heads-up so that (if necessary) I can make a prompt response. I'll be sure to do the same if I mention you (or anyone else). Cheers.

Second, withe respect to "hilariously neutral", I was talking about the comments from the spokesperson at the department of education, not your report.

It seems to me that the comments offer very little support for your review in particular, and actually seem to (correctly in my opinion) stress the importance of not letting politics get in the way of a good science education. You could easily read the comments as critical of your report (and some seem to have done so). That is what I meant by "hilariously neutral".

Finally, I mentioned your pictoral examples of kids getting climate science wrong near the end of your report. I think these are really weak evidence. If you can find a subject that some primary school kid, somewhere, has not got amusingly wrong, I'll give you a biscuit.

Cheers,

Doug