Extracts from the UK Telegraph article: Lorry driver in challenge to Gore school film
A lorry driver is taking the Government to court over a film that he believes is biased and shouldn’t be shown to children in schools
Since ministers regarded the debate as well and truly over, they were “delighted” to send school children a polemic that took as its central thesis the argument that climate change – the increase in global temperatures over the past 50 years – was mainly the result of man-made carbon dioxide emissions.
This is indeed the view of the IPCC, and most of the world’s climate scientists. But other people disagree.
One of them is Stewart Dimmock, 45, a lorry driver and school governor from Kent. His sons, aged 11 and 14, attend a secondary school in Dover which has presumably received a copy of Mr Gore’s film.
“I care about the environment as much as the next man,” says Mr Dimmock. “However, I am determined to prevent my children from being subjected to political spin in the classroom.”
You might think there ought to be a law against this – and there is. Section 406(1)(b) of the Education Act 1996 says that local education authorities, school governing bodies and head teachers “shall forbid… the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school”.
Mr Dimmock’s lawyers are trying to prevent the film being shown in schools. At this stage, they are asking for permission to challenge the Schools Secretary’s decision to distribute it. This was refused in July after a written application. But if permission is granted at an oral hearing next Thursday, the judge is expected to consider the merits of Mr Dimmock’s application for judicial review straight away.
“Gore has gone on record as saying he believes it is appropriate to over-represent the facts to get his message across,” says Mr Day. “One of the very clear inferences from the Gore film is that areas such as Bangladesh will be under water by the end of the century. He is talking about sea levels rising by 20 feet.”
But this is not backed up by the IPCC, the solicitor says. Their view is that sea levels will rise by 1.3 feet over the next 100 years. A rise of 20ft would require rising temperatures to continue for millennia.
Michael Sparkes, also from the law firm Malletts, adds that Mr Gore’s central premise – that carbon dioxide emissions are causing the recently observed global warming – is taken by the film as proved.
“There is no discussion of the fact that the climate is changing naturally all the time, whether warming or cooling,” he said.
Mr Dimmock’s lawyers will therefore argue that distributing this film to schools is either unlawful under section 406 of the 1996 Act or unlawful because it does not offer the balance required by section 407.
There is a 48-page guidance note.
The current version of this note acknowledges that “teachers have a duty to give a balanced presentation of political issues and to avoid political indoctrination”.
It advises teachers to divide the film into three strands:
Areas where there is undisputed scientific consensus, such as the clear evidence that global temperatures are rising;
Areas where there is a “strong scientific consensus but where a small minority of scientists do not agree”, for example that gas emissions from human activity are the main cause of climate change. “When dealing with such issues teachers may wish to refer to alternative views but make it clear that they do not accord with the weight of scientific opinion,” the Government says; and
Areas where there is political debate, such as how we should respond to climate change. “When addressing these areas, teachers must take such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that pupils are offered a balanced presentation of opposing views.”
The Schools Department says: “The law does not prevent teachers or schools from showing material which includes expressions of political opinion. But it does require that, when such material is shown, the opinion is presented in a balanced way.”
Mr Day says his client is not satisfied with this. “You have a fundamentally flawed film, scientifically and politically, where the onus is being placed on teachers to draw the thorns and to remedy the defects,” he says. “Is that fair on teachers?”
Whether the written guidance is enough to balance the impact of Mr Gore’s undoubtedly political views will no doubt be at the heart of next week’s hearing. But is the debate over the science of climate change “well and truly over”? Not a chance.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Oh well looks like all history lessons are up for the chop as well then. No religious instruction either. No fiction in case someone is mentally harmed. Can’t discuss the news due to cultural bias.
I guess if you had to teach the “alternative” view it would be a challenge. Let’s see “well children – here’s a box full of half-baked blog ideas and copy of David Archibald’s paper from E&E, and a copy of the Swindle. You’ll note there’s very little published, and the E&E paper relies on a few cherry picked stations and they’ve got about 30 different ideas that don’t fit the data and the world’s majority of scientists think all this is crap – but in the interest of balance and preserving Celtic traditions – PAY ATTENTION or you’ll grow up to be mentally scarred, a piss pot and a soccer hooligan”.
Just do pure maths and play footy I guess.
Nah. They should simply show TGGWS as well.
I doubt that Mr Lorry Driver will win this one, although “strong scientific consensus but where a small minority of scientists do not agree” should require some demonstrable numbers from a survey of working climate scientists.
This 2003 survey is about to be repeated:
http://dvsun3.gkss.de/BERICHTE/GKSS_Berichte_2007/GKSS_2007_11.pdf
Paul
the easiest thing to do is say “did not”, which is pretty well what the AGW ‘debate’ amounts to. The resemblance to the creationist debate is uncanny. Just keep popping up enough stories, many of which contradict each other, and you win, without having to actually prove anything.
Paul
which version of TGGWS should they show? It’s had to be modified several times, due to blatant lies and misrepresentation. That resulted in it losing about 30 minutes of footage.
“climate change – was mainly the result of man-made carbon dioxide emissions … is indeed the view of the IPCC, and most of the world’s climate scientists. But other people disagree. ”
Bear in mind that most of the climate scientists need climate change to exist to pay for their next research grant.
And it’s such a wonderful way to justify increasing taxation, isn’t it.
Yep Andy – say the same for medical research, agricultural research and so on. All those new fandangled new drugs and chemicals they sell us. Like Viox. http://www.viox-heart-attack.com/pages/viox_faq.html Thanks heavens we didn’t waste any more money on research eh?
Speaking of increasing tatxation it’s great when you have shell out another $400M for drought relief in Australia isn’t it. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/17/2034820.htm
Don’t want to know about that – she’ll be right mate.
Building desal plants everywhere etc – all good for taxation too.
The consensus needs to be quantified and defined.
When will AIT be amended?
TGGWS DVD COMING SOON:
“Feature-length documentary plus additional interview material with some of the world’s leading climate scientists.
The definitive response to Al Gore’s AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH.”
http://www.wagtv.com/
Hello Andy, you need to be careful when you attribute statements about changes in climate made by the IPCC. (“climate change – was mainly the result of man-made carbon dioxide emissions … is indeed the view of the IPCC)
The IPCC’s definition of climate change, I quote from the IPCC WG1 4AR, page 2, footnote 1.
“Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity. This usage differs from that in the Framework Convention on Climate Change, where climate change refers to a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.”
Note that there is a distinct difference to the definition used by the FCCC, which is the UN body. The FCCC definition is also used by all environmental groups.
This means that when the IPCC reports a change, or an observed fact, it does not split this into a natural component and an AGW component.
However, the FCCC and environmental groups treat all IPCC results and data in the same way as the FCCC. This means that there is a misuse of numbers, always on the high side, which gives rise to the alarmist result.
So before you quote the IPCC data as proof of AGW, make sure that you clarify how much is due to natural affects, and how much is due to AGW.
The IPCC does report some data as AGW, but in every case, it makes it very clear that it is an AGW result.
Similarly, you must be careful when quoting other reports and papers to clarify which definition the reporters are using, because if this is not absolutely clear, you will be adding to the confusion, not reducing it.
A lot of effort has gone into measuring total change, and less into natural effects. Until the natural component is accurately known, the IPCC wsill not attribute specific numbers to AGW.
I will have to read the 4AR again to be sure, but I recall that the most that the IPCC will attribute to AGW is that human activity is having a discernable effect. This is a great deal different to claiming that all temperature increase is attributable to AGW.
PP
Maybe elementary schools should just teach the basics. Mathematics, Technology, Philosophy and Literature.
Teaching children to join a political movement is scummy.
What sort of philosophy & literature. Nothing ideologically dodgy I hope? Do we want our children calling African citizens “Darkies”. Schiller’s classroom?
PP – you continue to amaze me – the 4AR makes it very clear that the temperature trend of the last century is a combination of solar, aerosol, and greenhouse forcings. Jeeez again how many times have we been over this! Yes indeed you should read the bloody 4AR !
“shall forbid… the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school”.
From what I see of my kids homework and teacher meetings , that’d limit the curriculum substantially these days.
Paul , it’ll be interesting to see what the GKSS survey says this time round ; not that there’s been any really significant change in the science but the overwhelming domination of the AGW position in the media, over research funding and in Government may make genuine sceptics less comfortable with being frank about their views?
Who knows?
It’ll still be worth reading!
SJT – “The resemblance to the creationist debate is uncanny.”
That’s true about so many current debates isn’t it?
– anti-GM
– anti-nuclear energy
– anti-Gunns everything
Is it just me or is the dogmatic pursuit of ideology regardless of contrary evidence worse now than in times past?
It certainly seems so.
It feels as if there’s much less preparedness to risk considering other perspectives than even fairly recently.
Or maybe it’s just me being maudlin again…..
C3PO said,
the easiest thing to do is say “did not”, which is pretty well what the AGW ‘debate’ amounts to. The resemblance to the creationist debate is uncanny. Just keep popping up enough stories, many of which contradict each other, and you win, without having to actually prove anything.
which version of TGGWS should they show? It’s had to be modified several times, due to blatant lies and misrepresentation. That resulted in it losing about 30 minutes of footage.
How many rewrites is the IPCC on now? AR4 is it? Maybe someday they will come around to the truth instead of the mish mash of double talk, hidden in a multi volume tome of staggering proportion, as illustrated so well by Pirate Pete.
What utter crap. There’s a difference between increasing or changing knowledge and chopping the end off a time series. What an utterly indefensible and stupid comparison.
There is no double talk in the AR4 – it’s well written – and I’ll bet that you have NOT read it !!!!! (and that’s not the executive summary).
Actually you probably haven’t even read that as you get you information from right wing nutter op ed pieces like CEI central.
You have to be kidding in a comparison to the creationist debate – look at you guys – “oooo it’s a natural cycle”. How pagan, without explanation and spititual is that. WTF is “nature”.
And as for “enough stories” – AGW has been remarkably consistent – look at you denialist goobers – it’s cosmic rays, or is it sun spots, or is it solar torque or is it El Nino x a gazzillion oscillations thingy – no it’s undersea volcanoes.
Evidence for these ? WTF – denialists don’t need evidence. Just kepe fogging away to delay any action.
Biggsy and Morano give you a different story each week – “but but but but but…”
So given you don’t like science revision and updating I assume you’re using a 1970s phone book and street directory. And you also might not want to use your 1950s high school science texts (the world’s knowledge has increased).
Yes the AR4 is a multi-volume tome of staggering proportion. THAT ACTUALLY might be the point eh??
Stay off the hooch Jim. Peace out.