A Teachers’ Guide to Miseducating the Young
By Paul Homewood
Tony Thomas reports on how kids are being brainwashed down under:
The national primary-school English teachers’ association has launched a climate propaganda blitz on the 5- to 14-years-olds placed in their care. The teachers’ just-released manual spruiks intermittent wind and solar and demands an end to coal-fired electricity and fossil fuels. As notes to the manual say,
Chapter 9 is a call for action. Without students taking personal action to mitigate climate change, there is no point to this book.”(P4)
It’s an error-ridden 174-page blueprint that quarantines kids from any acknowledgement that costly wind and solar farms must be backed up by 24-7 baseload power.
The blueprint would have kids chanting North Korean-style “an Earth-focused school or class ‘anthem’ at assemblies. (This) is a great way to build emotional attachment to the planet” (P154). The authors suggest such lyrics as
Earth is getting warmer, oceans rising higher
Storms are growing stronger, floods and fire
We know about the dangers, know there must be changes
The future is in our hands
Full story here.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Child abuse.
Earth is recovering from a damaging Little Ice Age, oceans slowly rise as it does and always have. Storms are getting fewer, floods and fire calming down.
But that’s just the truth.
The truth is not allowed out in today’s world of socialist propaganda.
So true. Just as we were coming out of the Pleistocene Epoch’s last ice age, there was the bounce back into it. Known as the Younger Dryas, it was a sudden return to glacial conditions some 12,900 years ago. It lasted about 1200 years. England’s mean annual temperature dropped to −5 °C (23 °F). Now that’s chilly.
It has been posited that a huge freshwater lake created by melting glaciers in the St. Lawrence of southern Canada area suddenly drained into the Atlantic when the ice dams gave away. This huge influx of fresh cold water is thought to have been caused a decline in the strength of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation, which transports warm water from the Equator towards the North Pole.
I cannot imagine very many English teachers trying to implement this, especially since the students are taking science classes at the same time. It is more funny than scary.
Miseducating the young and inadequate statistics education for climate scientists.
Do these green dolts not know there is no chance the UK, with negligible greenhouse gas outputcould usefully decarbonise?
…or that it could be afforded?
The mysterious weirdness of the climate movement will one day reveal itself one hopes.
I don’t suppose the teachers will show the gridwatch website as that would give the lie to wind and solar being despatchable and reliable.
Wind generation in particular has been lamentable for the past three days in providing just over 1% of limited demand.
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk
Perhaps those Down Under younsters could learn Dorothea Mackellar’s best known poem and chant about the “droughts and flooding rains” afflicting “My Country” in 1911.
It goes much deeper than this pseudo religious nonsense. This allegedly mature website is a typical example of the huge quantity of just pure deliberately misleading propaganda.
https://www.c2es.org/content/main-greenhouse-gases/
I have personally been told by a Grammar school teacher that water vapour ( amazingly completely absent from the above website list) is not even a gas!
So he says “water vapour is not a gas, so it’s not a greenhouse gas”
Does it matter ? The vapour is fine droplets of water in the air, and does have have a greenhouse effect.
Sure it’s not a gas but if you want to reduce the greenhouse effect you have to reduce greenhouse *agents*, whether they are gases or not.
The scientists are being slack by using the term Greenhouse gases.
No Stew, water vapour is an invisible gas so the teacher was completely wrong in every sense. Water vapour is also the dominant greenhouse gas. Fine droplets of water or atmospheric ice are clouds.
[the Grammar School teacher is reported as saying] ‘it’s not a gas, so…’
But Ray actually wrote the quote as ‘it’s not even [sic] a gas, so…’
The triumphal use of the word ‘even’ is what might mark out the teacher as
a fool. For, in Dictionaries of Chemistry, the word ‘vapour’ is defined as ‘a condensable gas.’
Misuse of scientific terms always leads to hopeless confusion. Apparent misuse should be queried immediately. “Did you really mean X, or were you speaking casually?” If the teacher had responded “Oh, yes! I do know that water has different physical phases while in the air, and that this matters. But I did not know that we wanted to emphasize the differences in this discussion…” that would have been perfectly fine. Of course, as often as not, the query will disclose that the person whom you are talking with does not know enough to be worth talking with.
The word vapour originally meant a bodily exhalation. So the idea involved warmth and odour, rather than wetness.. However, In cold weather you can ‘see’ the exhalation. Hence the extension of meaning in common parlance to a fine mist.
“The teachers’ just-released manual spruiks”
“spruiks is the Australian word for promote
i.e. There’s a new manual for teachers, which promotes intermittent wind and solar, as if they are God’s gift.
I wish Aussies wouldn’t assume that the word “spruik” is part-and-parcel of the wider English vocabulary – when it is very much an Aussie peculiarity.
(Another such peculiarly Aussie word is “rort” which means scam or fraud.)
Political activism is rife in English school curricula. For example, chapter 2 of a GCSE Science text is all about … Air Pollution. No doubt this is the second most important science topic for Green Party activists, and their primary topic (global warming) is also there, but is it really the second most important part of Science.
Topicality is the Trojan Horse that allows the creation of a new generation of political activists.
Belief in dangerous AGW is yet another belief system; most belief systems require indoctrination e.g. kids chanting in school. Most belief systems are dangerous.
The topic of “dumbing down” of qualifications seems to have dumbed down as low as the exams. This website gives the “O” level Physics paper of 1964.
http://tanfield-association.org/W3/exam_papers.php
If you have a look and compare it with the GCSE Physics paper of 2019 from here https://www.aqa.org.uk/find-past-papers-and-mark-schemes
there is not even a remote comparison in difficulty. I would argue the 1964 O level is as hard as a modern day A level, the modern day GSCE is so risibly easy it clearly does not indicate any ability in the subject.
So I guess the end result is that if you are not going to actually teach a subject to a good standard then you have plenty of time available to indoctrinate those who you have ensured know no better.
In northern climes much use of power is in household heating. Modern technologies incorporated into house designs to produce passive homes or as near as possible could greatly reduce the need for power. But you don’t get common sense combined with mysterious political agendas which pretend to be one thing while actually promoting another.
If I was a teacher with the objective of encouraging 5year olds to be aware of the wasteful use of power of our present culture I would ask the kids to dream up house designs which needed less electricity – and showing them effective simple historical designs solving problems of not enough heat/too much heat/need for water etc.
Ancient Roman homes captured and filtered rainwater for household use and also helped cool the house.
Ancient Egyptians used light wells.
Northern Stone Age Britons could insulate their homes in the worst climate conditions with the simplest materials.
Just a few examples – and none using power.
Perhaps 5 year olds could learn something from history and the study of relevant architecture past and present – for which they would need to be literate, numerate, artistic and able to think innovatively.
With the modern technologies at our disposal why has intelligent house design been virtually ignored? If houses were close to self-sufficient in power – people would also be near self sufficient, independent from the state, and paying less taxes and fuel bills to profiteering political cronies?
The last people in the world to solve any real problems are the political puppet class.