the education morass

The following brief extract is from an article by Jo Nova showing how 'consensus' is manipulated. Unfortunately the same indoctrination is happening throughout the education field. Even the schools I do relief teaching at (and who should know better) follow the proscribed line handed down by Canberra and when an alternative is presented, the class teacher sulks and students complain that the information comes from their text books...unfortunately this is true. The education department is complicit in the manipulation of this information and should be held to an account...unfortunately I cannot see such a development happening in the near future, the rot appears too deeply entrenched.

The bottom line is that virtually all climate research in Australia is funded from one source – namely, the government department which has the specific task of selling to the public the idea that something drastic and expensive has to be done to the structure of society in the name of mitigating climate change.  And if you think that government agencies shouldn’t be in the game of social engineering, then you are way behind the times.  Over the last two years more than 100 million dollars was distributed by the (department of Climate Change) DCC for exactly that purpose.

So there can be no doubt that climate-research grant recipients know perfectly well that scepticism concerning the climate-change story does very little for their careers.  One therefore wonders a bit about the much-vaunted consensus of the global warming establishment regarding climatic doom.
Surely there is no way a whole scientific discipline can be subverted, either consciously or subconsciously, by crass materialism?  Well, maybe not in the long term.  But if past experience is any guide, the sorting out of a problem of vested scientific interest can take many decades.  At the moment, climate scientists are trapped in the coils of a disaster theory sold prematurely to the world at large.  They are supporting the theory with long-term forecasts about an atmosphere-ocean system whose behaviour in many respects is inherently unpredictable.  On the one hand, public discussion of the uncertainties associated with the ‘main conclusions of the science’ must be discouraged, and on the other there is a need for sufficient uncertainty to justify a continued flow of research funding.  In short, they are in a right-royal mess of political correctness.