What is your helicopter carbon footprint?
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
PS. I'm all for other people choosing to use their cars less.
Nick, I read this
http://www.royalsociety.ac.uk/downloaddoc.asp?id=1630
Does this meet your criteria?
Now these guys don't agree with my opinion but, in an effort to rebuff the arguments of skeptics like me, they offer no hard scientific proof to link climate change to man made emissons.
They cannot explain why there was no warming between 1945 and 1976, or how the lower atmosphere isn't warming in sympathy with the surface; they also state that sunspot activity has been exceptional for the last 70 years compare to the last 11,000 yet ignore it as a factor because it doesn't fit in with the 'modelling'.
The best they can come up with is that man made emissions of greenhouse gases are 'Probably' the cause of climate change
- well Carlsberg claim that their lager is Probably the best in the world but it most certainly ain't
http://www.royalsociety.ac.uk/downloaddoc.asp?id=1630
Does this meet your criteria?
Now these guys don't agree with my opinion but, in an effort to rebuff the arguments of skeptics like me, they offer no hard scientific proof to link climate change to man made emissons.
They cannot explain why there was no warming between 1945 and 1976, or how the lower atmosphere isn't warming in sympathy with the surface; they also state that sunspot activity has been exceptional for the last 70 years compare to the last 11,000 yet ignore it as a factor because it doesn't fit in with the 'modelling'.
The best they can come up with is that man made emissions of greenhouse gases are 'Probably' the cause of climate change
- well Carlsberg claim that their lager is Probably the best in the world but it most certainly ain't
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Edinburgh, UK
Age: 52
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A couple of things here leap out at me - the first is that we are relying on statistics for all this. I seem to recall there was a great saying about statistics . . .
Secondly, Graviman raised a good point with his comment about the aerodynamic efficiency of our cars. All the really great auerodynamic cars were built a while ago now - the DS19, the Mako Shark, Subaru SVX etc. Now we have less fuel-efficient bodies (less aerodynamic and also getting heavier).
One example is in the British Touring Car Championship - one team use the Honda Accord last year, and have moved to Honda's new Civic for this year which is less aerodynamic. So they had to get more power from the engine to make it as competitive.
The big problem I have with this thing about renewable energy, though, is that it isn't (renewable that is - on a macro or micro scale). There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
We put up wind farms to convert wind energy into electricity. This is taking energy out of our weather system. They also have a massive carbon footprint during manufacture and installation (new roads/cabling etc). The big ones in remote places can take up to 20 years to pay back their 'cost', and they are only supposed to last 25. AND why, when I pass the farms in the UK do I invariably see about a third of them not turning and generating? They'll take longer to pay off if they don't actually use the things.
Solar panels convert the sun's energy. This is energy that would normally go into the solid objects, warming them and enabling them to release this energy back into the air and warming it up after a cold night. This process also creates thermals which defines how our weather system changes.
Wave farms take enrgy out of our seas, potentially changing the natural currents. If you want to see massive localised climate change, try moving the Gulf stream away from Scotland - we might finally be able to get some decent skiing.
Once we add loads of wind farms and solar panels, all sorts of havoc could be unleashed in the weather systems of our plant.
Of course, this is only extrapolating from previously observed phenomena - but that's what everyone else is doing, right?
Secondly, Graviman raised a good point with his comment about the aerodynamic efficiency of our cars. All the really great auerodynamic cars were built a while ago now - the DS19, the Mako Shark, Subaru SVX etc. Now we have less fuel-efficient bodies (less aerodynamic and also getting heavier).
One example is in the British Touring Car Championship - one team use the Honda Accord last year, and have moved to Honda's new Civic for this year which is less aerodynamic. So they had to get more power from the engine to make it as competitive.
The big problem I have with this thing about renewable energy, though, is that it isn't (renewable that is - on a macro or micro scale). There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
We put up wind farms to convert wind energy into electricity. This is taking energy out of our weather system. They also have a massive carbon footprint during manufacture and installation (new roads/cabling etc). The big ones in remote places can take up to 20 years to pay back their 'cost', and they are only supposed to last 25. AND why, when I pass the farms in the UK do I invariably see about a third of them not turning and generating? They'll take longer to pay off if they don't actually use the things.
Solar panels convert the sun's energy. This is energy that would normally go into the solid objects, warming them and enabling them to release this energy back into the air and warming it up after a cold night. This process also creates thermals which defines how our weather system changes.
Wave farms take enrgy out of our seas, potentially changing the natural currents. If you want to see massive localised climate change, try moving the Gulf stream away from Scotland - we might finally be able to get some decent skiing.
Once we add loads of wind farms and solar panels, all sorts of havoc could be unleashed in the weather systems of our plant.
Of course, this is only extrapolating from previously observed phenomena - but that's what everyone else is doing, right?
I am silly enough to argue with Flying Lawyer, because I will probably lose. It is his profession to argue, not mine and it is his language, not mine. But I will answer some of his questions.
I give you a clue, that was in the first answer:
I would say, those who deny the global warming or do not understand the carbon offsetting system.
Now we can point with the finger to somebody who was the first to use bad language. Does that help, no. But it answers your question.
And another question you certainly want me to answer, even if you don't say so:
I don't have a car. My wife has one, which I am allowed to use once in a while. I never understood helicopter pilots who have cars as toys? Cars are so boring. I'd rather go flying.
I take the bike to drive to work. Cheap way to keep me healthy.
Our average garbage weight for the whole family is 2 kg per week. The rest is recycled. Probably hard to beat.
Whenever possible I take the train, because I am lacy and don't like to drive.
I would take the plane for travelling, because it is just a bit difficult to take the train to the US and boats make me seasick. Get real.
Our house does not produce any co2, even the electricity comes from co2 free sources.
For somebody normal, I think I do pretty well.
... and I go easy on the onions and beans.
My point all along the whole discussion was, that those who deny the global warming wholeheartly - the channel 4 experts -, often don't really have a clue, what they are talking about and that the helicopter industry should get their stuff together and be the first industry to be carbon neutral. Is that a bad idea? We could even make some money on the way.
And you are concerned about your law maker’s nadanadanada...
You know, that you can not win this fight, you can only last the pain longer, if you want to keep the status quo. I think, it would be way better to be offensive in showing that the helicopter industry cares, does something about it. I am sure, we could do better then the "greens" in showing facts and figures.
I accept, that you are more interested in the future of your purse, then a global future. Don't have kids then.
Applying that adage to this thread, it's interesting to observe which side has been doing the most shouting. And which side has been the most intolerant of those who dare to disagree with, or even be sceptical of, the other side's claims.
The greatest scam is the idea that you can buy your way out of polluting - carbon offsetting, what a load of bolleaux.
Now we can point with the finger to somebody who was the first to use bad language. Does that help, no. But it answers your question.
And another question you certainly want me to answer, even if you don't say so:
I don't have a car. My wife has one, which I am allowed to use once in a while. I never understood helicopter pilots who have cars as toys? Cars are so boring. I'd rather go flying.
I take the bike to drive to work. Cheap way to keep me healthy.
Our average garbage weight for the whole family is 2 kg per week. The rest is recycled. Probably hard to beat.
Whenever possible I take the train, because I am lacy and don't like to drive.
I would take the plane for travelling, because it is just a bit difficult to take the train to the US and boats make me seasick. Get real.
Our house does not produce any co2, even the electricity comes from co2 free sources.
For somebody normal, I think I do pretty well.
... and I go easy on the onions and beans.
My point all along the whole discussion was, that those who deny the global warming wholeheartly - the channel 4 experts -, often don't really have a clue, what they are talking about and that the helicopter industry should get their stuff together and be the first industry to be carbon neutral. Is that a bad idea? We could even make some money on the way.
And you are concerned about your law maker’s nadanadanada...
Aviation is one of the prime targets of the environmentalist lobby in the UK. It's an easy target. So let's make life more difficult for one of the few successful industries we have left. What a clever idea.
I accept, that you are more interested in the future of your purse, then a global future. Don't have kids then.
Rotorbee - there is nothing magical about carbon offestting or carbon trading as it was termed in Kyoto - it allows those who wish to continue to pollute to salve their consciences by buying or trading other countries 'rights' to pollute. It's a bit like using other peoples duty free allowances because they don't drink and smoke.
Carbon offsetting has gained popularity because a green minded individual can still fly around the world as long as he has planted enough trees to offset the CO2.
Given that the IPCC claims that even if CO2 emissions were halved tomorrow, the climate would still keep on warming, offsetting is just a way of pretending not to make the situation worse.
I fully agree that everyone should recycle and use less electricity (what is your CO2 free source and what CO2 was used to create the machinery to convert the source into electricity?), it's just good housekeeping to look after the planet and it's natural resources.
Hustler - I like that, good post
Carbon offsetting has gained popularity because a green minded individual can still fly around the world as long as he has planted enough trees to offset the CO2.
Given that the IPCC claims that even if CO2 emissions were halved tomorrow, the climate would still keep on warming, offsetting is just a way of pretending not to make the situation worse.
I fully agree that everyone should recycle and use less electricity (what is your CO2 free source and what CO2 was used to create the machinery to convert the source into electricity?), it's just good housekeeping to look after the planet and it's natural resources.
Hustler - I like that, good post
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab and Flying Lawyer,
This dialog is a good one, but it has the aura of the beginnings of a nightmare for those of us who have truly read several of the more erudite scientific papers on the subject (remember that of the all the papers written by climate scientists, none disagree).
While the story has been stolen by those who falsely claim that there is "scientific disagreement" and by those who say that "only computer models" predict the problem, the inexorable warming has started, with unprecedented CO2 levels, worldwide temperatures and vast worldwide melting evident. Martin Frobisher would leap for joy in the new ability to sail across the Arctic Ocean!
Crab and Lawyer, I truly wonder what more is needed to convince us that action is needed?
This dialog is a good one, but it has the aura of the beginnings of a nightmare for those of us who have truly read several of the more erudite scientific papers on the subject (remember that of the all the papers written by climate scientists, none disagree).
While the story has been stolen by those who falsely claim that there is "scientific disagreement" and by those who say that "only computer models" predict the problem, the inexorable warming has started, with unprecedented CO2 levels, worldwide temperatures and vast worldwide melting evident. Martin Frobisher would leap for joy in the new ability to sail across the Arctic Ocean!
Crab and Lawyer, I truly wonder what more is needed to convince us that action is needed?
@crab
You certainly do not understand the idea. It is a bit more complicated then you claim. Unfortunately due to lobbying and stupid law makers, the system was perverted and the trading of certificates came to a standstill this year.
The system could save quite a bit co2 emission, but that is what happens when people do not understand the idea.
How cunningly you ask for the production our heating equipment. The problem of the chain of production for equipment has been discussed thousands of times before and you can prove that we should include the production of the hospital where I was born to my co2 emissions. That is not the accepted method. Therefore I leave this to your fantasy.
But what you don't get, that I do not stand for or against the global warming discussion. I stand for a helicopter industry that has a good public reputation and reacts and does something. The public opinion will come after us, if we are not faster. Denying global warming, spells disaster. Got it now?
If you do not believe in global warming ... you will in 20 years. I don't care if YOU believe in it, but I care about helicopters and this industry.
You certainly do not understand the idea. It is a bit more complicated then you claim. Unfortunately due to lobbying and stupid law makers, the system was perverted and the trading of certificates came to a standstill this year.
The system could save quite a bit co2 emission, but that is what happens when people do not understand the idea.
How cunningly you ask for the production our heating equipment. The problem of the chain of production for equipment has been discussed thousands of times before and you can prove that we should include the production of the hospital where I was born to my co2 emissions. That is not the accepted method. Therefore I leave this to your fantasy.
But what you don't get, that I do not stand for or against the global warming discussion. I stand for a helicopter industry that has a good public reputation and reacts and does something. The public opinion will come after us, if we are not faster. Denying global warming, spells disaster. Got it now?
If you do not believe in global warming ... you will in 20 years. I don't care if YOU believe in it, but I care about helicopters and this industry.
Nick and rotorbee - since you are so much better informed and enlightened on all these matters then why don't you educate us by explaining properly?
Does your intellectual superiority mean that we cannot possibly comprehend your information sources and would never understand the significance of your irrefutable proof straight from the mouths of the climate change scientists?
We can all see that the climate is changing - that's not rocket science.
The number of people in the world is increasing and they all want to keep warm/cool, eat and breathe, have jobs and raise families. Their countries have economies to run and industrialisation is an essential part of developing economies.
If the link between the 2 is so concrete then what, short of genocide, do you suggest is done about it.
Short of shutting down the US and China for a few years, all the wailing of impending doom isn't going to reduce the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere if indeed this is the cause of the climate change.
Does your intellectual superiority mean that we cannot possibly comprehend your information sources and would never understand the significance of your irrefutable proof straight from the mouths of the climate change scientists?
We can all see that the climate is changing - that's not rocket science.
The number of people in the world is increasing and they all want to keep warm/cool, eat and breathe, have jobs and raise families. Their countries have economies to run and industrialisation is an essential part of developing economies.
If the link between the 2 is so concrete then what, short of genocide, do you suggest is done about it.
Short of shutting down the US and China for a few years, all the wailing of impending doom isn't going to reduce the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere if indeed this is the cause of the climate change.
The data would help a lot Nick - measurements of exactly how much the sea levels have risen and where, exactly how much the temperautre has risen and where; lots of articles refer to this information but none include it specifically, it is usually a generalised 'sea levels have risen' which is then used to fuel a prognosis of what would hapeen if sea levels continue to rise.
Then a realistic removal of all the other possible causes including sunspot activity, nuclear testing, volcanic activity; these are often brushed aside as an inconvenience.
It isn't just me you have to convince, there's a whole world of people out there who, by your assertion, need to change their lifestyle - some much more than others.
Then a realistic removal of all the other possible causes including sunspot activity, nuclear testing, volcanic activity; these are often brushed aside as an inconvenience.
It isn't just me you have to convince, there's a whole world of people out there who, by your assertion, need to change their lifestyle - some much more than others.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Oman
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rotorbee
You really don't read what others write do you?
My dear fellow, I have said that I do listen to both sides but wait for the definitive proof, much like Crab.
You also boldly state
a) You don't know me or my knowledge of this matter.
b) I don't believe global warming is a myth, only the extent of man's involvement is questionable. But if you had properly read the posts instead of launching off on one, you would understand that.
c) I hope your deep knowledge of CO2 is better than your grasp of English!
Flying Lawyer states the case so well, I will now let this rest. I am sure you will come ranting back with something though. It's a free forum, go ahead!
You really don't read what others write do you?
and not believe everything people tell you, just because you like, what they say.
and I point always out, that you should stop believing what you like to believe.
You also boldly state
And believe me, I am better prepared to argue against that global warming myth, than you.
b) I don't believe global warming is a myth, only the extent of man's involvement is questionable. But if you had properly read the posts instead of launching off on one, you would understand that.
c) I hope your deep knowledge of CO2 is better than your grasp of English!
Flying Lawyer states the case so well, I will now let this rest. I am sure you will come ranting back with something though. It's a free forum, go ahead!
@crab
There is something, what you probably will like: If we do something about co2 emissions, it is absolutely mandatory, that our economy takes advantage of it. Shutting down China and the US is not an option. Any employment lost in the oil industry must be offset by new employment opportunities in other sectors, for example. If our economy collapses due to crazy new "green" laws, everything would be lost. We in the developed countries must be able to make money from the stop of the climate change. Otherwise, no change will ever happen. Therefore it is absolutely necessary, that we build and sell cars. Because we have to replace the old dirty cars with new cleaner cars as fast as possible and scrap the old ones. We just have to force the car builders to make better cars. Ok, that is a very simplified version of it, but I think you get the point.
Don't lower your lifestyle, just change it, buy a new car, new bike, new house. As in everything in life, we have to invest, if we want a change.
@whoateallthepies
Hey, don't get personnel; since English is not my mother tongue and it is one hell of a difficult language, I do what I can. That may lead to misunderstandings.
It is really sad, if you drop out now, because I had such a good idea, how to answer your last post.
I wish you many happy landings.
There is something, what you probably will like: If we do something about co2 emissions, it is absolutely mandatory, that our economy takes advantage of it. Shutting down China and the US is not an option. Any employment lost in the oil industry must be offset by new employment opportunities in other sectors, for example. If our economy collapses due to crazy new "green" laws, everything would be lost. We in the developed countries must be able to make money from the stop of the climate change. Otherwise, no change will ever happen. Therefore it is absolutely necessary, that we build and sell cars. Because we have to replace the old dirty cars with new cleaner cars as fast as possible and scrap the old ones. We just have to force the car builders to make better cars. Ok, that is a very simplified version of it, but I think you get the point.
Don't lower your lifestyle, just change it, buy a new car, new bike, new house. As in everything in life, we have to invest, if we want a change.
@whoateallthepies
Hey, don't get personnel; since English is not my mother tongue and it is one hell of a difficult language, I do what I can. That may lead to misunderstandings.
It is really sad, if you drop out now, because I had such a good idea, how to answer your last post.
I wish you many happy landings.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: yeovil
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I love this thread ...
I have found it amusing and saddening to read this thread.
For my part, I believe that man is making a significant contribution towards climate change.
I base this belief on 3 things:
(1) I have personally met and discussed the topic with UK Met Office staff. These scientific civil servants are extremely intelligent, well educated and neutral. They set the research agenda, not the politicians, and they are as happy to prove each other wrong as they are to prove each other right. These normally innate people were passionately trying to persuade anyone who would listen that we are part of the problem, that we only have a few years to turn this around and that it can be turned around.
(2) I subscribe to a 'think tank' which has been weighing up the direct evidence/arguments and by and large we think the evidence is in line with what the Hadley Research Centre has been saying. We also, by and large, think Stern has a point when he treats the whole thing as an opportunity (as well as a threat). People who slag off China should first update themselves (Asia never does things the western way) and then look at where China and the Tiger economies are getting their technology improvements.
(3) I sort of get there through simple engineering knowledge: The atmosphere is thin, has little heat capacity and is easily affected by greenhouse gases. Of course digging out and burning megatonnes of carbon, buried over millions of years, is going to have an effect. I note Nick's normally considered completely trustworthy on engineering, particularly safety issues and issues of complex systems ... yet many have completely ignored his long track record on this one.
Given that I bought the 'evidence', I then looked at the consequences and thought about what could be done. Man may not be the dominant force and there may be frustration of our efforts from other natural effects.
I'D STILL RATHER ARRIVE AT THE SCENE OF THE CRASH WITH THE BRAKES FULL ON - I'VE GOT KIDS ON BOARD!!!
I feel better now. I'm off for a lie down now
Ever yours
Nimby
(Helicopters are really useful, but not always needed. Let's just be careful we can justify what we do to our grandchildren)
For my part, I believe that man is making a significant contribution towards climate change.
I base this belief on 3 things:
(1) I have personally met and discussed the topic with UK Met Office staff. These scientific civil servants are extremely intelligent, well educated and neutral. They set the research agenda, not the politicians, and they are as happy to prove each other wrong as they are to prove each other right. These normally innate people were passionately trying to persuade anyone who would listen that we are part of the problem, that we only have a few years to turn this around and that it can be turned around.
(2) I subscribe to a 'think tank' which has been weighing up the direct evidence/arguments and by and large we think the evidence is in line with what the Hadley Research Centre has been saying. We also, by and large, think Stern has a point when he treats the whole thing as an opportunity (as well as a threat). People who slag off China should first update themselves (Asia never does things the western way) and then look at where China and the Tiger economies are getting their technology improvements.
(3) I sort of get there through simple engineering knowledge: The atmosphere is thin, has little heat capacity and is easily affected by greenhouse gases. Of course digging out and burning megatonnes of carbon, buried over millions of years, is going to have an effect. I note Nick's normally considered completely trustworthy on engineering, particularly safety issues and issues of complex systems ... yet many have completely ignored his long track record on this one.
Given that I bought the 'evidence', I then looked at the consequences and thought about what could be done. Man may not be the dominant force and there may be frustration of our efforts from other natural effects.
I'D STILL RATHER ARRIVE AT THE SCENE OF THE CRASH WITH THE BRAKES FULL ON - I'VE GOT KIDS ON BOARD!!!
I feel better now. I'm off for a lie down now
Ever yours
Nimby
(Helicopters are really useful, but not always needed. Let's just be careful we can justify what we do to our grandchildren)
@nimby
I congratulate you for your post. Brilliant.
As requested some sources:
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/infothek/kipp-prozesse
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/infothek/s...um-klimawandel
http://www.awi.de/de/aktuelles_und_p..._bericht_2007/
http://www.proclim.ch/products/ch205...mmary_2050.pdf
http://fm.proclim.ch/FMPro?-db=news....d=33098&-find=
http://www.proclim.ch/products/heatw...3_bericht.html
Interesting:
http://climateprediction.net/
I congratulate you for your post. Brilliant.
As requested some sources:
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/infothek/kipp-prozesse
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/infothek/s...um-klimawandel
http://www.awi.de/de/aktuelles_und_p..._bericht_2007/
http://www.proclim.ch/products/ch205...mmary_2050.pdf
http://fm.proclim.ch/FMPro?-db=news....d=33098&-find=
http://www.proclim.ch/products/heatw...3_bericht.html
Interesting:
http://climateprediction.net/
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The Dark Side
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a lot of people here and elsewhere fail to get a grip on is that, like the example of my friends (see previous post), there is a lot of rhetoric BUT no will for real change amongst the vast majority of the world's population, particularly from the emerging nations. There are, and will be too many people on the earth.
The Green amongst will not accept nuclear power, it is they that are actually preventing the real start of change.
Unless Draconian measures are accepted and introduced by the world's population, then, what you've got is the best that you can expect. I've never seen anywhere that mankind has any right to this world for ever. We are witnessing the beginning of the end of mankind as we know it - get used to this idea!
GAGS
E86
The Green amongst will not accept nuclear power, it is they that are actually preventing the real start of change.
Unless Draconian measures are accepted and introduced by the world's population, then, what you've got is the best that you can expect. I've never seen anywhere that mankind has any right to this world for ever. We are witnessing the beginning of the end of mankind as we know it - get used to this idea!
GAGS
E86
Nobel Price for Al Gore and the IPCC
I just wanted to be the first to tell you ...
Al Gore, U.N. Panel win Nobel Peace Prize
Former vice president and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change awarded for raising awareness of global warming.
Ups ....
Al Gore, U.N. Panel win Nobel Peace Prize
Former vice president and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change awarded for raising awareness of global warming.
Ups ....
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Oman
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the Daily Mail
The Government has offered to re-write the guidance for schools showing pupils Al Gore's climate-change documentary An Inconvenient Truth.
The move is a dramatic response to a High Court action brought by father-of-two Stewart Dimmock, a Kent school governor and a member of political group the New Party.
Mr Dimmock says the former US vice-president's Oscar-winning film is unfit for schools because it is politically partisan and contains serious scientific inaccuracies, as well as "sentimental mush".
His lawyers have accused the Government and New Labour 'Thought Police' of backing the film as a way of 'brainwashing' pupils on global warming.
John Day, of Malletts Solicitors, today described the offer to re-write the guidance as 'a U-turn', but said it did not go far enough.
He said 'no amount of turgid guidance' could change the fact that the film was unfit for consumption in the classroom.
High Court judge Mr Justice Burton, who conducted a three-day hearing, has yet to give a final decision on whether or not the film should be banned totally from the classroom.
Link http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770
The Government has offered to re-write the guidance for schools showing pupils Al Gore's climate-change documentary An Inconvenient Truth.
The move is a dramatic response to a High Court action brought by father-of-two Stewart Dimmock, a Kent school governor and a member of political group the New Party.
Mr Dimmock says the former US vice-president's Oscar-winning film is unfit for schools because it is politically partisan and contains serious scientific inaccuracies, as well as "sentimental mush".
His lawyers have accused the Government and New Labour 'Thought Police' of backing the film as a way of 'brainwashing' pupils on global warming.
John Day, of Malletts Solicitors, today described the offer to re-write the guidance as 'a U-turn', but said it did not go far enough.
He said 'no amount of turgid guidance' could change the fact that the film was unfit for consumption in the classroom.
High Court judge Mr Justice Burton, who conducted a three-day hearing, has yet to give a final decision on whether or not the film should be banned totally from the classroom.
Link http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770
