Back in the sixties and seventies teacher training became infected by a Marxist/socialist agenda to such an extent that our local teacher training college was known as Little Russia and the hammer and sickle flags always adorned the windows. It would seem that these graduates have morphed into Climate Change activists and have taken over our schools, colleges and universities. Whilst we must not tar all teachers with this brush, it would seem that those who have now risen to the position of setting the curriculum in schools are well seeded with them. Education in science, as with other subjects, is to question and challenge. Problem is that today we are teaching to pass exams and this means that there is only the one answer. That expected of the invigilators. Ah, but we have coursework I hear them all say. Evidence suggests that coursework must still follow the agreed path as exemplified in Christopher Booker example(below) For many students it would seem that coursework is simply cut and paste from Wikipedia. I know there are some excellent students out there, as there are some excellent schools and teachers, so don’t shoot the messenger. In the mists of time when I was at school, our teachers taught a must wider understanding of the subject. We were taught to understand and then challenge the theories as only in challenging them do you really understand why they have evolved.
To develop the argument to wind, it is fact that schools will teach the dogma of Climate Change and AGW, despite fact suggesting that the evidence has been manipulated to a political end. Schools will build wind turbines in the grounds to prove their green credentials. What they will not accept is those that challenge the dogma presenting their case that wind is not the answer and the reasons why not. Michael Gove has recently suggested that this single track approach to Climate Change is actually illegal. However within the teaching establishment and within councils we have a whole phalanx of highly paid educationalists and eco-advisers for whom the gravy train cannot be derailed. Evidence of that is too readily available. That they are often consumed with an almost religious zealotry makes the situation worse. Their favourite words are denier and sceptic and yet their argument is based on a tissue of lies and inaccuracies. Christopher Booker wrote an interesting article in the Telegraph on the 12th April which is worth consideration. I should make one point clear. There is nothing wrong with teaching children the theory of global warming as long as that teaching presents both sides of the argument. There is little doubt that Climate changes. It has since the Dinosaurs walked the earth. There is little wrong it teaching children that they should respect the earth and all the bounty she provides. There is little wrong in showing how rampant consumerism can denude the earth of it’s resources. However for that there must be a balance. It is our job to educate our children, to teach them to enjoy our world. It is not our job to frighten them half to death by our own prejudices. How long before we see anti fracking posters in our schools? I have seen well presented balanced material for Renewables produced by The Highland Council but I have also seen head teachers welcoming in the wind farm developers whilst refusing the same courtesy to local campaigners. Evidence may show that you are far more likely to find education material provided by such as RWE and SSE in schools than the official information.
Brainwashing about global warming percolates throughout the education system
by Christopher Booker
Not often does a senior Cabinet minister declare that a policy long pursued by his own department is “against the law”. But that was the response of Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, to a report exposing just how profoundly our education system has been hijacked by promoters of the official group-think on global warming.
Expanding on a theme touched on here more than once over the years, the report for the Global Warming Policy Foundation by Andrew Montford and John Shade shows how generations of schoolchildren have been taught to accept as gospel nothing but a propagandist, Greenpeace-type view of the global-warming scare, so one-sided that it makes a mockery of the requirement under the 1996 Education Act that pupils only be taught in a balanced way, allowing them to form their own view of the evidence.
So relentless is this brainwashing that it percolates throughout the curriculum, so that even exam papers in French, English or religious studies can ask students to explain why the world is dangerously warming up, or why we must build more wind turbines. In 2012, I described an A-level general studies paper set by our leading exam board, AQA, asking for comment on 11 pages of propagandist “source materials”, riddled with basic errors. A mother wrote to tell me how her intelligent son, after getting straight As on all his science papers, used his extensive knowledge of climate science to point out all their absurd distortions.
He was given the lowest possible mark, a fail. When his mother paid to have his paper independently assessed, the new examiner conceded that it was “articulate, well-structured” and well-informed. But because it did not parrot the party line, it was still given a fail. I fear this corruption of everything that education and science should stand for has become a much more serious scandal than Mr Gove yet realises.