Will Ukip Voters Casually Ignore Education Tampering?

[Hypognosis]

UKIP announces plans to ban education about global warming in schools. Specifically, they want to stop screenings of Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/2240422/ukip_to_ban_all_teaching_of_global_warming.html

To a certain extent, I am not massively worried about such a ban: -

i) My education taught me the basics about weather systems and terrain-related climate factors. Also about the carbon cycle, the water cycle, the greenhouse effect (only in as far as explaining why the earth is not an iceball, given its distance from the sun). There was *nothing whatsoever* about global warming taught in those days.

ii) I have not actually watched the Al Gore film myself: I didn't really need to, as I'd seen plenty of evidence accumulating since the first glacier retreat stories, in the 80s.

So, the nub of my question is that here is another political party wanting the power to tell us what we can or cannot teach our kids: should we allow them to do this?

If you are contemplating voting UKIP, would this policy be a clincher or a dealbreaker?

[jim360]

Well there's nothing like a reasoned measured debate, is there, svejk?

A couple of interesting articles there. UKIP naturally seeking to branch out and stop being a one-policy party. On the other hand, branching out only works if you pick good policies. Which these aren't. Oh well.

[brionon]

A Ukip councillor has said that the floods were caused by the law allowing Gay marriage !!

[mikey4444]

All grist to the mill jim !

[FredPuli43]

No. The scientific opinion has only been established for the last 25 years [see link].

UKIP voters dream of a world as it was in the 1950s, and wish to return there. That is far more than 25 years ago.

[Svejk]

//Well there's nothing like a reasoned measured debate, is there, svejk?//

You're right there, jim. And this is nothing like one.
Let's face it, its just a loquacious, lefty love-in.
I'm scared I'll be bullied if I dare speak my mind.

[FredPuli43]

Svejk, it is a little difficult to respond to a bald statement like Al Gore is a conman, global warming by man's contribution is a con, the Sun goes round the Earth etc, unless the proponent gives at least a little of what they believe is evidence to support the statement. Doing that may create 'reasoned debate'. This right winger, for one, finds a statement without a reason as unreasoned in debate.

[Svejk]

Lol @Methyl. When taking the pee out of the loony left you should add a smiley face or something. Some of them are just bonkers enough to take you seriously. ;)

There's so much to say on the subject, Fred, I can't think where to start.
I might have a bash later. ;)

[Svejk]

Ps. You're not in court here, Fred. There's no need to put words in my mouth. ;)

[youngmafbog]

Well yet another lefty love in going on here, when will lefties get it that other people have opinions and should be able to put them forward without pious attack

Carafe is doing well, in fact u kip come out top in a poll on who is favoured.

[Zacs-Master]

//other people have opinions and should be able to put them forward without pious attack //

I think your on the wrong site for that YMB.

[ToraToraTora]

They should ban al gore's film, not for the content but for what is missed out. It's a classic case of cherry picking to support a view, same as most of Michael Moore's films

[jim360]

Having opinions is fine and should be respected. That does not mean that wrong opinions shouldn't be challenged and exposed for being wrong.

[ichkeria]

Focussing on whether Al Gore is a conman, or the merits of his film, is beside the point. "Ban all teaching about global warming" is the operative term here. Whether you think it's a reality or not, it is a major issue and trying to ban discussion of it in schools would be rather daft.
Banning religion in schools would be the next step but somehow I doubt if that would be on the agenda.

[ToraToraTora]

climate change is constant, covered in standard Geography anyway, nothing new.

[Hypognosis]

@ichkeria

//It's funny how many UKIP members "don't speak for the party". Is Nigel the only one who actually does (?!)//

I suspect so. Someone on telly recently posed the question of what becomes of the party if he were to go under a bus, to which other panellists replied that "it would probably implode".

I get the impression that they've collected all manner of rejects and bail-outs from other parties, so there all manner of 'divergent' viewpoints which have never been subject to correction by peers before and never get aired in public unless and until a journalist happens to poke them with the right stick to provoke an outburst.

Farrago is then obliged to roll out the old "doesn't speak for the party", chesnut.

It's an object lesson in how to get a political party off the ground (badly). Maybe you'd need to go through two or three annual conferences in order to thash out common beliefs and rejected beliefs and only then open up to media scrutiny.

[Hypognosis]

@TTT

The AGW side have upwards of 40 different computerised models of global climate. When post 1850 human CO2 emissions are removed, the cyclical weather variations respond to all the expected effects of geography, sunspot cycles and the pattern for the past 200 years looks not unlike the 200 years prior to that and so on. The Maunder minimum (London ice fairs etc) breaks the pattern but is a known quantity and illustrates just how influential sunspot numbers are (although no-one has got a handle on the explanation for this yet).
There are other known inputs, like volcanic eruptions and the AGW models also reflect their effects (SO2 aerosols and ash particulates reaching high altitude cause globally significant cooling effects because they reflect some incoming sunlight back into space).

Put the post 1850 emissions into the model and the upward temperature trend matches observed values quite well. (Nobody's perfect). The fluctuations (reductions) from volcano eruptions are still in the mix but the dips are being dwarfed by the temperature rise.

Anyway, enough about them, how many computer models have the deniers' side got running at present? Where are they publishing their results?