Posted on 07/26/2008 1:25:55 PM PDT by Delacon
Are global warming alarmists encouraging children to commit suicide because their carbon footprints supposedly are harming the planet?
It certainly appears so in a children's game concocted by the state-funded Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Science Department, available online.
'Pigs' Should Die Young
The game is called Planet Slayer. Using it, children can calculate their carbon footprint--how much impact their carbon emissions allegedly have on global warming. The purpose for doing so, children were told in a version of the game that was online in early June, is so they can "find out what age you should die at so you don't use more than your fair share of Earth's resources." The game now asks only, "are you a carbon hog?"
After answering 11 lifestyle questions, children click on a skull and crossbones. If a child is an "average" greenhouse "pig" or worse, the cartoon pig explodes into pieces, and its blood drains from its body and pools on the floor. Average "pigs," according to the site, should die at 9.3 years old. The worst possible "pigs" should die at 1.3 years old.
"It is an insensitive game," said Ronald Bailey, science correspondent for the Reason Foundation. "It implies that it is better for the planet that children die before they can grow up to harm the environment."
Sends 'Cruel' Message
Skaidra Smith-Heisters, environmental policy analyst for the Reason Foundation, says the game is a failure at educating children about the environment.
"Planet Slayer's greenhouse gas calculator reflects a morbid egalitarianism that is disturbing enough when it is applied uncritically in adult audiences," said Smith-Heisters.
"The Planet Slayer Web site's message to children is cruel and unhelpful," Smith-Heisters continued. "I hate to imagine what the long-term lesson for a 10- or 11-year-old is if they're told they should have died when they were nine. Making people feel powerless and worthless is certainly not a productive social strategy.
"Rather than trying to scare children, who don't make either policy decisions or even household economic decisions in the first place, we should be teaching them basic science and principles of fair play," Smith-Heisters concluded.
Better Message Available
Bailey says this manner of teaching children about the environment is ill-advised. Instead, he recommends people invest in teaching children about how the environment can be improved through the millions of individual consumer choices that make up a free market.
"Instead of encouraging kids to commit suicide as a way to protect the environment, we should teach them that the natural environment in rich countries is actually improving," Bailey said.
"For example, the air and water are getting cleaner, and forests are expanding," said Bailey. "[We should] teach kids that free markets increase productivity and spur technological progress so that people can use less and thus spare more land and water for nature. The prosperity that comes from economic growth reduces the size of people's environmental footprints."
This isn't the first time global warming alarmists have used children to spread fear about the future. A California sixth-grade teacher recently force-fed his class a stack of articles predicting a variety of catastrophes if human carbon dioxide emissions are not reduced radically. The children wrote angry letters to The Heartland Institute, fretting they would all be dead in 10 years.
Both the sixth-graders' teacher and the Planet Slayer game have been paid for by taxpayers.
Maureen Martin (martin@heartland.org) is senior fellow for legal affairs at The Heartland Institute. Aleks Karnick (akarnick@umail.iu.edu) writes from Indianapolis, Indiana.
For more information ...
Planet Slayer Greenhouse Calculator: http://www.abc.net.au/science/planetslayer/greenhouse_calc.htm
ping
My my. The greens appear to be increasingly desperate.
Liberalism is a mental disorder.
This is too creepy to be believable.
Rush had it right when he said, “they think we’re all filthy energy pigs that must be punished.”
The "scientific errors" they discovered in Gore's movie, "An Inconvenient Truth" (AIT), are a side issue, and were not the basis for the case brought against the propagandist, Al Gore.
The judge found, among other things, that in Al Gore's movie, AIT, "science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme. ..." [See details below]
England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions Case No: CO/3615/2007 Hearing dates: 27, 28 September, 1, 2 October 2007 Before: MR JUSTICE BURTON
Stuart Dimmock - Claimant -- Mr Paul Downes and Miss Emily Saunderson (instructed by Malletts) for the Claimant
-vs-
Sec. State for Education and Skills - Defendant -- Mr Martin Chamberlain (instructed by Treasury Solicitors) for the Defendant
[Judge] Burton:
Stuart Dimmock is a father of two sons at state school and a school governor. He has brought an application to declare unlawful a decision by the then Secretary of State for Education and Skills to distribute to every state secondary school in the United Kingdom a copy of former US Vice-President Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth ("AIT"), ..... I have had very considerable assistance from both the very able Counsel, Paul Downes for the Claimant and Martin Chamberlain for the Defendant, and their respective teams.
The context and nub of the dispute are the statutory provisions described in their side headings as respectively relating to "political indoctrination" and to the "duty to secure balanced treatment of political issues" in schools, now contained in ss406 and 407 of the Education Act 1996, which derive from the identical provisions in ss44 and 45 of the Education (No 2) Act 1986. ...
I viewed the film at the parties' request..... It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – ... – but that it is a political film.. . Its theme is not merely the fact that there is global warming,... but that urgent, and if necessary expensive and inconvenient, steps must be taken to counter it, many of which are spelt out.
Paul Downes... has established his case that the views in the film are political by submitting that Mr Gore promotes an apocalyptic vision, which would be used to influence a vast array of political policies, which he illustrates ...:
(i) Fiscal policy and the way that a whole variety of activities aretaxed, including fuel consumption, travel and manufacturing …
(ii) Investment policy and the way that governments encourage directly and indirectly various forms of activity.
(iii) Energy policy and the fuels (in particular nuclear) employed for the future.
(iv) Foreign policy and the relationship held with nations that consume and/or produce carbon-based fuels."
... the Defendant, does not challenge that the film promotes political views. ................."
In the DEFRA [the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs] leaflet ... there was this one sentence summary:
"Mr Johnson said that influencing the opinions of children was crucial to developing a long term view on the environment among the public."
After the pre-action correspondence from the Claimant, and on the very day the Judicial Review Claim Form was issued, a somewhat differently worded news release was issued by the Defendant dated 2 May 2007:
"....This pack will help to give young people information and inspiration to understand and debate the issues around climate change..."
The explanation for the distribution to all schools is now given in these proceedings in the witness statement of Ms Julie Bramman of the DES:
"8. …I should say at once that it was recognised from the start that __parts of the Film contained views about public policy__ and __how we should respond__ to climate change. The aim of distributing the film was not to promote those views, but rather to present the science of climate change in an engaging way and to promote and encourage debate on the political issues raised by that science."
...the meaning of partisan, as in partisan political views: ...
Partisan ... Mr Downes pointed to dictionary definitions suggesting the relevance of commitment, or adherence to a cause. In my judgment, the best simile for it might be "one sided". Mr Downes, in paragraph 27 of his skeleton argument, helpfully suggested that there were factors that could be considered by a court in determining whether the expression or promotion of a particular view could evidence or indicate partisan promotion of those views:
"(i) A superficial treatment of the subject matter typified by portraying factual or philosophical premises as being self-evident or trite with insufficient explanation or justification and without any indication that they may be the subject of legitimate controversy; the misleading use of scientific data; misrepresentations and half-truths; and one-sidedness.
(ii) The deployment of material in such a way as to prevent pupils meaningfully testing the veracity of the material and forming an independent understanding as to how reliable it is.
(iii) The exaltation of protagonists and their motives coupled with the demonisation of opponents and their motives.
(iv)The derivation of a moral expedient from assumed consequences requiring the viewer to adopt a particular view and course of action in order to do "right" as opposed to "wrong."
This is clearly a useful analysis.
"....What is forbidden by the statute is, as the side heading makes clear, "political indoctrination". If a teacher uses the platform of a classroom to promote partisan political views in the teaching of any subject, then that would offend against the statute.
[...]
The Film
I turn to AIT, the film. The following is clear:
i)"... science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme. ..."
The Errors [38 found - only 9 focused on for brevity - are snipped here]
The Guidance
"... in order to establish and confirm that the purpose of sending the films to schools is not so as to "influence the opinions of children" (paragraph 7 above) but so as to "stimulate children into discussing climate change and global warming in school classes" (paragraph 6 above) a Guidance Note must be incorporated into the pack, and that it is not sufficient simply to have the facility to cross-refer to it on an educational website.....
...it is noteworthy that in the (unamended) Guidance Note there is no or no adequate discussion at all, either by way of description or by way of raising relevant questions for discussion, in relation to any of the above 9 'errors', the first two of which are at any rate apparently based on non-existent or misunderstood evidence, and the balance of which are or may be based upon lack of knowledge or appreciation of the scientific position, and all of which are significant planks in Mr Gores's 'political' argumentation. ..."
"...One particular change in the section on "Citizenship: Planning a whole day event on climate change" is of some significance:
"..... Invite in a guest speaker to go over the issues raised across the day and discuss solutions … But please remember that teaching staff must not promote any particular political response to climate change and, when such potential responses are brought to the attention of pupils, must try to ensure that pupils are offered a balanced presentation of opposing views."
The _amended_ Guidance Note contains in its introduction a new and significant passage:
"[Schools] must bear in mind the following points
* An Inconvenient Truth promotes partisan political views (that is to say, one sided views about political issues)
* teaching staff must be careful to ensure that they do not themselves promote those views;
* in order to make sure of that, they should take care to help pupils examine the scientific evidence critically (rather than simply accepting what is said at face value) and to point out where Gore's view may be inaccurate ...
* where the film suggests that views should take particular action at the political level (e.g. to lobby their democratic representatives to vote for measures to cut carbon emissions), teaching staff must be careful to offer pupils a balanced presentation of opposing views and not to promote either the view expressed in the film or any other particular view.
"...I am satisfied that, with the Guidance Note, as amended, the Defendant is setting the film into a context in which it can be shown by teachers, and not so that the Defendant itself or the schools are promoting partisan views contained in the film, and is putting it into a context in which a balanced presentation of opposing views can and will be offered. There is no call for the Defendant to support the more extreme views of Mr Gore – ..."
sounds like a commercial winner - not.
Any people who apologize for exhaling carbon dioxide
can expect to be cured of that
by a people who don’t.
You must tell the world....Carbon Credits is People!
I think the developers of this game should lead by example.
gnip...
Real messed up part of this is that the score is HEAVILY weighted on how much money you give to environmental causes. Even if you were the greenest of green if you don’t give any money you “should die” something like in your 20’s.
INTREP
This establishes there are no limits to the excesses mentally impaired Gaia worshipers accept, promote to achieve their goal of returning mankind to prehistoric status.
To indoctrinate children in this manner is criminal. This alleged game accompanied by the Leftist perspective of “education” WILL produce only the most neurotic results.
Those responsible aren’t simply exercising free speech, but are exercising criminally insane speech.
There is a difference if nobody else will say so.
I took the test.
Pig guts all over the place.
>
In case you haven't guessed, that's POF Pig in the middle, not the cute little guy on the right. I really got dinged because I spent my money on "ordinary stuff" -- you know, like the mortgage, gas and electricity bill, food, a few new clothes, a car payment, a trip to grandma's house. I'm just an evil blot on the earth, but proud of it.
LOL, and a Charlton Heston bump.
I live in a cave, scrape fungus off the walls to eat, walk to work, and “invest” all of my money in the SeeShepherds-EarthFisting-WildLiving-AlwaysGreenCoalition:
I am condemned to living in an earthly Hell forever.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.