Body & Soul0 min ago
Will Ukip Voters Casually Ignore Education Tampering?
37 Answers
UKIP announces plans to ban education about global warming in schools. Specifically, they want to stop screenings of Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth
http://
To a certain extent, I am not massively worried about such a ban: -
i) My education taught me the basics about weather systems and terrain-related climate factors. Also about the carbon cycle, the water cycle, the greenhouse effect (only in as far as explaining why the earth is not an iceball, given its distance from the sun). There was *nothing whatsoever* about global warming taught in those days.
ii) I have not actually watched the Al Gore film myself: I didn't really need to, as I'd seen plenty of evidence accumulating since the first glacier retreat stories, in the 80s.
So, the nub of my question is that here is another political party wanting the power to tell us what we can or cannot teach our kids: should we allow them to do this?
If you are contemplating voting UKIP, would this policy be a clincher or a dealbreaker?
http://
To a certain extent, I am not massively worried about such a ban: -
i) My education taught me the basics about weather systems and terrain-related climate factors. Also about the carbon cycle, the water cycle, the greenhouse effect (only in as far as explaining why the earth is not an iceball, given its distance from the sun). There was *nothing whatsoever* about global warming taught in those days.
ii) I have not actually watched the Al Gore film myself: I didn't really need to, as I'd seen plenty of evidence accumulating since the first glacier retreat stories, in the 80s.
So, the nub of my question is that here is another political party wanting the power to tell us what we can or cannot teach our kids: should we allow them to do this?
If you are contemplating voting UKIP, would this policy be a clincher or a dealbreaker?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Hypognosis. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
Svejk, it is a little difficult to respond to a bald statement like Al Gore is a conman, global warming by man's contribution is a con, the Sun goes round the Earth etc, unless the proponent gives at least a little of what they believe is evidence to support the statement. Doing that may create 'reasoned debate'. This right winger, for one, finds a statement without a reason as unreasoned in debate.
Focussing on whether Al Gore is a conman, or the merits of his film, is beside the point. "Ban all teaching about global warming" is the operative term here. Whether you think it's a reality or not, it is a major issue and trying to ban discussion of it in schools would be rather daft.
Banning religion in schools would be the next step but somehow I doubt if that would be on the agenda.
Banning religion in schools would be the next step but somehow I doubt if that would be on the agenda.
@ichkeria
//It's funny how many UKIP members "don't speak for the party". Is Nigel the only one who actually does (?!)//
I suspect so. Someone on telly recently posed the question of what becomes of the party if he were to go under a bus, to which other panellists replied that "it would probably implode".
I get the impression that they've collected all manner of rejects and bail-outs from other parties, so there all manner of 'divergent' viewpoints which have never been subject to correction by peers before and never get aired in public unless and until a journalist happens to poke them with the right stick to provoke an outburst.
Farrago is then obliged to roll out the old "doesn't speak for the party", chesnut.
It's an object lesson in how to get a political party off the ground (badly). Maybe you'd need to go through two or three annual conferences in order to thash out common beliefs and rejected beliefs and only then open up to media scrutiny.
//It's funny how many UKIP members "don't speak for the party". Is Nigel the only one who actually does (?!)//
I suspect so. Someone on telly recently posed the question of what becomes of the party if he were to go under a bus, to which other panellists replied that "it would probably implode".
I get the impression that they've collected all manner of rejects and bail-outs from other parties, so there all manner of 'divergent' viewpoints which have never been subject to correction by peers before and never get aired in public unless and until a journalist happens to poke them with the right stick to provoke an outburst.
Farrago is then obliged to roll out the old "doesn't speak for the party", chesnut.
It's an object lesson in how to get a political party off the ground (badly). Maybe you'd need to go through two or three annual conferences in order to thash out common beliefs and rejected beliefs and only then open up to media scrutiny.
@TTT
The AGW side have upwards of 40 different computerised models of global climate. When post 1850 human CO2 emissions are removed, the cyclical weather variations respond to all the expected effects of geography, sunspot cycles and the pattern for the past 200 years looks not unlike the 200 years prior to that and so on. The Maunder minimum (London ice fairs etc) breaks the pattern but is a known quantity and illustrates just how influential sunspot numbers are (although no-one has got a handle on the explanation for this yet).
There are other known inputs, like volcanic eruptions and the AGW models also reflect their effects (SO2 aerosols and ash particulates reaching high altitude cause globally significant cooling effects because they reflect some incoming sunlight back into space).
Put the post 1850 emissions into the model and the upward temperature trend matches observed values quite well. (Nobody's perfect). The fluctuations (reductions) from volcano eruptions are still in the mix but the dips are being dwarfed by the temperature rise.
Anyway, enough about them, how many computer models have the deniers' side got running at present? Where are they publishing their results?
The AGW side have upwards of 40 different computerised models of global climate. When post 1850 human CO2 emissions are removed, the cyclical weather variations respond to all the expected effects of geography, sunspot cycles and the pattern for the past 200 years looks not unlike the 200 years prior to that and so on. The Maunder minimum (London ice fairs etc) breaks the pattern but is a known quantity and illustrates just how influential sunspot numbers are (although no-one has got a handle on the explanation for this yet).
There are other known inputs, like volcanic eruptions and the AGW models also reflect their effects (SO2 aerosols and ash particulates reaching high altitude cause globally significant cooling effects because they reflect some incoming sunlight back into space).
Put the post 1850 emissions into the model and the upward temperature trend matches observed values quite well. (Nobody's perfect). The fluctuations (reductions) from volcano eruptions are still in the mix but the dips are being dwarfed by the temperature rise.
Anyway, enough about them, how many computer models have the deniers' side got running at present? Where are they publishing their results?
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.