Campaigning For A Particular View Or Ideology…That’s Against The Law


via Bishop Hill

The GWPF has done a report examining the teaching of climate in schools…..

The report also describes how activist teachers try to make children become the footsoldiers of the green movement, encouraging them to harass their schoolmates and pester their parents to bring about “behaviour change”.

The use of fear of climate change to alter children’s behaviour is also highlighted.

The report quotes one child as saying:

“I worry about [global warming] because I don’t want to die.”


Michael Gove has responded….Perhaps the sentiments expressed here by Gove concerning teaching about the climate in schools might also apply to the BBC’s campaigning coverage of climate:

“The Secretary of State read this report with concern. Ministers are clear that the new national curriculum must equip young people with the core knowledge they need to understand the weather, climate, the earth’s atmosphere, physical geography and the interaction between nature and the environment. 

“That means in both science and geography, pupils must learn the facts and processes which underpin public discussion of climate change. They must be equipped with the scientific knowledge to make their own judgments about political responses. They must not be directed towards a particular campaigning agenda.

“Schools should not teach that a particular political or ideological point of view is right – indeed it is against the law for them to do so. Great care should be exercised to make sure information provided to students is scientifically rigorous. It is important that any material used in the classroom is rooted in science, not driven by the aims of a campaign.”


The ‘useful idiots’ at the BBC might like to take note….even as they ignore what Gove has said and refuse to broadcast it (?)…just as the BBC’s ‘Science journalists’ have with comments by James Lovelock (leaving it to their political journalist colleague, Paxman, to interview him):

“It sounds good to try to save the planet, but in reality we are not thinking of saving Gaia, we are thinking of saving Earth for us, or for our nation.

“The idea of ‘saving the planet’ is a foolish extravagance of romantic Northern ideologues and probably much beyond our ability.



No….nothing on the BBC yet……odd…as they’re usually biting at the bit to report Gove’s words and the reactions to them….and of course no sign of any report about the GWPF’s research.


Very odd as Harrabin is usually so quick to jump on anyone who doesn’t toe the party line on the consensus…here implying Paterson is not one of ‘us’….& why does Harrabin think he needs a ‘science briefing’?:



Those wicked words of Owen Paterson (on Question Time):

“Well I’m sitting like a rose between two thorns here and I have to take practical decisions – erm – the climate’s always been changing – er – Peter mentioned the Arctic and I think in the Holocene the Arctic melted completely and you can see there were beaches there – when Greenland was occupied, you know, people growing crops – we then had a little ice age, we had a middle age warming – the climate’s been going up and down – but the real question which I think everyone’s trying to address is – is this influenced by manmade activity in recent years and James is actually correct – the climate has not changed – the temperature has not changed in the last seventeen years and what I think we’ve got to be careful of is that there is almost certainly – bound to be – some influence by manmade activity but I think we’ve just got to be rational (audience laughter)  – rational people – and make sure the measures that we take to counter it don’t actually cause more damage – and I think we’re about to get -“

No. we can’t have someone who thinks for himself…..


Oh no…not everyone in the Media is onboard……must be a sceptical conspiracy….


Hates Booker….



Harrabin wants you to die to prove AGW?

So ‘good news’ for Harrabin?



Good job we’ve got Harrabin to look after the planet for us:


Yes…‘pity about the climate’….that’s of course assuming the ‘science’ is correct….an assumption Harrabin embraces with deep joy… lucky to have the BBC as a platform from which he has…‘spent much of the last two decades of my journalistic life warning about the potential dangers of climate change’.

As opposed to merely reporting climate change…..roger harrabin








Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Campaigning For A Particular View Or Ideology…That’s Against The Law

  1. Guest Who says:

    ‘Campaigning For A Particular View Or Ideology…That’s Against The Law’
    Maybe the BBC could get Stuart Hughes to do a story on such things, bylined by him but not written by him as it were, which he can RT to folk across politics and media to ‘get behind’ (duly obliged).
    But not, in any way a campaign. Oh no.
    And if it does stray into looking like it might be, then one is sure a more senior colleague can have a quick word, assure one and all no harm meant, or done, and moving on off-record or archive like a Miller-time post-career post-mortem at Tory Central.


  2. amimissingsomething says:

    What, exactly, is a climate sceptic?

    I must say one thing, ‘they’ really are good at controlling the language, aren’t ‘they’?


    • Richard Pinder says:

      A Climate sceptic is as dogmatic as those morons that go on about speculation, assumption, consensus, belief and denial.

      But correct judgement is obtained by the scientific method, where correlation’s point to the answers, and the facts and evidence are obtained by observation and the results from experiments which then provide the proof for an answer to the causes of climate change.

      This is why I and other so called sceptics such as Piers Corbyn, do not like being called Climate sceptics, because being sceptical of man-made Climate Change, ends, when you can prove that man-made carbon-dioxide warming must be too small to calibrate, without using the atmosphere of Venus as a proxy, for an estimation.

      Piers Corbyn quotes, Ned Nikolov & Karl Zeller, so we know that he has the brains to understand that the game is up for the biggest scientific fraud in history.

      But apart from Weatheraction and the Space Special Interest group of Mensa, this news has not spread much further.


      • amimissingsomething says:

        Thank you, Richard!

        My question was, of course, rhetorical and facetious (well, that was my intent, anyway!)

        Point I was trying to make is that surely no one is sceptical that there is climate, which would indeed be ridiculous…hence the invented, false but cunning connotation of the term!


  3. Simon says:

    get the kids first….that blowing up non-conformist children proves how with the left the ends justify the means and that is why socialism led to the deaths of millions


  4. George R says:

    When is the next BBC staff demo for free speech on climate?

    (only kidding.)


  5. johnnythefish says:

    ‘Yes…‘pity about the climate’….that’s of course assuming the ‘science’ is correct….an assumption Harrabin embraces with deep joy… lucky to have the BBC as a platform from which he has…‘spent much of the last two decades of my journalistic life warning about the potential dangers of climate change’.

    Made me think of this:

    When you hear evidence that the globe may not be warming as much as we thought, don’t react like this is terrible news. Take Phil Jones of the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, who said “If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences.”


    • Number 7 says:

      Brilliant link.


    • Richard Pinder says:

      The problem I see is that Svensmarks Cosmic Ray theory has been proven.

      Therefore recently, astronomers are now able to run computer models, starting from 1755, which simulate what happened, including Global warming, and then on to a prediction of a future mini Ice age in the 2020’s.

      Other Astronomers use a more crude form of correlation, that also predicts a mini Ice age in the 2020’s.

      So, this means that the uncensored mainstream computer models, based on the carbon dioxide warming dogma, and therefore accepted by the IPCC, have always and will always be proven wrong, because the correlations in ice core data have always proven that any correlation between temperature and carbon dioxide levels, is random at the time of any coincidental correlation.

      So the type of Climate Change that Phil Jones is going to see, does not seem to be what he wants to see, because his type of wishful thinking pseudo-science has already been proved wrong.


    • DP111 says:

      Thanks for that, particularly the statement by Phil Jones.

      Do you have a link for the Phil Jones statement?


    • PhilW says:

      Wishing for the circumstances to fit the Theory as opposed to proving under controlled conditions that the theory fits the circumstances is not only unscientific but the ranting of a charlatan.


  6. London Calling says:

    Duty of Balance, duty of no platform for “Deniers”, oh dear, what a mess the environmentalists have trapped the BBC in. When you supp with the devil, supp with a long spoon. It’s pathetic really. All those BBC Execs with third of a million salaries like Hugs Boaden. The half-shaven twat that went off to NYT. All have the last laugh on “integrity”


  7. Rob says:

    My son came back from Junior School 7 or 8 years back with a project he had to do on our home. What active steps his parents were doing to tackle global warming. I remember telling him I turn the central heating off in August and he wrote it down. Not sure what marks he got, but his school never pestered me again.


  8. Run Away says:

    ‘Campaigning For A Particular View Or Ideology…That’s Against The Law’

    Far too late. Have a look at some teachers blogs, for example

    I understand that teachers are not allowed to teach any more. They are supposed to be the “guide on the side and not the sage on the stage”. Children are supposed to “discover” everything for themselves.
    It seems that global warming/climate change is one of the many exceptions to this view.
    It took mankind a heck of a long time to produce a written language and a useable counting system, never mind Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein etc.
    I conclude that children are not supposed to think about the physical world. That way they won’t be able to question whatever they are told.

    The teaching “profession” (mostly) took “brain gym” seriously, and now lectures children about climate science. It’s beyond parody.