Skip to content

Examples Of Brainwashing

April 9, 2014

By Paul Homewood

 

I briefly mentioned the GWPF report yesterday, concerning climate change brainwashing in schools.

The full report can be found at GWPF’s website here. It is by necessity very detailed, but the Executive Summary is well worth a read, if you have not already seen it.

 

But I thought I’d show some of the examples found, to give some of the flavour.

Let’s start with this example from the  “GCSE Geography AQA A (Student Book)”, which begins its description of the climate change question with a paragraph that would not have looked out of place in a Greenpeace pamphlet:

Climate change isn’t something that is going to happen in the future – it’s happening now! Disasters, like the severe droughts in Niger, in sub- Saharan Africa, in 2005–6 and 2009, are wrecking people’s lives more and more frequently. And it’s going to get worse. 

The book also includes a section about how individual children can help reduce greenhouse gases, suggesting that they join 10:10, an organisation best known for a controversial video campaign that vividly portrayed the violent death of two children at the hands of their teacher, when their parents refused to accept the teacher’s demands for action in response to her concerns about energy usage and global warming.

 

The text in GCSEGeography forWJEC: a Revision Guide makes several highly dubious statements, for example claiming that there has been an increase in the number and intensity of tropical storms, directly contradicting the IPCC, which says that there is low confidence that any such increase has taken place. The book’s section on the impacts of climate change features a mind map that suggests that global warming will be worse than famine, plague or nuclear war (see Figure 1). This has been taken directly from a pamphlet published by a ‘passionate’ green activist.

 

image

 

 

Some geography textbooks make passing mention of the existence of dissenting points of view, but these are often then dismissed. An example comes in GCSE Geography A AQA :

 The climate is changing – global warming is happening. It’s just that a handful of people think some of the evidence isn’t great. There are other things that cause climate change, but let’s face it,we humans better take the rap this time.

Even worse was this characterisation, from A2 Level Geography AQA Complete Revision & Practice :

All scientists care about is evidence…All these graphs can be mighty confusing, especially when people manipulate the data to try to show that climate change isn’t happening.

 

Propaganda also finds its way into the Biology curriculum, in the Revision Guide:

There’s too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and burning fossil fuels…is making the problem worse. Luckily there are some biofuels out there that we can use, which are carbon neutral.

No mention is made in the guide about the damaging effect on food production.

[You might also have thought biology lessons would teach pupils that plants need CO2 to live!]

 

English lessons are not immune either!

The CGP English Revision guide for GCSE English mentions global warming three times, for example the extract shown in Table 1, explaining effective use of adjectives:

 

image

 

Or French!

In a Heinemann textbook for A Level French, students are asked to study an open letter by a French environmentalist to schoolchildren:

 

image

 

Examinations and mark schemes

Just as worrying is that mindless repetition of the global warming mantra is the fact that exam marks depend on it.

A number of examination boards have repositories of past and example papers, together with examiners’ reports and these are revealing as to the emphasis given to global warming in exams. The following section is a review of materials in the repository of the AQA exam board:

 

AQA repository

A search of the AQA past paper repository returned 526 documents containing the expression ‘global warming’ and 391 containing the expression ‘climate change’, spanning a wide range of subjects. For example, the expression ‘global warming’ could be found in papers on economics, chemistry, geography, religious studies, physics, French, humanities, biology, citizenship, English and science.

 

One example, from an Economics paper,was particularly egregious, assuming in essence that a particular political response was beyond question:

 

 Explain why developed rich countries should provide money to poorer, developing countries so that they can reduce their CO2 emissions.

 

Questions on global warming also appeared in a paper on religious studies:

 

(b) Explain two reasons why many religious believers are concerned about climate change. (4 marks) …

(d) Explain actions religious people might take to look after the planet. (3 marks)

The mark scheme for part (b) of this question suggests awarding marks for:

The effects of climate change on life, e.g. loss of life, food shortages, devastation of livelihoods because of severe weather, droughts, floods, famine, destruction of crops, effects on plants and animals/long term effects/ religious reasons – stewardship, dominion, responsibility, etc.

While for part (d), marks were to be awarded for such things as:

 Avoid polluting the world/recycle/reduce carbon footprint – reduce use of car, use renewable energy, turn off lights, use energy saving bulbs/ encourage sustainable development/plant trees/protest when necessary/ join action groups such as Greenpeace and religious organisations which raise awareness/encourage others to protect the planet, etc.

 

Global warming also featured prominently in Humanities, for example:

 2. (e) Explain two ways in which global warming can be reduced. Use your own studies to answer. (4 marks)

The marking scheme for this question suggested:

 Max 2 marks for each of the two ways:

1 mark for identification and 1 mark for explanation or development.

Ways of reducing global warming include: reducing the amount of greenhouse gases we produce; taking action through international agreements such as the Kyoto Protocols; producing energy in cleaner ways; reducing individuals’ energy consumption, e.g. by better insulation of homes, recycling, using public transport rather than our own cars.

 

 

 

Footnote

If anybody has other examples of exam questions, coursework etc, please send over, and I will post .

22 Comments
  1. April 9, 2014 4:59 pm

    As AQA rears its head again (and not in an encouraging way), you may be interested in these two threads from a few years ago, when I was concerned about what was on my boys’ syllabus:

    http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=340 – ‘What the hell are we doing to our children?’

    http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=446 – ‘Children, schools, and climate change: the next stage’

    I’m sharing these where this topic crops up as things do not seem to be improving much, so my concerns remain.

    • April 9, 2014 11:49 pm

      I read through your first link to this:

      “21. Which of the following three do you think will actually happen? Write a paragraph to explain your answer.”

      Here is my answer:

      Actually, c. will happen in a few billion years. Well the part about the oceans evaporating due to the expansion of the Sun at least. Humans could survive this if they vacate Earth (assuming we haven’t already dies off).

      • April 10, 2014 11:02 am

        It was a while ago so I can’t actually recall what the actual ‘correct’ answer was, if I asked and was answered. I do know a teacher, a decent sort, admitted that they often have to teach this subject on parallel tracks, one to pass the exams and the other to retain a semblance of sensible education in the kids’ heads. Whilst better than nothing, I was still worried this was a totally unfair burden of time and technique-juggling they were having to endure when the stress levels and grade boundaries are already daft.

  2. winter37 permalink
    April 9, 2014 5:40 pm

    I love science,and I wonder who the children will blame when hopefully they discover that they have been lied to.I think that a letter to Mr. Gove asking for an explanation is called for .
    These children when they become adults will never become Geologists or Process Engineers.Well,not in the real world anyway.

  3. Keitho permalink
    April 9, 2014 7:22 pm

    This is the scary thing. We all debate and research and argue our points while the other side simply capture the next generation.

    My granddaughter put up a well researched and logically argued case against the man made CO2 basis for climate change. Her teacher was so horrified that she insisted my granddaughter apologised to the whole school, staff and students, in assembly. A kind of a communist chinese act of public contrition for not believing ( their word ) in AGW.

    That was in South Africa two years ago. This virus is everywhere. Fortunately she refused and whilst she got a failing grade for that term she still got to keep her integrity and great grades when she graduated high school.

    p.s. she can debate climate science with the best of them and has made many young people see the problems with this “settled and robust science” .

    • April 9, 2014 11:40 pm

      “she insisted my granddaughter apologised to the whole school, staff and students, in assembly.”

      That is truly disturbing. If that happened to one of my children, I’m not exactly sure what me reaction would be.

  4. Joe Public permalink
    April 9, 2014 7:34 pm

    Whilst the amount of blatant propaganda is worrying, the brightest kids will realise that and actually rebel against it.

    However, the Question Setters should be brought to task.

    Conundrum of the week: If a question which turns out to be factually incorrect was asked, and at the time was answered ‘wrongly’ so received no marks, may the student now sue someone because s/he actually provided the factually ‘correct’ answer?

    Answers on a postcard to M Gove, HOC.

    • J Martin permalink
      April 9, 2014 9:37 pm

      Judges would likely argue that as that was the received wisdom at the time, then even though recieved wisdom at the time of the trial may now be the opposite, thus the official exam answers at the time would be upheld and no damages would be paid.

      • Joe Public permalink
        April 10, 2014 8:04 am

        Perhaps the student had retained more received wisdom than the question setter?

  5. JustAnotherPoster permalink
    April 9, 2014 8:44 pm

    Apparently global warming causes more earthquakes. Look at the diagram.

    • April 10, 2014 11:09 am

      No doubt due to the change in distribution of mass due to melting ice and rising sea levels.

  6. JustAnotherPoster permalink
    April 9, 2014 8:46 pm

    Global warming worse than famine, plague and global nuclear war ? Really ?

    That diagram HAS to become the poster child for the skeptic cause. It needs wide circulation. It’s insane.

  7. Doug Brodie permalink
    April 9, 2014 9:24 pm

    Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 16:25:21 +0000 To: doug_brodie@hotmail.com

  8. J Martin permalink
    April 9, 2014 9:27 pm

    (b) Explain two reasons why many religious believers are concerned about climate change. (4 marks)

    Answer :- because they tend to be gullible.

    (d) Explain actions religious people might take to look after the planet. (3 marks)

    Answer :- Depart this mortal coil.

    2. (e) Explain two ways in which global warming can be reduced. Use your own studies to answer. (4 marks)

    Answers :- Wait for solar cycle 25. Ask Star Trek Enterprise, or Q, or their God to move planet Earth further away from the sun. ( I would have said, use technology to increase cloud cover, but co2 loons think that clouds have a net warming effect).

  9. J Martin permalink
    April 9, 2014 9:28 pm

    PS. Can I have my Nobel Prize now ?

    • Markon permalink
      April 10, 2014 3:20 pm

      No, you’ve been brainwashed to believe religous people are anti-science, who were painted that way by the same types as those pushing AGW.

      • Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter) permalink
        April 11, 2014 9:32 am

        This Roman Catholic skeptic, with a degree in geology, is right there with you! *cheers*

  10. A C Osborn permalink
    April 10, 2014 9:52 am

    It is called Brain Washing and it really works, my 20 year old nephew firmly believes all of it and “Facts” won’t change his mind now. It is really sad and very disturbing, the mere fact that they tried to make An Inconvenient Truth part of the curriculum should have been warning enough.

  11. April 10, 2014 10:37 am

    The irony is that most of the children in school have never experienced “global warming” or “climate change”.
    The problem is, they haven’t been around long enough to have experienced much “weather” either, so most will be easily convinced, especially if their exam results depend on it.
    Why are “climate change” activists allowed to make unsubstantiated claims when “sceptics” don’t get a look in.

  12. April 10, 2014 7:23 pm

    Reblogged this on Bobertelliott's Blog.

  13. 4TimesAYear permalink
    April 12, 2014 6:36 am

    Reblogged this on 4timesayear's Blog.

  14. April 12, 2014 2:16 pm

    Thanks, Paul. Good article.
    An increase in the number and intensity of tropical storms, not only directly contradicts the IPCC, it contradicts what nature has been doing.

    From the open letter to the community from Chris Landsea (Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory, University of Colorado. January 17, 2005):
    “It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth’s role as the IPCC’s Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity.”
    See http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: