Libs want ban on teaching climate science

A body representing nearly 70,000 Australian scientists has criticised a Queensland Liberal National Party resolution calling for mainstream climate science to be cut from the state's school curriculum.

LNP delegates at the party's state conference passed a motion yesterday calling on Education Minister John-Paul Langbroek to stop the teaching of ''environmental propaganda material, in particular post-normal science about climate change''.

The mover of the motion, Noosa-based LNP member Richard Pearson, attacked ''false prophets who would poison the minds of our children in our schools''.

''Few people understand that the so-called science of climate change is really what can be defined as post-normal science,'' he said, arguing it went beyond traditional understanding of science based on experimentation and falsifiable theories. The motion was passed with overwhelming support.
Advertisement

Science & Technology Australia chief executive Anna-Maria Arabia said the resolution was ''extremely harmful'' and risked undermining faith in science more broadly.

The central principles of climate science - including that man-made greenhouse gases trap heat in the lower atmosphere and have warmed the planet - are backed by all the world major's scientific academies.

''The message this sends is 'we do not treat the science as an issue of testing ideas, we treat it as a belief system','' Ms Arabia said.

''We shouldn't be telling students that testing ideas is propaganda.''

Queensland Premier Campbell Newman said MPs had not decided whether to act on yesterday's resolution.

''The LNP has its view, but as a parliamentary team we have to represent all of Queensland,'' he said. ''We will always do the right thing by Queenslanders ahead of the LNP.''

Link -
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/libs-want-ban-on-teaching-climate-scien...
=================================
Some Liberals/Nationals may think science is heresy?

Some may also still think that smoking isn't a cause of cancer?

Both thoughts, would be a mistake!

They're as loony as those nut-bars in the You-Ess-Eh who
refuse to teach evolution in schools but push the BS and
thoroughly disproven creationist theory.

Why they are given any credence at all is beyond me......

Kat wrote on Jul 16^th, 2012 at 1:26am:

Even science requires creation.

What came first, the chicken or the egg?

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 16^th, 2012 at 8:27am:

then how did it come to be?

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 16^th, 2012 at 9:09am:

I have already faced the fact there has to be a God.

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Jul 16^th, 2012 at 9:15am:


If there is a God, where did s/he come from? Even a God requires creation.

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Jul 16^th, 2012 at 7:47am:


The Big Bang Theory still has the 'what happened before?' question that remains unanswered. Equating the Big Bang with Creation is hardly a massive step and does not in any way preclude God.

NBNMyths wrote on Jul 16^th, 2012 at 10:07am:


why? if time is just a creation then the question becomes pointless. The notion of 'when' is not more than 'existsance'. Why do you think God Himself refers to Himself as 'I Am', rather than something with temporal connotations?