Schools
- Thread starter Digit
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
Who, I wonder in the current establishment of the education system, is qualified to teach on this subject?,
the most eminent scientists in the world can't agree as to the cause or reason for CC,Environmentalists accuse humans, naturalists and the like claim we are going through another natural weather cycle, ie the ice age, if these calibre of people can't prove things one way or the other, how on earth can teachers be expected to argue the case and pass on hard evidence to students, another stunt by Ed Ballsup, I fear.
Rich.
the most eminent scientists in the world can't agree as to the cause or reason for CC,Environmentalists accuse humans, naturalists and the like claim we are going through another natural weather cycle, ie the ice age, if these calibre of people can't prove things one way or the other, how on earth can teachers be expected to argue the case and pass on hard evidence to students, another stunt by Ed Ballsup, I fear.
Rich.
woodbloke
Established Member
...political comment, second post in [-X ...wow! - RobRich":11um8nr5 said:
woodbloke":2dumfr82 said:
It was NOT intended to be inflammatory, just an opinion, do you have an opinion? if so, why not air it? or are you content to sit on the fence and chide me for having the guts to do so?
I make no apologies for airing my views although I go out of my way not to offend anyone on the forum who'se views differ from mine, I like to hear other views and so further understand what's going on in the world, I don't know everything and am always keen to hear the other side.
Regards,
Rich.
Well I have to agree with Rich on one point, what version are they going to teach? Remember Al Bore's version has already been the subject of a legal challenge.
Who actually sets the curriculum, is it individual schools, education authorities, education ministry?
Roy.
Who actually sets the curriculum, is it individual schools, education authorities, education ministry?
Roy.
Roy, regardless of who sets the curriculum, most teachers, at best are well versed in 2/3 disciplines, I doubt very much that they are qualified to lecture on climate change other than a personal opinion, no harm in that I'd say in a "discussion group" but to install the subject as a curriculum without the proper grounding is asking for trouble when students need more practical education such as woodworking/metalworking instruction. :lol:
Regards,
Rich.
Regards,
Rich.
Peter T
Established Member
This is probably a really bad idea as it’s my first post on this forum and I’m probably going to alienate a bunch of people. I was planning to introduce myself with a piece about the nice little Record No. 4 with the Stay Set backer that I got off E Bay, but I simply couldn’t let this pass, so here goes.
Climate change is a CON. There I’ve said it.
It’s a myth that’s perpetrated by pseudo-scientists, greedy for huge grants to continue their research, and by politicians ever eager to find new ways to raise taxes.
The Earth’s climate has been changing since the Earth came into existence, and will continue to do so, regardless on human intervention.
Peter.
PS. Great forum, by the way.
Climate change is a CON. There I’ve said it.
It’s a myth that’s perpetrated by pseudo-scientists, greedy for huge grants to continue their research, and by politicians ever eager to find new ways to raise taxes.
The Earth’s climate has been changing since the Earth came into existence, and will continue to do so, regardless on human intervention.
Peter.
PS. Great forum, by the way.
Good evening Peter, I don't think you'll alienate anyone just for stating a point of view, good for you, wether or not we agree or disagree at least members will know where they stand with you, there's a lot to be said for that.
Happy posting and good luck with your No 4.
Regards,
Rich.
Happy posting and good luck with your No 4.
Regards,
Rich.
Evening Pete, welcome to the mad house.
Correction, climate change isn't a con. Man made climate change is a different matter. Our climate is ALWAYS changing, year on year, century on century, age upon age.
Sea levels rise and fall, ice comes and goes, rain belts move north and south.
It's a fact of life.
The history of science is full of mistakes, hoaxes and downright fraud. Tin hat on!
And yes, a great forum.
Roy.
Correction, climate change isn't a con. Man made climate change is a different matter. Our climate is ALWAYS changing, year on year, century on century, age upon age.
Sea levels rise and fall, ice comes and goes, rain belts move north and south.
It's a fact of life.
The history of science is full of mistakes, hoaxes and downright fraud. Tin hat on!
And yes, a great forum.
Roy.
Peter T
Established Member
You're absolutely right, I should have stipulated Man-Made climate change.
Thanks for the correction, and thanks for the welcomes.
Peter
Thanks for the correction, and thanks for the welcomes.
Peter
BradNaylor
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2007
- Messages
- 2,311
- Reaction score
- 2
Digit":1udpmzrp said:
I'm coming round to this point of view too.
I watched a news item recently about coastal erosion in Norfolk - houses falling into the sea etc. It was being blamed on 'global warming'.
Yet last week I was on holday in North Wales and visited Harlech Castle. It stands on a hill 1/2 a mile from the coast. When it was built 700 years ago though, the sea lapped at its walls. So what caused the sea to receed?
Advocates of the man-made climate change theory seem to choose their evidence carefully.
A client of mine who worked all his life at the Met Office told me that actually we are at the tail end of the most recent ice-age. That is why the planet is warming up!
And when the next ice age comes it will cool down again.
Having said all that, I've no truck with pollution. So the measures being taken against it are to be welcomed, if not the rationale.
Its a bit like the smoking ban. I never believed that passive smoking was actually much of a health hazard. Sitting in a smoky room however, was bloody unpleasant. So banning smoking is good!
Cheers
Dan
gatesmr2
Established Member
Ok how to make friends and influence people :shock:
It seems to me that every time we get anyone harping on about CC they always seem to have loads of letters after there name and a leading authority on the subject.
Now when someone says its not man made etc etc they get branded a *****, surely to have a balanced discusion on any subject you have to have at least two points of view :?:
So how come is it that the governments and leaders all jump on the CC band wagon maybe i'm being a little cynical but the word easy chance to tax comes to mind.
I do believe in CC but as a normal natural change that happens every so often with our planet. But the one thing that does bother me is if it is a normal change and we do in our infinite wisdom find a way to stop it what then !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It happens for a reason. Nature holds populations of animals etc at levels where they can live happily in co-exsistance and the same for forrest fires etc where it cleans and begins again who are we to think we know better.
Martin
It seems to me that every time we get anyone harping on about CC they always seem to have loads of letters after there name and a leading authority on the subject.
Now when someone says its not man made etc etc they get branded a *****, surely to have a balanced discusion on any subject you have to have at least two points of view :?:
So how come is it that the governments and leaders all jump on the CC band wagon maybe i'm being a little cynical but the word easy chance to tax comes to mind.
I do believe in CC but as a normal natural change that happens every so often with our planet. But the one thing that does bother me is if it is a normal change and we do in our infinite wisdom find a way to stop it what then !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It happens for a reason. Nature holds populations of animals etc at levels where they can live happily in co-exsistance and the same for forrest fires etc where it cleans and begins again who are we to think we know better.
Martin
Putting it on the curriculum seems to me as tenderising the youths for tomorrows tax rises and product bans that accidentally are finiacial beneficial to some large companies.
We we western (so called) democratic countries do that its called social engineering, environmentally aware, industry lobby etc, when others do it its called oppression, disrupting world economics, corruption etc. It basically comes down to all of the same.
We we western (so called) democratic countries do that its called social engineering, environmentally aware, industry lobby etc, when others do it its called oppression, disrupting world economics, corruption etc. It basically comes down to all of the same.
MikeG.
Established Member
I hesitate to join in on the fearsome General Chat (Off-Topic) forum, but I can’t let this line of discussion go un-answered.
To say that the human impact on climate is controversial amongst scientists is analogous to saying that there is controversy amongst humans about the shape of the earth. Roughly the same percentage of scientists working anywhere near the field view human driven climate change to be a myth as people on the planet who believe the earth to be flat.
Given that the media always represent both sides of the argument as being of equal merit, they give as much air-time to the nay-sayers as to the vast majority. This leads to some of the general public expressing views as we have already seen in this forum. If every time the planet was discussed in the media they interviewed someone from the Flat Earth Society, then the public could be forgiven for thinking that that this was a 50/50 split view. It isn’t, and neither is climate change.
A prime example of this was the MMR scare. One scientist............yes, just one......claimed he had found a link from the *** to autism. He got to put his view every time the subject was raised, and got as much air-tiime as the people who were right. The fact is, media represent an argument as a balance of opinion, when there may a thousand to one weighting on either side of the fence. If climate change sceptics were given air time in proportion to numbers who held the view, then we would almost never hear from them. I say again, climate change is not controversial amongst scientists.
Where there is doubt and discussion amongst scientists, it is on the amount and impact of climate change, not on its existence. These arguments lead to a range of predictions for the future, but all of them are for some degree of impact, not on whether there will be any impact in the first place.
Twenty years ago, the United Nations gathered together a collection of the very best scientists in the world, (I think there are over a hundred of them in the group) and formed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC). This body reports every 5 years. Their report is issued to the politicians first, who go through it line by line and argue the text, demand explanations from the scientists, and adjust the nuances to suit their views. The Bush government, loaded with oil people and famously sceptical of climate change, agree fully with the published report, as does every other government. They (the Americans) managed to have every reference to the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions removed, but the science was so overwhelming that they couldn’t argue with the conclusion that over 90% of the observed changes to the climate had come about as a result of human activity.
Please see this link http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/index.htm for an explanation of the work of the IPCC, and its reporting and re-writing process. You will see how nothing that is controversial to any government could get through to the final report.
I wonder how many of those criticising the Al Gore film have seen it, and have seen the details of the court case? There were 12 places in which the judges found against Gore, and almost every time it was where he had said “correlates” instead of “closely correlates” or “exactly” rather than “almost exactly”. They also concluded that their findings didn’t criticise the broad thrust of the film.
For those of you who don’t understand the science, don’t fall into the trap of saying “I don’t understand, therefore it must be wrong”.
There is a general problem of all things being blamed on climate change, when they are clearly not. Norfolk and Suffolk aren’t suffering from sea-level rise (but Vanuatu is……the islands will have to be abandoned soon). No, they are suffering from falling land levels. When the ice age had mile-thick ice piled on top of Scotland, it tilted Britain downwards in the North, and like a see-saw, upwards in the South. The ice melted, the weight therefore lifted, and the south is gently settling back downwards. Climate change is leading to increased sea levels, but the rapid destruction of the East Anglian coast is much more about rebound from the ice-age.
If you are to espouse the view that Climate Change is a con, then you have to ask who is doing the conning, and why? In whose interest is it to con the planet into action to reduce carbon emissions? Obviously the normal suspects, oil companies, car manufacturers and the American Government aren’t to blame. They patently would have wished that climate change had never been heard of. I can’t think of any government or multinational company who benefit from “conning” the world into accepting climate change………..so come on, who is supposed to be conning us, and why?
Discussions on science shouldn’t come down to “I believe”……..and that phrase crops up in almost every post here with an anti-climate change message. I don’t do “belief”. I go and read the research. I suggest that instead of “believing” you guys go and do some reading. I don’t know, next you’ll be telling me that Elvis is dead!!
Mike
This is easy reading......http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report
To say that the human impact on climate is controversial amongst scientists is analogous to saying that there is controversy amongst humans about the shape of the earth. Roughly the same percentage of scientists working anywhere near the field view human driven climate change to be a myth as people on the planet who believe the earth to be flat.
Given that the media always represent both sides of the argument as being of equal merit, they give as much air-time to the nay-sayers as to the vast majority. This leads to some of the general public expressing views as we have already seen in this forum. If every time the planet was discussed in the media they interviewed someone from the Flat Earth Society, then the public could be forgiven for thinking that that this was a 50/50 split view. It isn’t, and neither is climate change.
A prime example of this was the MMR scare. One scientist............yes, just one......claimed he had found a link from the *** to autism. He got to put his view every time the subject was raised, and got as much air-tiime as the people who were right. The fact is, media represent an argument as a balance of opinion, when there may a thousand to one weighting on either side of the fence. If climate change sceptics were given air time in proportion to numbers who held the view, then we would almost never hear from them. I say again, climate change is not controversial amongst scientists.
Where there is doubt and discussion amongst scientists, it is on the amount and impact of climate change, not on its existence. These arguments lead to a range of predictions for the future, but all of them are for some degree of impact, not on whether there will be any impact in the first place.
Twenty years ago, the United Nations gathered together a collection of the very best scientists in the world, (I think there are over a hundred of them in the group) and formed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC). This body reports every 5 years. Their report is issued to the politicians first, who go through it line by line and argue the text, demand explanations from the scientists, and adjust the nuances to suit their views. The Bush government, loaded with oil people and famously sceptical of climate change, agree fully with the published report, as does every other government. They (the Americans) managed to have every reference to the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions removed, but the science was so overwhelming that they couldn’t argue with the conclusion that over 90% of the observed changes to the climate had come about as a result of human activity.
Please see this link http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/index.htm for an explanation of the work of the IPCC, and its reporting and re-writing process. You will see how nothing that is controversial to any government could get through to the final report.
I wonder how many of those criticising the Al Gore film have seen it, and have seen the details of the court case? There were 12 places in which the judges found against Gore, and almost every time it was where he had said “correlates” instead of “closely correlates” or “exactly” rather than “almost exactly”. They also concluded that their findings didn’t criticise the broad thrust of the film.
For those of you who don’t understand the science, don’t fall into the trap of saying “I don’t understand, therefore it must be wrong”.
There is a general problem of all things being blamed on climate change, when they are clearly not. Norfolk and Suffolk aren’t suffering from sea-level rise (but Vanuatu is……the islands will have to be abandoned soon). No, they are suffering from falling land levels. When the ice age had mile-thick ice piled on top of Scotland, it tilted Britain downwards in the North, and like a see-saw, upwards in the South. The ice melted, the weight therefore lifted, and the south is gently settling back downwards. Climate change is leading to increased sea levels, but the rapid destruction of the East Anglian coast is much more about rebound from the ice-age.
If you are to espouse the view that Climate Change is a con, then you have to ask who is doing the conning, and why? In whose interest is it to con the planet into action to reduce carbon emissions? Obviously the normal suspects, oil companies, car manufacturers and the American Government aren’t to blame. They patently would have wished that climate change had never been heard of. I can’t think of any government or multinational company who benefit from “conning” the world into accepting climate change………..so come on, who is supposed to be conning us, and why?
Discussions on science shouldn’t come down to “I believe”……..and that phrase crops up in almost every post here with an anti-climate change message. I don’t do “belief”. I go and read the research. I suggest that instead of “believing” you guys go and do some reading. I don’t know, next you’ll be telling me that Elvis is dead!!
Mike
This is easy reading......http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report
Paul Chapman
Established Member
Mike Garnham":2tvspjct said:
He can't be - I hear him every week on 'Steve Wright in the afternoon'
Cheers :wink:
Paul
Peter T
Established Member
Governments "Con" their constituents all the time. Climate change is a heaven sent opportunity for our ridiculous politicians to dream up ever more creative ways of extracting more taxes from hard working people, and all under the pretext of "Saving the planet".
Climate change "Experts" jump on the band wagon so that they can extract huge grants from the aforementioned governments to "Research" the subject.
Mind how you go,
Climate change "Experts" jump on the band wagon so that they can extract huge grants from the aforementioned governments to "Research" the subject.
Mind how you go,
RogerS
Established Member
Mmmm..scary given that, from what I can gather, most education is now slanted in favour of passing SAT tests with multi-choice questions and any concept of evaluating the pro's and con's of the why's and wherefore's of anything has long gone out of the window.
So climate change will be taught stating alleged 'facts' and hardly any attempt made to put a different point of view and encourage debate.
So climate change will be taught stating alleged 'facts' and hardly any attempt made to put a different point of view and encourage debate.
StevieB
Established Member
Why does that surprise you Roger - there has been religious education in schools since schooling began but if you made the suggestion that pupils got 2 hours a week on the science of evolution and the debunking of a belief system based on the absence of evidence I think you would meet with some pretty fierce resistance unfortunately.
Steve.
Steve.
Its all politics Mike including the IPCC.
Years back it was acid rain caused by smog. they changed legislation which caused $$$ to be pumped in the the industry (mainly due to extra work for people installing all kinds of measurement equipment and filters on factory chimneys, huge increases in the availability of gypsum which provided more profits in the building industry, lots of extra work for the car industry, local garages etcetera)
Then it was halide ions (they about only targeted the CFKs) thinning the ozone layer. Again due to world wide legislation changes many $$$ where pumped into the industry (more work in the plastic expansion and extrusion industries, the, smaller but still significant increases in the cosmetics, cleaning product and paint industries, lots of work in the coolant industrie etcetara)
Then it went to the green house effect and now just when the oil and gas resources in the Western operated area's reach the tip point of supply versus demand its changed to Climate Change caused by carbon emission. Ans of course the first loads of money are already pumped into industry by governments. (Philips Lighting pops to mind as one of the first, but also think of companies like Xerox, Panasonic, Mitchibitchi, General Electric etc who already receive loads due to a change out of power plants, new opertunities in subsidized product research)
People do have a large impact on the planet but not on the currently hot Climate Change by carbon emission. Think of deforestation, exhausting natural resources, environmental impact by the bio industry, destroyed environments by toxic industries in parts of the world we don't care about, by Reservoir and il plants and spills of gas and oil etcetera. Not to mention the harm we to to people and animals for our profits and pleasure (including taking pleasure in harming them for some who are more than just a few).
Years back it was acid rain caused by smog. they changed legislation which caused $$$ to be pumped in the the industry (mainly due to extra work for people installing all kinds of measurement equipment and filters on factory chimneys, huge increases in the availability of gypsum which provided more profits in the building industry, lots of extra work for the car industry, local garages etcetera)
Then it was halide ions (they about only targeted the CFKs) thinning the ozone layer. Again due to world wide legislation changes many $$$ where pumped into the industry (more work in the plastic expansion and extrusion industries, the, smaller but still significant increases in the cosmetics, cleaning product and paint industries, lots of work in the coolant industrie etcetara)
Then it went to the green house effect and now just when the oil and gas resources in the Western operated area's reach the tip point of supply versus demand its changed to Climate Change caused by carbon emission. Ans of course the first loads of money are already pumped into industry by governments. (Philips Lighting pops to mind as one of the first, but also think of companies like Xerox, Panasonic, Mitchibitchi, General Electric etc who already receive loads due to a change out of power plants, new opertunities in subsidized product research)
People do have a large impact on the planet but not on the currently hot Climate Change by carbon emission. Think of deforestation, exhausting natural resources, environmental impact by the bio industry, destroyed environments by toxic industries in parts of the world we don't care about, by Reservoir and il plants and spills of gas and oil etcetera. Not to mention the harm we to to people and animals for our profits and pleasure (including taking pleasure in harming them for some who are more than just a few).
Mike, as regards the media giving equal credit to both sides, are you aware that recently some thousands of scientist signed a different view at a convention?
Did you see any such report?
I spoke to an ex-reporter some time ago about errors in National Geographic, of all mags. She explained that reporters have to rely on what they are told by people on a list held by each paper. How do you get on that list? Be well known as a famous name draws more readers.
Are you aware Mike that nature, amongst others, has been accused of censorship as they will not publish anything anti man made CC. They were similarly accused some years ago by those who argued against some Einstein's ideas.
Maggie Thatcher kicked off this debate years ago and the first team leader was the head of the British Meteorological Office. The graph that they produced showed the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, both well documented. When the IPCC finished with the graph both had vanished!
Their graph ended with the notorious 'Hockey Stick'. If you check you will find that their graphs have now removed that feature as being obtained by 'dubious methodology' and is no longer mentioned in their papers. But the MWP and Little Ice Age are still absent I note.
When they stop fiddling the figures I may start to believe what they have to say.
In addition not one of the major computer scenarios predicted the current downward temp trend.
Roy.
Did you see any such report?
I spoke to an ex-reporter some time ago about errors in National Geographic, of all mags. She explained that reporters have to rely on what they are told by people on a list held by each paper. How do you get on that list? Be well known as a famous name draws more readers.
Are you aware Mike that nature, amongst others, has been accused of censorship as they will not publish anything anti man made CC. They were similarly accused some years ago by those who argued against some Einstein's ideas.
Maggie Thatcher kicked off this debate years ago and the first team leader was the head of the British Meteorological Office. The graph that they produced showed the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, both well documented. When the IPCC finished with the graph both had vanished!
Their graph ended with the notorious 'Hockey Stick'. If you check you will find that their graphs have now removed that feature as being obtained by 'dubious methodology' and is no longer mentioned in their papers. But the MWP and Little Ice Age are still absent I note.
When they stop fiddling the figures I may start to believe what they have to say.
In addition not one of the major computer scenarios predicted the current downward temp trend.
Roy.
