When enough is enough…

Reposted from Bishop Hill’s Quote of the day because it needs to be spread and read near and far.  The Bish writes:

This appeared as a comment on the Louise Gray article in which we were told that rationing was being proposed as a solution to the world’s ills.

This article is the last straw. For six years I have had to bit my tongue while force-feeding this climate anthropogenic global warming nonsense into the increasingly sceptical minds of my science school learners. They all know it’s a scam. I know it’s a scam. They all know that we will be notionally 1010ed if we don’t all toe the party line, give the “government approved” answer in the exams, fill in the approved plans, but carry on as normal. I cannot seriously go into a school next term and carry on like this.

Consequently I hereby declare that, metaphorically, the next parent, head of science, head teacher, school governor, local education authority jobsworth, central government apparatchik, or UK energy minister who tells me have to teach this climate porn to under-16s or lose my job will be kebabed on a hockey stick and fed to the polar bear packs currently massing under my window seeking warmth. And any kid who dares to submit an assignment consisting of material cut’n’pasted from these Louise Gray’s WWF press releases will be spreadeagled on a stationary wind turbine in the North Sea.

I call upon all teachers to join me in this declaration, and to organise a welcome back party to all UK attendees from Cancun

Great rant. I’m not a teacher, but sign me up.  Feel the same way that you’ve quietly toed the line for too long?  Why? Take the survey.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Opinion. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to When enough is enough…

  1. ArndB says:

    What is “enough”??
    It seems that a minimum of civilisations has already been abandoned in some quarters. In an interview with the top German news paper, the chief adviser to the German Government on climate matters, Prof. H.J. Schellnhuber, qualified in mathematics and physics—and a Doctorate in Theoretical Physics, had this to say: “YOU’LL NEED A FEW PEOPLE WHO POSE AN ETHICAL ELITE. At the end, you can probably not solve problems by a large majority that have a causal distance (to the human rights issues) as in the case with climate change.” (emphasis & bracket added) , Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 29.Nov.2010, p. 6.

    • ArndB says:

      For the record, here are two Q&A in full ( by own, not necessarily a perfect translation)

      QUESTION FAZ: But must the attempt to solve the environmental issue of principle not already fail only because it is actually an elite debate?
      ______SCHELLNHUBER: Such debates are always held by a small proportion of the population.If you ask, is wealth reduction today capable of attracting a majority to save a child in the far future from exodus, so is the answer initially: no”But key questions such as these, as well as the human rights issues belong in the Constitution. This would mean that there are judges who decide against a majority if it is correct (is in the sense) of our Consitutional consense. But key questions such as these, as well as the human rights issues belong in the Constitution. This would mean that there are judges who decide against a majority when it is in keeping with our constitutional right consensus.YOU’LL NEED A FEW PEOPLE WHO POSE AN ETHICAL ELITE. At the end, you can probably not solve problems by a large majority that have a causal distance as in the case with climate change.

      QUESTION FAZ: How big was the damage to the climate policy, which was caused by the scandals surrounding the IPCC and the email scandal “Climate Gate”?
      _____SCHELLNHUBER: Concerning the IPCC, there was one greater and one or two marginal errors, which shouldn’t have happen. There have been three independent reports about the thousands of emails that have been stolen from a server at a British research institution, which all came to the conclusion that there was no scientific fraud. There were a few blunders. WE HAVE LEARED FROM THIS: Everyone who submits a mail should write them so that they could end up with his worst enemy. THE FOUNDATION OF SCIENCE WAS NOT SHAKEN IN ANY WAY”. (emphasis & bracket added)
      ___Schellnhuber CV at Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Joachim_Schellnhuber
      ___The link to the FAZ interview, whereby the title of the published versiom (30/Nov) is different from the current web-version (02Dec.2010), which is here: http://www.faz.net/s/RubFC06D389EE76479E9E76425072B196C3/Doc~E2097F2456F254383948257589F7772F6~ATpl~Ecommon~Scontent.html

      • Verity Jones says:

        Schellnhuber dismisses Cancun as a “feel-good session”.

        I have seen some of these conferences and have come to believe that they are applied more and more like group therapy sessions.
        In the end, of course, comes out the lowest common denominator.

        He is scathing about the discussions of the need for decisions to be unanimous – he says that the bar is set so high that it is doomed to failure. It is as if it does not occur to him that the cost and competition issues for those who do not sign up can be huge. There are arguments in the UK as to why the targets were set so high with no thought for the cost of achiveing them

Comments are closed.