The BBC has removed an educational page laying out the “benefits” of climate change after a furious online reaction.
BBC Bitesize, its website for schoolchildren, claimed warmer temperatures “could lead to healthier outdoor lifestyles” and that a benefit of climate change could mean easier access to oil in Alaska and Siberia.
And...isn't that a possibility? Should we ignore it.
Other apparent benefits highlighted by the BBC included the ability to one day grow more crops in Siberia, new shipping routes created by melting ice, and more tourist destinations.
Also true. But we can't, apparently, handle the truth. Says who?
After a backlash from climate experts and campaigners, including the Guardian writer George Monbiot, the page, aimed at year 10 students, was amended to only include the negative impacts of climate change.
Ah. The usual suspects.
The exam board Eduqas said the information was not taken from its curriculum, adding: “Within our GCSE geography specifications, we examine the consequences of climate change and its respective impact on our planet.
“As part of our courses, we also ask students to explore opposing attitudes to climate change. However, we do not advocate a positive viewpoint on this topic.”
What are you doing advocating any viewpoint? Why not just lay out the facts and let people think for themselves?
Scotland’s exam board recently came under fire from the Scottish Green party for teaching the “positives” of climate change.
The Scottish Qualifications Authority geography course gave benefits of climate change such as “increased tourism to more northerly latitudes” and “improved crop yields”.
The political party said it was “deeply inappropriate” for the SQA to specify the pros and cons should be given equal consideration.
Clearly, across the border, they are made of sterner stuff:
The SQA responded: “Analysing and evaluating a variety of views is essential to critical thinking.”
Which we must discourage, lest people indulge in wrongthink.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Unburden yourself here: