Revolt news238 of 9.10.07 and other issues are sent bcc and free. To
subscribe or unsubscribe simply email me. Email addresses which fail for
three consecutive issues will be removed in any case. For your
convenience, these news issues are usually in plain text for easy
transmission. For further information please see
.
Statements made by me as editor or by other parties and quoted for
information do not necessarily represent the views of Revolt. Criticism
of government and industry, and grievances from members of the public,
are in the nature of Revolt's work, though we try to give credit where
it is due. Revolt is strictly non-party-political and regrets any
offence which may be inadvertently caused.
1. More on the proposed 500 kV line between Edmonton and Calgary in
Canada: along with the Energy and Utilities Board (EUB) scrapping three
years of hearings and setting aside a decision, there is an impending
Bill 46 for an Alberta Utilities Commission Act which, the Alberta NFY
says, would further restrict landowners' rights. The NFU calls on the
Alberta government to withdraw the legislation.
2. Still more from Canada, this time Ontario. Shane Jolly, Provincial
Green Candidate, blogs that a 600 million dollar power line expansion is
forcing the destruction of homes, farms and businesses for unnecessary
excess capacity. The company Hydro One claims it is needed to deliver
renewable energy. Good to see a Green candidate recognising the downside
of bulk transmission, including "intrusive power corridors that lose 20%
of the energy in transit".
3. The legal challenge to showing Al Gore's global warming film in UK
schools (news236.6) has been upheld after a hearing 27 September, but
scarcely reported in the UK. A full ruling is expected later this week
(at 9 October). Preliminary statements indicate there might be a soft
remedy, just to require schools to say the film is political and to ask
pupils for their views, but what pupil could withstand such emotional
political indoctrination?
4. A short reports on the legal challenge to Gore's film appeared in
Times On-Line. A fuller report can be found from a New Zealand service,
including the list of eleven "serious inaccuracies" in the film, pasted
at APPENDIX A herewith.
5. Philip Stott, professor of biogeography at the University of London,
joined Nigel Lawson in a dissenting contribution at the Conservative
Party Conference. Professor Stott accepts that the climate is changing;
and that human activity does influence the climate. What he disputes
strongly is that man can manipulate climate predictably. Stott
concludes: "We cannot stop climate change. It is the political hubris of
our Age to think that we can. We cannot even manage climate change
predictably. But we can constantly adapt to inexorable change, as we
have done throughout all time."
6. It was nice of NIE to ring me today to say that the Public
Consultation is under way this week for the 85 km single-circuit 400 kV
Tyrone-Cavan Interconnector. Information packs have been sent to all
premises within 1 km either side of the proposed line route. NIE intend
to submit an application for planning permission on completion of the
consultation process. Details are on the web site
.
*****
*****
APPENDIX A Legal challenge to Gore global warming film in UK schools
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/news24seventv/2007/10/nzcpr-weekly---
.html
Politics in Schools on Trial (extracts from the article)
Last Tuesday, a British High Court Judge ruled that school children need
protecting from political propaganda like Al Gore's creative film
making. The action was taken by Stewart Dimmock, a lorry driver and
school governor from Kent who argued that his 11 and 14 year old sons
should not be subjected to propaganda and 'brainwashing' in the
classroom: "I wish my children to the best education possible, free from
bias and political spin, and Mr Gore's film falls far short of the
standard required", he said.
Mr Dimmock was responding to the Labour Government's decision to send
copies Al Gore's film to more than 3,800 schools in England. The film
was part of a Climate Change Resource Pack aimed at children aged 11 to
14 years.
During the three-day hearing the Court heard that Al Gore's film
contained scientific inaccuracies, that it was 'politically partisan',
and that it contained 'sentimental mush'. The Government was accused of
backing the film as way of 'brainwashing' pupils on global warming.
As part of the evidence, it was pointed out that Al Gore himself has
gone on record saying that it was appropriate to over-represent the
facts on global warming in his film 'An Inconvenient Truth' in order to
get the message across: "I believe it is appropriate to have an over-
representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is".
While Mr Justice Baron will deliver his ruling in the case later this
week, he has already stated that the film promotes "partisan political
views" and that the schools will need to issue a warning to the students
before they show it. He has determined that the Government must amend
the Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that the film is a
political work that promotes only one side of the argument, and he has
also decided that the eleven serious inaccuracies in the film that have
been identified by the Court, must be pointed out to the children.
The eleven inaccuracies the High Court identified in the movie are:
1.The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence
global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this
is not correct.
2.The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2
causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that
the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind
the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
3.The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that
this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to
accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global
warming.
4.The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was
caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that
this was not the case.
5.The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due
to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the
study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a
particularly violent storm.
6.The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream,
throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this
was a scientific impossibility.
7.The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef
bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this
claim.
8.The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing
sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not
melt for millennia.
9.The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the
evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
10.The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the
displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea
levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years
and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
11.The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of
certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government was unable to
substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false
claim.
This case against the British Government has only been possible because
of amendments to the British Education Act which prohibit political
indoctrination by banning the teaching of partisan political views and
by requiring that political issues are presented in a balanced manner.
Section 406 of the Education Act 1996 states that local education
authorities, school governing bodies and head teachers "shall forbid...
the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject
in the school". And if political issues are brought to the attention of
school pupils, the authority, the governors and the head are required by
Section 407 to take "such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure
that... they are offered a balanced presentation of opposing views".
*****
*****
--
Mike O'Carroll