Gore Propaganda in British Schools Faces Legal Challenge

On Wednesday last week, yes the day before the British local elections when nobody was looking, the combined weight of the Education and Environment Ministries started to send out their Secondary Schools Climate Change Pack.

This kit contains,

DVD copy of An Inconvenient Truth
DVD containing four short films commissioned by Defra:
Tomorrow’s Climate, Today’s Challenge
My CO2
Diaries of the Climate Change Champions
The Carbon Cycle animation by Climate Change Champion Sofia Selska
A leaflet on the Sustainable Schools Year of Action
Links to comprehensive online guidance on how teachers can use these resources in the classroom.

UKIP Peer Lord Pearson asked the government to halt the process, and having had the request rejected suggested that this pack also include the Channel 4 film “The Great Global Warming Swindle”. This suggestion too was rejected, despite the fact that it would have made the government's proposal legal under the 1996 Education Act, which states,

407. - (1) The local education authority, governing body and head teacher shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that where political issues are brought to the attention of pupils while they are-
(a) in attendance at a maintained school, or
(b) taking part in extra-curricular activities which are provided or organised for registered pupils at the school by or on behalf of the school,
they are offered a balanced presentation of opposing views.

So may I offer my utmost congratulations to Stuart Dimmock of Kent who has asked for a High Court injunction against this piece of transparent lack of balance.

H/T: Ian P over at PJC Journal

Regan or raygun?


Thanks for your serious and considered replies to my submissions.

Regarding my 'Regan' slip, I can only say 'touche'! - it was of course Ronald Reagan, not 'Regan' who famously is associated with the phrase 'There you go again'. I am indeed old enough to remember the infamous friction between DR and NR!

I agree with you that underlying motivations (I understand this - if I've got you right - as referring to 'needs' covertly manufactured in the interest of creating new market segments) should be heavily weighed into account regarding 'cui bono' questions surrounding the controversy about global warming response strategies.

However, we must consider that the only criteria we have available - in this case - upon which to base our judgements and policies are the data collected, presented and interpreted by scientists and their instruments, together with the empirical evidence of our own senses, regarding the question of whether there is a planet-threatening crisis involving greenhouse gas emissions.

There are without any doubt long and complex chains of reasoning involved that require close examination before acceptance. Any resultant radical turns of policy with concomitant drastic measures likely to affect everyone's standard of living and style of life should not be undertaken lightly. Political action should turn only on the most informed opinion, unpalatable as that may be to any faction. But once a practical consensus is attained, necessary action should be taken.

By the way, are you familiar with the Ruddiman research that was presented in "Climate Change" in 2003? If not, a look at the article might be worth your time, linking as it does fluctuations in human population with climate change. Among other hypotheses, he finds a link between the Little Ice Age and the decrease of populations resulting from the Black Death. Correct or not, it's quite thought-provoking.

Its location:



As Marcfrans notes, you are weakening your case badly by lamenting how we are poisoning the air we breathe, in a posting about global warming and CO2 emissions.  CO2 is not a pollutant in the conventional sense:  we can stand to inhale a good deal more of it with no immediate ill effect to our bodies.


You accuse me of resisting reason.  There is nothing unreasonable about disagreeing on what priorities we should take.  There is nothing unreasonable in believing that we should place our highest priority on existing catastrophes such as AIDS and malaria.  The decision -- between combatting a certain present catastrophe and a merely possible future catastrophe -- is a tough one, but there is nothing unreasonable about coming down on the side of addressing the present catastrophe.


By the way, it concerns me not at all what true conservatism entails.  I am not a conservative.  Nor am I viscerally opposed to Al Gore, as you imply.  Back in 1988, I believe, Gore identified himself as a "raging moderate."  That label stuck with me because it seemed so accurately to describe my own politics, to the extent that I label my politics at all.

R(d)onald Re(a)gan

@ Roughdoggo

Let's not mix up Donald Regan with Ronald Reagan.  Are you old enough to remember that they had a big falling out (in matters concerning Nancy)?

And let's not mix up actual problems of "pollution" with potential problems of "global warming" (or cooling, for that matter).  

-- On the "pollution" front, I am all with you in urging public authorities to give this matter proper attention and to make the necessary 'market corrections'.    There is little doubt that today many more people have access to 'safer' water and to 'cleaner' air than, say, fifty years ago (when such things weren't even measured to any significant extent) thanks to economic (higher income) and technological 'progress'.   I am less sure about 'soil' conditions. 

-- On the "global warming" front, a healthy dose of caution and scepticism is in order, as is a healthy dose of independence from 'passing fads'.   Moreover, it is always advisable to consider possible underlying motivations of any new 'profets' (no matter how big their following may be).     


The ongoing death toll from AIDS, malaria, and dehydration is irrefutable, and the rhetoric used by people addressing these problems is usually measured and reasonable.  The warnings about a possible death toll from climate change are based on predictions with huge margins of error, and the rhetoric used to address the issue is often hysterical and bullying.  For these reasons, I say we should place the immediate, irrefutable problems at the front of the queue.  That the European (and lefty American) elites nearly all consider global warming to be problem number one is disheartening, and probably has something to do with the fact that they can't blame malaria on George Bush (though they've probably tried).


To quote Ronald Regan:

There you go again!

As far as Mr. Vanderheyden's semantically garbled comment goes, one hopes he is only attempting to be satirical.

Mr. Lee, if there is any "hysterical bullying" over the topic of global warming, it is coming mainly from the crackpot right. I am seriously concerned over your resistance to reason. As far as I am able to discern, your complaints regarding the rhetoric surrounding the question of global warming seem to come primarily from a visceral hatred of certain politicians. Regardless of whether you like their espousal of a cause or not, you should seriously ask yourself the question: are you cutting off your nose to spite your face?

The arguments I've lately seen regarding the necessity for us to change our profligate economic habits make sense, if only on moral grounds. (You do want your children to have air to breathe, don't you?) Scientifically, these arguments represent the opinion of an overwhelming majority of active scientists in the relevant fields. We are in trouble, plain and simple, and if we don't change our ways, there's going be the devil to pay. Whatever economic inconvenience might be caused - and this might represent major dislocations in the economy, I'll grant you - the bottom line is that our survival on this planet is at stake.

What I really think, is that you're scared - as am I, and many others - and that your denial of the problem is your own particular way of handling it. Remember this - true conservatism also involves treating the environment as our heritage, and not as a windfall to be squandered. It may be a case of the devil and the deep blue sea, but consider: what would be the consequences if policy makers went with your line of opinion, put global warming on the back burner - and you were wrong?

Welcome aboard

Mr Sagredo:

Glad to see that you recognise global warming as a problem. I wonder, though, if you might specify in somewhat more precise terms what you mean by "a large fraction of the scientific community" being "definitely" unconvinced by the scientific models. It just bothers me, since - as far as I have seen - your large fraction is to my knowledge only a miniscule fringe minority.

Would you kindly give some numbers, specifying how many scientists you are referring to? And perhaps also, which actual "scientific models" are the subject of the controversy you report (articles and names of publications would be appreciated here). I for one, would certainly like to know.


I got involved in a global warming debate a few months ago on another weblog and hoped, in answer to your question, that I could dig up some of the references I and others found at the time. No luck. I did google global warming just now to try to find them again, but there are so many things out there and I did not feel it worth my while to really do a decent research job given my other committments at the moment. Here are a few references I picked up, however, that you might find interesting.





My skepticism about global warming comes from a number of sources (I should mention that my background is relevant: a physicist doing particle and nuclear theory some of it concerned with computer modeling. This being said, I do not claim expertise in weather modeling. I give only the informed opinion of an outsider).

1)I have read articles by distinguished scientists in the field who say that the error/uncertainties in all the models are larger than the effects they predict. And furthermore, that modelers can get any prediction they want out of their models by cleverly choosing their input. These are such serious charges that I would not ordinarily pay much attention to them were it not for the credentials of the accuser (one is a guest contributor to the WSJ a few months ago) and some other points I will be bringing to your attention.

2)I have read, from a reliable source, that the oceans are such large reservoirs of absorbed CO2 (and in constant equilibrium with atmospheric CO2) that the observed increase in CO2, which forms the basis of the Global warming prediction, is miniscule in comparison. Therefore it is quite possible that small temperature changes can CAUSE increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations rather than be the EFFECTS of such changes (these changes are large for the atmosphere but small for the Oceans).

3)Further, I have read that Methane (e.g. from bloated cows) is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 and is (for some reason I do not understand) not being taken into account even though it is potentially significant due to human agriculture).

4)Further, there are (more than one) reports of climate scientists being fired (e.g. by the Governor of Washington State) for publishing data contrary to climate warming enthusiasts.

5)Further, that there is a propensity of left-leaning sources to ally themselves with the Global warmists and use the issue to yet again bash the US and Bush---thus my suspicions of thoroughgoing political poisoning of the scientific debate.

6)Further, getting back to science, there is the fact that there have been long periods of climate cooling (e.g. approx, the first half of the 20th century) during periods of large increase in industrialization. Of course the scientists know about this and can explain it in their models---they can explain anything, I fear. But the people/politicians who shout loudest in public debate, and call doubters idiots, are by and large ignorant of this and all other fine and not so fine points in the discussion.

I could go on, but this is enough!

@frank lee

"Millions die every year from AIDS, malaria, dehydration, and war, but the real problem, according to even the most pro-American European elites, is global warming."

That’s because the European elites figured out that global warming will probably add some more millions that will die from dehydration and malnutrition.
So did the American elites of course, but they have to cope with the political “elite” of the Bible Belt, that would believe almost anything, except the obvious.


It does not bode well that Sarkozy, in his victory speech, promised friendly relations with the United States, but only if America assumed a position of leadership on the most important issue facing the world today -- global warming!  How much nuttier can this get?  Millions die every year from AIDS, malaria, dehydration, and war, but the real problem, according to even the most pro-American European elites, is global warming.

To quote Pirandello,

"I'm sure you're right, if you say so". Then again, on the other hand...

When are all you "denialists" (love that word - it's so much more couth than "crackpots"!) going to get your act together and wake up to what's happening around you? You seem to be taking your cue from Marx, when he said "Who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?"

The National Arbor Day Foundation update of the Department of Agriculture's Hardiness Zone Map shows that "many bands of the United States are a full zone warmer, and a few spots are two zones warmer, than they were in 1990", the time of the map's last update. Essentially, plants are voting with their feet (oops, meant "roots" here!), and are marching north and in some places, uphill, to avoid the increasing heat.

Perhaps some of you geniuses out there should tell those poor misguided flora how deluded they really are? I mean, anybody who at this stage denies global warming, probably believes in talking to plants, right?

Global Warming

No one denies warming is occurring in various regions. What is unclear is that it is truly global (averaging of temperatures can be done in different ways, southern ice is incrfeasng not decreasing...), and most importantly, it is unclear to what extent this is being done by man. The scientific models are definitely not convincing to a large fraction of the scientific community,,,not to merely a 'few crackpots'. And all the committee reports pro global warming are heavily populated with politicians, who scream the loudest. It makes me very suspicious!

China already leading global warming

China already produces 1/3rd of the worlds rice which is a massive methane producer as added fertilizer degrades anaerobically.  What do you think the luddites will do when the US is no longer the primary culprit?  Change the numbers so the US is of course.


You don't believe in Glowball Warming™?

Global Warming Myth

Ahh, the global warming myth. Tell the lie enough times and it will become the truth (or at least Gore and others are betting it will). Gore, who lives in a mansion that burns tons of energy and flies around in a private jet. Duh!!! At the very least, he is back in the spotlight, which is where he wanted to be, not to mention the money from his book sales, movie, etc.

Since when are former has-been politicians an expert on anything scientific? I cannot believe that there are so many gullible and stupid people out there who are willing to take as fact this hysteria of gloom and doom. They are most certainly the part of the worldwide population who are easily swayed by each new cause, and are too lazy to do their own research.

For every expert who predicts global warming, there are just as many experts who say it is a myth and have the facts to back it up. Problem is that the left media does not give them the equal press. 

And, since all the greenies and other left-wing nuts are blaming Bush for everything, I am beginning to think that he is truly a super-being since his powers also included hurricane Katrina and every other natural disaster such as the Kyoto treaty, which Clinton and Gore also voted against.   


Bet they don't mention that

Bet they don't mention that if you include rice farming China is already by far the largest producer of green house gases. Well I am sure it will make good comedy like when Good Ol' Al says that if global warming continues most of Holland will be underwater.