Is This Really The Way To Set An Example To Children?

[youngmafbog]

Damned irresponsible if you ask me, regardless of the topic

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6687889/Fury-headteachers-union-BACKS-pupil-strike-week-protest-climate-change.html

[vetuste_ennemi]

Late on parade to this thread.

Has anybody mentioned the Children's Crusade yet?

Would the DoE and Ofsted have apporved the ing time off school for a such a worthy endeavour?

PS: didn't work out well for the children.

[vetuste_ennemi]

approved their having time...

[JF85]

I thought "the ***ing time off" was just right :-(

[naomi24]

//I've done the patience, I've done the explanations, too. //

Oh dear, Jim. Should we be distraught?

[Ellipsis]

> The idea that children are being 'responsible' by opting out of their education in some imagined and facile 'support' of a dubious scientific hobby horse is to delude them even further about what responsibility actually means in the real world

You do realise that this dubious scientific hobby horse, climate change, is taught in science classes in the schools you are insisting that the children attend rather than opting out of their education ...

[youngmafbog]

Perhaps why many are looking to Private education Ellipsis, too much liberal left wing teaching in State schools

[jim360]

Climate Change is not a "left-wing" thing. It's robust science.

[Old_Geezer]

hobbyhorse noun
...
4a : a topic to which one constantly reverts

Hmm not excluded from being one when it is discussed then; no matter how robust the the investigations are ;-)

ding ding, back to your corners please gentlemen

[youngmafbog]

"Climate Change is not a "left-wing" thing. It's robust science." Yes.

"Cause of Climate Change is a "left-wing" thing. It's fairy tale science."

[Kromovaracun]

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

[jim360]

No, even the fact that human activity is a chief driving cause of current Climate Change is well-established. That's not to say that politics inevitably gets dragged into the topic, but then the reverse is also true, and right-wing causes tend to set environmental protection policies back decades even when the scientific results are staring you in the face.

As a side-note, human activity can have measurable impacts even on the most surprising of natural phenomena: the length of a day has measurably increased in the last century directly because of human activity in creating new reservoirs. Not by much, but the very fact that the Earth's rotation is affected by human activity ought to be eye-opening.

[Kromovaracun]

Anyone who believes that man-made climate change is some kind of lefty invention necessarily needs to believe in a conspiracy theory of mind-bending complexity in order for that to be plausible.

[youngmafbog]

"No, even the fact that human activity is a chief driving cause of current Climate Change is well-established."

I disagree. Figures are extrapolated based on a small amount of accurate data, in addition many of these so called 'scientists' are being funded through climate change, so hardly impartial.

There is no proof either way that man is or is not causing any damage, and it most certainly is not causing all the damage.

"Anyone who believes that man-made climate change is some kind of lefty invention "
In a way you are correct, it was a right wing invention by Mrs T to justify Nuclear plants.

[Kromovaracun]

Credit where it's due ymb, that's a new one on me!

[Ellipsis]

> Perhaps why many are looking to Private education Ellipsis, too much liberal left wing teaching in State schools

I think you'll find climate change is taught in private schools too, and even, God forbid, universities like Cambridge. In fact, everywhere except, God forbid, religious schools where science takes a bit of a back seat unless it suits them.

[jim360]

It's a fundamental nonsense to dismiss Climate Science based on sources of funding, especially if you don't apply equal scrutiny to the chief sources of opposition and who is funding them. It's pretty well-known, for example, that CFCs both wrecked the Ozone layer and also contributed to Climate Change in like manner to CO2 emissions -- and it doesn't take a genius to realise that the reason nothing was done for so long was because the companies who sold this compound had a massive vested interest in hushing up that science, or funding politicians to block it. Ditto Lead in petrol, etc., etc.

It takes virtually no time at all, then, to trace opposition to Climate Change back to the vested interests that are Oil Companies, and so on, or to draw a link, to take another example, between Trump's general philosophy on Global Warming and his support for increasing Coal production in the US.

I don't particularly want to go too far down this road, but it's an errant nonsense to criticise Climate Science for being the product of vested interests. And the fact remains that the raw data is far more in-depth and solid than you are giving it credit for.

[jim360]

Also -- a right-wing invention by Mrs T? How can you possibly expect to be taken seriously with such a blatant conspiratorial nonsense of a suggestion? Climate Science predates Mrs T's politics by some time, in point of fact, and has outlived her legacy too.

The only arrogance in this thread is in people who take seriously the idea that five minutes of "research" by looking at right-wing conspiracy websites is any substitute for a career spent understanding the interpretation of scientific theory and data.

[youngmafbog]

"The only arrogance in this thread is in people who take seriously the idea that five minutes of "research" by looking at right-wing conspiracy websites is any substitute for a career spent understanding the interpretation of scientific theory and data."

Ah, your usual condescending attitude strikes again.

You wont listen to any view except those that are wedged in you ideological head.

You are not a stupid person, you must realise it is not possible to prove one way or another if man is affecting climate change.

The Ozone was a different kettle of fish. There was direct indisputable evidence, it was not extrapolated or manipulated as man made climate change is.

What really annoys me is that instead of using disputable figures why dont they use pollution caused by fossil fuels. That is measurable and not disputable.