 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Jonny Jones, how did you find out about what actually happened? Were you there? Did a teacher tell you or is your knowledge purely based upon what your ten year old son has told you? If he lost a class project by flying to Canada, maybe he has embelleshed what was actually said, maybe he is reacting to your questions and telling you what you want to hear. I am just saying this because I can not believe that the teachers would allow what you have described.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Steezy wrote: |
| (so that the big wigs can have beds to lie out on rather than seats and doubtless have grapes popped in to their mouthes as they rest) |
There are seats which don't convert into beds? :shudder:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
Jonny Jones, hopefully the healthy schools person will come and visit your school soon and your son can be a shining example of how to spend a healthy holiday getting lots of exercise, fresh air and experiencing another culture  I think they would find that this is infinitely better than a lot of kids who probably spent their half-terms on playstations etc
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Missed this subject today coz I decided to do some work instead  but in the interests of balanced science pam w,
Teach the kids all sides of the argument and allow them to form an opinion based on all the science not just
| Quote: |
| the most widely accepted version of the science |
The whole problem of almost all contentious debate is that all sides of the arguement are not presented and opinions are formed out of ignorance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
halfhand, Certainly, but it can be difficult to present a non-predjudiced (sp?) view to young children who see things in black and white and have thus far been brought up on a diet of 'nice things', for example try telling a small child raised on a diet of squirrel Nutkin and Peter rabbit that both grey squirrels and rabbits are destructive and in some cases need to be controlled by killing these pretty fluffy creatures. I think the age and maturity of the children being taught is important, and care must be taken that the child doesn't take every comment as de facto just because a grownup visitor is doing the teaching.
Personally, I'm surprised the school allowed such biased teaching, but I know our school often employs the Essex Wildlife Trust to give lectures here and again I'm often worried about the content of what will be taught.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| JDC wrote: |
Sounds like a bit of a laugh to me - maybe taken out of context???
However, with some of the responses on here Im not surprised when I hear about teachers not wanting to take kids on trips for fear that they could get sued by the parents if anything happened to their little dears. |
i am inclined to agree with this... the bbc spout plenty of eco babble, its the accepted norm by governemnt run institutions at the moment.. i had plenty of teachers with radical views.. my history teacher was a full blown communist .. demonised, or asked to stand up as he had the biggest carbon footprint of the year.. hardly child torture.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| CANV CANVINGTON wrote: |
| its the accepted norm by governemnt run institutions at the moment. |
Not in any of the education institutions I've worked with in recent years. Great care is taken to not teach kids what their opinions should be. I think if this talk took place as described in the OP then it's fairly unusual, although sadly not unique.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
I doubt any one was demonised quite in the way described by a loving, genuine and protective father
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is surely about how this is done. Schools regularly discuss difficult issues with children - two obvious ones would be obesity and getting to school. It is entirely possible to discuss these issues without 'demonising' overweight children or those who live 200m away and come to school by car. But many kids will recognise these as serious issues worthy of discussion.
Many skiing children in the families I go with recognise the issues. Of course many fly themselves - they have the common sense approach air travel is an issue and one we will have to face in the end. Many of them give more reasoned answers than the adults on this issue - perhaps because they'd quite like to ski in the future! They don't take it personally and they don't think that we should all just stop flying.
What they don't do is go into wild rants that global warming doesn't exist or is some green conspiracy. The scientific consenus is very clear on this respect and they realise we are better trusting scientific consensus than mad individual theories.
I think you may have an issue with how this was handled but probably not the schools engagement in a really serious issue.
P
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
rayscoops, Why are you having any doubts about this?
It seems very likely to me that it happened exactly as described.
Remember it wasn't the teacher who singled out the child with "the largest carbon footprint", it was the external speaker.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
alex_heney, i am sure the eco-angle was put forward, correctly or not, but I doubt it was delivered in such a demonising way. I recall that such lessons from external sources were supervised/witnessed by a teacher and therefore have my doubts. I can imagine a 10 year old coming home upset after being told their holiday was one that would have the worst impact on the environment ......................
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
velodocuk, the consensus isn't as clear as you may believe.
We all know that greenhouse gases do contribute to a warmer climate but what is not clear is how much. Things are changing with the earth that the climate models aren't predicting, Antartica cooling and ice increasing for the last two years for instance (though the IPCC is trying to claim they said that might happen). There was a step change with the sun that happened in October 2005, since 2006 some scientists are claiming that the actual earth temperature has not just stabilised but has actually dropped. We haven't seen the sun behave like it is now in living memory and if some of the solar scientists are right we could be on the verge of another minimum which could be terrible news. Solar cycle 24 has already had two false starts and looks like it's not ready to start in the near future either, these could be worrying times if we do go into another minimum. Try feeding billions of people with a lot cooler climate.
I totally agree that we should try and cut down on our usage of fossil fuels, we'll have to in the end, and move to renewables. I hate the way we abuse the earth and especially the seas. The trouble is a lot of us don't believe that even with a doubling of the CO2 levels in the earths atmosphere won't lead to drought, floods, famine, the destruction of most of the world and the death of billions.
If we're that bothered about CO2 in the atmosphere we could start by regrowing the whole of Britains forests again that we chopped down to help make the wealth we enjoy today, just don't expect to have the standard of living we have now.
I suppose time will tell who's right, if anyone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
velodocuk - Yeah there couldn't possibly be an agenda behind it. There is no scientific consensus and as for other causes of global warming being a 'mad' individual theory I suggest you reasearch it for yourself rather than believe what the controlled media spoon feeds you. There are many scientists who disagree with the CO2 argument (i suppose you would call them mad for not agreeing with your viewpoint, like you have me), they just haven't been given the same amount of exposure as the CO2 group.
Do really believe that a gas that makes up less than 1% of our atmosphere is what is causing our planet to warm up? I'm very interested to hear your opinions on previously frozen areas on uninhabited planets thawing. As far as I'm aware our CO2 can't get to their atmospheres and I don't know of any coal fired power stations that aren't on this planet (I'm more than willing to be corrected). It is a documented fact that the sun is heating up, what keeps our planet from freezing over? It is a documented fact that it was a lot warmer in the middle ages than it is now (no planes, power stations, cars etc then). Just because what I am proposing is different from what you have been led to believe, should you really write off my opinions as insane?
My personal opinion is that the deforestation of the planet for the purposes of cattle grazing is more of a threat than the CO2 from planes, trains and automobiles. The rainforests are the lungs of the planet enabling it to deal naturally with CO2. Unfortunately this would severly impact the opening of a new McDonalds every 2 days if they couldn't get enough cows ar*eholes for their patties. The negative of this is that it doesn't sit well with rampant capitalism - whereas stay home and spend your money there does.
I am not anti-green as you can gather if you read my posts, I prefer to do my own research in to things and try and make my own informed opinion rather than just accept what is provided for me. I recycle, I try to buy ethically (very difficult when you learn of the activities of practically every major corporation), I don't agree with GM foods but I believe the CO2 story to be a cover for carbon trading for profit. If indeed there is one day a scientific consensus then I am more than willing to change my views but unfortunately after looking at Enron and the manipulation of energy for profit by Ken Lay (one of George Bush's good mates) I can see the dollar signs behind it.
If there is no scientific consensus (which there clearly isn't) then both sides of the argument should be proposed, otherwise it is indoctrination. If you think I am mad for wanting my children to make up their own minds and be presented with all of the relevant facts then please forward me a jacket with the long sleeves at your earliest convenience.
Remember a mind is like a parachute, it only works when it's open.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Did they ask the kids who did or did not wear helmets 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
rayscoops, I have known a number of cases where teachers have been incensed by some of the things like that done/said by external "speakers".
That's why I don't have all that much doubt.
The teachers will certainly witness it, but don't have any real control over it. And it is hard to "undemonise" (yes I know that's not a word!) afterwards without emphasising exactly what you don't want to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
I don't know,
.......I can just imagine a 10 year old coming home a bit sheepish, and daddy says what is wrong, and the 10 year old says 'I came last in class because i am killing the planet', daddy says 'who told you that'. 10 year old says 'the teacher did cause we went to Canada skiing', daddy says 'how dare he, I can go on holiday where ever i like and no one is going to tell me otherwise, what else did he say', 10 year old getting a bit more confident says 'well, becasue we flew so far we are helping to kill the planet, and it is all my fault because we went the furthest by plane', daddy now getting indignant 'well we will see bout that, Marge - pass the riding crop I am heading up that school right now' ........
alternatively
.......I can just imagine a 10 year old coming home happy, and daddy says 'good day in school?', and the 10 year old says 'I came first in class and am helping to save the the planet', daddy says 'who told you that'. 10 year old says 'the teacher did cause we went by car to Morzine skiing', daddy says 'yes well that was the cheapest option, I can go on holiday where ever i like and would have preferred Canada but it was too expensive, what else did he say', 10 year old getting a bit more confident says 'well, becasue we went by car we are helping to save the planet, and we should think about how far we go on holiday by plane, daddy now getting proud say 'well that sounds very thoughful, Marge - I am heading up that school right now to say thanks for such a good lesson' ........
I tend to take what 10 year olds say with a pinch of salt. if it was the supervising teacher who said it I agree with everyone else
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| rayscoops wrote: |
| if it was the supervising teacher who said it I agree with everyone else |
I think most people are suggesting that s/he or the head teacher should be the first port of call.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
rayscoops - can you imagine a 10 year old coming home and saying we had a visitor in school today and they put forward some very interesting points about the environment but I'm not convinced that they are correct after the alternative view was provided to me? It's not only the divisive nature of the splitting of the class in to good greenies and world killers that is the only problem, it is the fact it is based on something that is not even agreed upon by experts in the field and only one side of the argument was provided. It is very easy to get 10 year olds to believe pretty much anything if you only provide one side of an argument (especially in a school environment delivered by an 'authority' on the subject). Wouldn't the fact that there is an intrinsic link between these issues and politics make this topic more suitable for secondary school pupils who would be more likely to have the faculties to understand the unspoken implications.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| rayscoops wrote: |
I tend to take what 10 year olds say with a pinch of salt. if it was the supervising teacher who said it I agree with everyone else |
I would if it had been anything as generic as you suggested.
But the OP was very specific about what had been said and by who. Which to my mind, makes it much more crdible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
[quote="rayscoops"]I don't know,
.......I can just imagine a 10 year old coming home a bit sheepish, and daddy says what is wrong, and the 10 year old says 'I came last in class because i am killing the planet', daddy says 'who told you that'. 10 year old says 'the teacher did cause we went to Canada skiing', daddy says 'how dare he, I can go on holiday where ever i like and no one is going to tell me otherwise, what else did he say', 10 year old getting a bit more confident says 'well, becasue we flew so far we are helping to kill the planet, and it is all my fault because we went the furthest by plane', daddy , daddy,,,DADDY are listening to me or watching the football!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A bit of ridicule is all part of school life.
It is mostly other kids doing the ridiculing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steezy, ..... just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean the're not out to get you .....
Good post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
The teacher should have given the class plenty of time to prepare a defense. Their are two sides to every coin and its certainly possible to enjoy skiing without harming the enviorment too much!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steezy, we do not know what was actually said and neither, with respect, does Jonny Jones, unless we hear otherwise. I am not doubting that his son may have been upset but there again the OP does not really say this, and yes Jonny Jones should have a word with the school if he wants, but kids come home upset from school due to lots of reasons, get made to stand in the corner with a dunces hat on (well in my day anyway) etc, get questions wrong and feel humiliated.
Are we saying it is wrong to teach kids that air travel contributes to global warming? if so what about religion and Adam & Eve? and all other sorts of dubious accounts of history?
Here in Wales we have TV adverts with kids pushing the recycling thing to save the planet ('it is our future' is the punch line), and a similar lesson could have been set up to see who recycles the most ...... there would be winners and losers so what is the problem?
I just feel that making kids aware of issues by way of practical matters that they can relate to does not actually demonise them and a mountain is being made of a mole hill. In case we have forgotten what the original post was, here it is again
Quote - This week my 10 year-old's school arranged for some environmental campaigners to bring their propaganda into the classroom. The thrust of their message was that you wouldn't fly if you cared about the environment.
The campaigner asked the kids to put up their hand if they'd taken a flight over half term. Each child was then asked how far they'd flown to find out who'd caused the most environmental damage. As we went to Canada, my son won the contest and the class was told that he was the naughtiest.
Am I right to be angry? Do children have a right to ski without being publicly humiliated?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Im pretty concerned that they are teaching this in school, particularly to 10 year olds. This is a trick used in religion to get children indoctrinated before they can form decisions of there own.
I speculate there is an agenda in the pro-Global warming camp to spread the FUD to that age group.
There is a document about, somewhere, that the a Pro-global warming group (Might even be government sponsored) explains how to talk to people about Global Warming. The main theme of the paper is to not to have a rational volley type discussion but dismiss any counter arguments as irrelevant and no longer need debated as Global warming is as good as proven.
Bad science eh?
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
Rayscoops - I think you'll find that evolution is also taught in schools in order to balance the teaching of creationism (although I think that it is biased towards evolution as it is taught as a science as opposed to creationism as part of a religion, I believe in intelligent design myself but that is my personal choice based on what i believe after looking at the arguments pro and con).
There are dubious accounts of history taught in schools, for instance has it been taught in schools that the Rothschilds engineered a stock market collapse after the battle of Waterloo in order to buy up everything they could get their greedy hands on at rock bottom prices? He who wins the wars decides what the history should be, I was never taught that in school but does it make it any less relevant (I think it was Orwell that said 'he who controls the present controls the past, he who controls the past controls the future' or something like that). How many people carry on through their lives without questioning anything that they are told on the news/in the papers? ID cards that are being proposed are the very same thing that made the genocide in Rwanda so easy/efficient, the government say it will counter terrorism, how? Perhaps I am overly cynical but my personal opinion is that it is healthier to be overly cynical than overly believing.
I just want to make my own mind up about things rather than having someone tell me what to think and I would like to help pass that as a legacy to my kids. Sorry if it offends 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
rayscoops is right.
The original heading of this thread ...
| Jonny Jones wrote: |
| Environmental campaigners demonise skiing kids |
... is contradicted by the first posting ...
| Jonny Jones wrote: |
| The campaigner asked the kids to put up their hand if they'd taken a flight over half term. |
... which shows that there was one (claimed) campaigner, and we're not told who mounted this "campaign".
The word "demonise" seems highly pejorative, and based on a secondhand report of what happened. I see no reason why teachers and educators shouldn't draw on children's real-life experiences to sharpen their awareness of cause and effect, and I'd be surprised if anyone set out to be accusatory.
Clearly the next generation of humans may benefit from the impartial consensus science which led to the Kyoto Protocol and subsequent revelations about the climate ... since this generation is leaving the children with such a terrible legacy of governmental inaction.
There is very little scientific dissent from the consensus opinion that global warming is manmade, in the main.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Steezy wrote: |
Rayscoops - I think you'll find that evolution is also taught in schools in order to balance the teaching of creationism (although I think that it is biased towards evolution as it is taught as a science as opposed to creationism as part of a religion, I believe in intelligent design myself but that is my personal choice based on what i believe after looking at the arguments pro and con).
There are dubious accounts of history taught in schools, for instance has it been taught in schools that the Rothschilds engineered a stock market collapse after the battle of Waterloo in order to buy up everything they could get their greedy hands on at rock bottom prices? He who wins the wars decides what the history should be, I was never taught that in school but does it make it any less relevant (I think it was Orwell that said 'he who controls the present controls the past, he who controls the past controls the future' or something like that). How many people carry on through their lives without questioning anything that they are told on the news/in the papers? ID cards that are being proposed are the very same thing that made the genocide in Rwanda so easy/efficient, the government say it will counter terrorism, how? Perhaps I am overly cynical but my personal opinion is that it is healthier to be overly cynical than overly believing.
I just want to make my own mind up about things rather than having someone tell me what to think and I would like to help pass that as a legacy to my kids. Sorry if it offends |
I agree with everything you say above, i am just making the point that a 10 year kid coming home from school and recounting a 'practical' lesson to his father does not necessarily mean that the kid has been demonised for skiing in Canada.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
[quote="rayscoops
I tend to take what 10 year olds say with a pinch of salt. [/quote]
Why? Are all 10 year olds liars?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
David - Yes and we should all go to Live Earth concerts organised by Steven Rockerfeller as I'm sure he doesn't make any long haul flights (even if he did I'm sure he'd sit with us proles in economy class rather than in business class or a private jet). They are duplicitous in their very nature and I'm afraid I'm not buying it.
The trading in carbon offsets couldn't possibly be a hidden method of stripping more money from the average joe and syphoning it to those who least need it, they wouldn't do that to us they are our government, they work for us.
I think you should check out the effects of depleted uranium shells that are littered around the middle east if you want to see a legacy of government ACTION. Check out http://www.cadu.org.uk/info/health/8_3.htm before you start telling me our government is trying to help the future of the planet.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, there is between 0.02% and 0.03% of our atmosphere that is CO2, only 20% of that is caused by fossil fuels (check it for yourself I'm not making it up). Also google for the middle ages warm period and solar warming. Just because they tell you something doesn't mean it's so, Hitler started the Reichstadt fire and blamed it on someone else, google Operation Northwoods and see what the US government was planning for Cuba, have a look at the declassified 'Gulf of Tonkin' documents. Open your eyes and work it out for yourself
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| ickabodblue wrote: |
[quote="rayscoops
I tend to take what 10 year olds say with a pinch of salt. |
Why? Are all 10 year olds liars?[/quote]
no but they have wonderful imaginations and they also get the hump if any one suuggests they can not go to Canada skiing next year (and daddy does)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
There is very little scientific dissent from the consensus opinion that global warming is manmade, in the main. |
How on earth can a reasonably intelligent, reasonably well educated man say that without a smiley?
You must be using a very odd definition of "very little".
In reality, there is even significant scientific dissent from the consensus view that global warming is even happening - which is part of the reason why the current phrase tends to be "Climate Change", rather than "Global Warming".
And there is huge dissent about what proportion of any climate changes are the result of our activities.
While the majority opinion is certainly that man's activities are having a significant effect, I'm not even convinced that a majority (never mind a large enough majority to be called a consensus) think it is "manmade, in the main".
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Latchigo - that's the puppy, sneaky bugs ain't they. But of course we can trust them all now and not worry that they are funding a lot of the research in to global warming. Check out http://jonesreport.com/articles/050707_rothschild_global.html of course when he goes on his adventures he f***** swims there rather than taking a plane. It's soooooo funny when it all clicks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| There is very little scientific dissent from the consensus opinion that global warming is manmade, in the main. |
Here is an open letter to the UN secretary-general with a fairly impressive list of IPCC-dissenting scientist signatories.
"Consensus" is a very misused word in this debate. The IPCC statement most often quoted as a "consensus" is the following:
| IPCC wrote: |
Most of the observed increase in globally-averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely
due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. |
In other words, on the question of the amount of warming caused by greenhouse gases, there's a 100% spread in the opinions of the scientists taking part in the process. And they allow themselves a pretty large slice of wiggle-room: they define "very likely" as 90% probability; therefore, they are saying there's a 10% chance the proportion is between 0 and 50%. I think "agreement to differ" is a more accurate description than "consensus" for that. I wouldn't want to fly in a plane constructed on principles for which there was such a "consensus".
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
What the IPCC that is part funded by the UN, that reside in a bilding on land donated by one of the Rockerfellers? That IPCC?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Laundryman - they don't count as they aren't singing from the right hymnsheet
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
