PRE -ADDENDUM by Junkk Male - A view from Dilbert
Further to the previous post and discussion on Al Gore's film and the court case which attempted to prevent it from being shown in schools; this from The Guardian provides some interesting information.
I'll leave it for you the reader to draw your own conclusions.
This is the slant The Times took yesterday on some of the same information.
Addendum:
Good Lies / Bad Lies - A useful summary from the excellent Brendan O’Neill of Spiked.
‘A good lie will have travelled half way around the world while the truth is putting on her boots.’ (Mark Twain)
Addendum 2 (from Junkk Male) - Climate deniers to send film to British schools - Now, I could say I thought as much, but I won't. I'll just write it. The cause of rational debate is helped how again?
Response (from Dave):
AIT is shown in schools at the instruction of our own government's education department. An extreme right wing group is free to create and send in as much propaganda as it wishes. But it just won't get shown unless otherwise instructed at governmental level.
Addendum 3 (from Dave):
I always like to wait for the views of someone that I respect as a genuine scientist. This from MediaLens is the personal evaluation of Professor John Shepherd of the National Oceanography Centre, University of Southampton, regarding the recent stalking horse, sorry, court case, about showing AIT in schools.
1 comment:
You are, of course, aware of my views on what often prompts looking beyond the facts of debate and starting to play the person rather than the ball. Or, in this case, a player's source of funding.
But in this case the attribution is worth noting.
However I am unclear, unless one were to accuse the judge of being in pay, how his judgement is affected in any way by the source of funding (though in our 'democracy', especially in matters legal the fact that it could be brought to trial at vast expense is telling).
It seems a dodgy slope to embark upon.
What is Mr. Gore donating his Nobel winnings to if not an advocacy group with a rather clear base point.
And what are his/its interests? There seems to be an awful lot of money to be made selling his story.
And so what if it has some dodgy errors? But then, as pointed out in other blogs, how come these can be dismissed with an airy wave by some major media, when the howlers in the Great Global Warming Swindle are used to accuse it of all it has been? And, more importantly, how does the public read all this?
What is sad, and I had not appreciated it until the debate around the Nobel blew up, is how politicised it has all become.
Hydro-blessed Norwegians sending messages to liberal Americans via the nearest prize category that they could fit for purpose has, to my mind, devalued it. And those around it who would seek to make hay.
This should have been a prize for the science, and to scientists who have proved things. Not pols who have been part of a polemic.
And sticking a dated, inaccurate piece of advocacy into our kids' schools in the manner done, and still justified, a mistake.
What are they going to remember? The overall message? Or the fact that it may not quiet be as accurate as it claims? Especially as Xmas list get drawn up.
Post a Comment