“Recite after me: In the beginning, Labor created the Climate Commission and the carbon tax…”
Cue the headbangers going ape in 3, 2, 1… Because it had become impossible to have any kind of sensible teaching of climate change in schools, the UK government is proposing to cut climate change from the syllabus for children up to the age of 14. Huzzah and hooray.
And the headbangers are indeed steamed up, complaining that such a cut is “political interference”, oblivious to the fact that it was their relentless propaganda campaign to indoctrinate climate dogma in the classroom that forced this action in the first place.
The Guardian, naturally, gets hot under the collar:
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”.
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.
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. [!!!]
“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.
The comparison with CFCs is facile, because while there are alternatives to CFCs, there are no genuinely affordable alternatives to burning fossil fuels, especially for the poor and developing countries of the world.
Note that it is the “climate campaigners” who are complaining the most, because they won’t be able to fill impressionable young minds with their environmental propaganda, and they won’t then go home and badger their parents into installing solar panels or recycling tea bags or switching their lights out for Earth Hour (fast approaching once again – stay tuned). See here for more.
In a way, this is a classic own goal, since students should understand the interaction between humanity and the environment, but since such interaction is inevitably portrayed as a one way street (ie. wailing that we’re destroying the planet), the only option was to remove it entirely.
There’s something called balance, and it’s sadly lacking from the climate debate.
Australian Climate Madness 
most sensible thing the UK govt has done in a long time.
The ozone hole/CFC scare was based upon junk science (poor comparisons of data, and failure to recognise changes due to climatic conditions), just as CAGW is.
I’m all for teaching about climate, as long as they properly include all sides of the stories. The current approach is all too closed-minded; it would be no wonder if children are not able to think for themselves as a result.
Exactly! I believe there was a recent article that the Ozone hole was recently at it’s largest in years and 6 months ago at it’s smallist, and we haven’t had CFC’s since Nixon was Pres. Before that we had “silent spring” which caused the scientific organizations to ban DDT costing literally millions of lives in places like Africa. After CFC’s was, I believe “acid Rain”. Whatever happened to that? The leftists have been pulling this stuff for decades, the motive has been government funding. It’s time we put a stop to it
But Climate change should be taught as a career choice by career guidance counselors. It’s a very profitable career for any low IQ, low moral, incapable student. It’s one of the top paying “money for nothing” environ jobs.
Counselors need to target artistic types capable of manufacturing/drawing hockey sticks or up ticks, you know the ones that would otherwise would be drawing the dole.
Refreshing to see sanity returning to the classroom over something that has nothing to do with educating the young; only when they young have acquired some basic knowledge in physics and mathematics can they then proceed to a rational and logically reasoned argument about anything that man may be doing to the environment.
Reblogged this on Climate Daily.
Seems its not just schools where the global warming frenzy has abated. The UK’s Daily Mail … (source) has also discovered the truth … “The Great Green Con no. 1: The hard proof that finally shows global warming forecasts that are costing you billions were WRONG all along.”
Britain is not the countryside of old. Perhaps the eco-green would recommend we go back to “nature” in all its primitiveness and lack of foodstuffs. (Right.)
We live in, on and through nature. We change it, develop it, exploit it. You cannot say that buidling homes where forests and meadows used to be is anything but destroying nature for our benefit. Unless you suggest we self-terminate the species, we must accept in principle our “desecration” of the natural world. The only question is the level to which we are prepared to go. That is called compromise; the eco-green want victory for them, defeat for us.
But worse: the philosophy of removing Man’s ecological footprint as a ideological goal is actually something that is applicable in the eco-green mind only to the poor, non-white of the world. Hansen, Gore and Suzuki are not giving away their mansions and airplanes and SUVs to the indigenous hungry and moving into wood-stove heated cabins on barren mountaintops. They aren’t saying they are giving up fresh vegetables in the middle of winter because they are provided by oil-burning transport systems. Non-intensive use of the world is for the currently undeveloped part, keeping them down. Climate change as promoted by the eco-green is not just about CO2 effects, it is about de-carbonizing the way we pull a lot of personal benefit through easy energy from the low-energy density world. Being “kind” to the planet by not doing much and doing it slower is the idea: the idea for the non-developed, non-white controlled world, that is.
It is good that the climate change nonsense is removed from the schools. As a science, it needs not be. As a socio-political treatise, it needs be, largely because it is not just impracical but classist, racist and, ultimately, hypocritical.
We get enough self-serving actions from our current poltical leadership; we don’t need to breed more of them.
perhaps we should just teach our kids HOW to think rather than WHAT to think
Couldn’t agree more Dylan.