31 March, 2011

More Inconvenient Propagandist Nonsense

Some people—overly credulous when accepting fictions from the IPCC or Al Gore, but overly sceptical when criticising Alfred’s review of his SAH class—have cast doubts on Alfred’s account because he refers to the teacher claiming that the seas would rise by 20 feet.  See for instance, Bill’s comment:  he scoffs, “You go to school in Tasmania and they’re talking to you about measurements in feet?”  Yes, Bill, that’s because the teacher—from laziness, or incompetence, or both—was uncritically relying on a discredited, American source.
At the time of Alfred’s review the teacher had not permitted students to keep hand-outs, but she has since relented.  One hand-out was a photocopy of this page, which she also displayed in a PowerPoint presentation; it comes from a PDF supplied by ClimateCrisis.net, “AIT in the Classroom:  A series of lessons designed for science classrooms as a companion to the documentary An Inconvenient Truth”, p. 30:

Rising Seas & Drowning Bears

Two egregious claims in the film, “An Inconvenient Truth”, were, in the English court-case of Dimmock v. Secretary of State for Education and Skills ([2007] EWHC 2288 (Admin), [2008] 1 All ER 367), specifically mentioned in Justice Burton’s decision as erroneous:
1.  ‘Error’ 11:  Sea level rise of up to 20 feet (7 metres) will be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future.
In scene 21 (the film is carved up for teaching purposes into 32 scenes), in one of the most graphic parts of the film Mr Gore says as follows:
If Greenland broke up and melted, or if half of Greenland and half of West Antarctica broke up and melted, this is what would happen to the sea level in Florida.  This is what would happen in the San Francisco Bay.  A lot of people live in these areas.  The Netherlands, the Low Countries:  absolutely devastation.  The area around Beijing is home to tens of millions of people.  Even worse, in the area around Shanghai, there are 40 million people.  Worse still, Calcutta, and to the east Bangladesh, the area covered includes 50 million people.   Think of the impact of a couple of hundred thousand refugees when they are displaced by an environmental event and then imagine the impact of a 100 million or more.  Here is Manhattan.  This is the World Trade Center memorial site.  After the horrible events of 9/11 we said never again.   This is what would happen to Manhattan.  They can measure this precisely, just as scientists could predict precisely how much water would breach the levee in New Orleans.
This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore’s ‘wake-up call’.  It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and over, millennia, so that the Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.
8.  ‘Error’ 15:  Death of polar bears.
In scene 16, by reference to a dramatic graphic of a polar bear desperately swimming through the water looking for ice, Mr Gore says:  “A new scientific study shows that for the first time they are finding polar bears that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice.  They did not find that before.”  The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.  That is not to say that there may not in the future be drowning-related deaths of polar bears if the trend of regression of pack-ice and/or longer open water continues, but it plainly does not support Mr Gore's description.
You may notice that ClimateCrisis.net is still (as of March, 2011) supplying such erroneous, alarmist claims and unscientific exaggerations—or, in other words, lies—to schools and to schoolchildren.

UPDATE (10 May):  on the alleged decline of polar bears, see Kirk Myers, in the Seminole County Environmental News Examiner, “Canada’s growing polar bear population ‘becoming a problem,’ locals say”.

UPDATE II (3 August):  see also, in International Business Times, Amrutha Gayathri’s “Polar Bear Population Higher than in 20th Century: Is Something Fishy about Extinction Fears?”.

Inconvenient Nonsense in the Classroom

From “Inconvenient Nonsense Infiltrates the Classroom” (in The Australian, 11 November, 2010), by Prof. Bob Carter:
In 2006, former US vice-president Al Gore made a movie and companion book about global warming called “An Inconvenient Truth”.  Gore undertook many speaking tours to publicise his film, and his PowerPoint slide show has been shown by thousands of his acolytes spreading a relentless message of warming alarmism across the globe.
But while audiences reacted positively and emotionally to the film’s message – which was that human carbon dioxide emissions are causing dangerous global warming – some independent scientists pointed out that “An Inconvenient Truth” represented well-made propaganda for the warming cause and presented an unreliable, biased account of climate science.  [...]
In early February 2007, the Department for Education and Skills in Britain, apparently ignorant that the film was scientifically defective, announced that all secondary schools were to be provided with a climate change information pack that contained a copy of Gore’s by then notorious film.  Many parents were scandalised at this attempt to propagandise their children on such an important environmental issue.
One parent, school governor Stuart Dimmock who had two sons at a state school in southern England, took legal action against the secretary for education in the High Court, and sought the film’s withdrawal from schools.
In a famous judgment in October 2007, Justice Burton, discerning that Gore was on a “crusade”, commented that “the claimant substantially won this case”, and ruled that the science in the film had been used “to make a political statement and to support a political program” and that the film contained nine fundamental errors of fact out of the 35 listed by Dimmock’s scientific advisers.  Justice Burton required that these errors be summarised in new guidance notes for screenings.
In effect, the High Court judgment typed Gore and his supporters as evangelistic proselytisers for an environmental cause.
Fast forward to this month and many Australian parents have been surprised to learn Gore’s film “will be incorporated in the [new] national [English] curriculum), as part of a bid to teach students on environmental sustainability across all subjects”.
It is, I suppose, some relief the film has not been recommended for inclusion in the science syllabus. Instead, Banquo’s ghost has risen to haunt English teachers, doubtless in class time that might otherwise have been devoted to learning grammar.  [...]
Australia is rightly vigilant about preventing child abuse and guarding the freedom of the press.  Why, then, are we so willing to tolerate the abuse of educational indoctrination of our children and the deliberate limitation on the scope of the media discussions they will be exposed to as adults?
Gore’s movie and book are an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but are often unable to state publicly) his crusade is mostly based on junk science.
If allowed in Australian schools at all, “An Inconvenient Truth” belongs not alongside Jane Austen and Tim Winton, nor with Charles Darwin and Richard Feynman, but with the works of authors such as Jules Verne and H.G. Wells in the science-fiction section of the library.

Vincent Courtillot: the Sun Controls Climate

How the Sun controls climate, not CO2
A summary of current science, featuring a synopsis of the cosmic-ray theory and an account of the fact that “there is no global temperature.”

Dr. Vincent Courtillot is a professor of geophysics at the University Paris-Diderot and Chair of Paleomagnetism and Geodynamics of the Institut Universitaire de France.  He explains how solar cycles control the climate by their influence on cloud formation (the cosmic-ray theory of Svensmark et al.) and by influencing oceanic oscillations and the length of days.  Dr. Courtillot notes that the IPCC’s climatic computer-models do not correlate with real observations and that temperature trends vary substantially between North America and Europe—which is contrary to the IPCC’s computer-model predictions.  He notes that while the total solar irradiance (TSI) varies by only about 0.1% over a solar cycle, the solar UV varies by about 10% and that secondary effects on cloud formation may vary by up to 30% over solar cycles.  The IPCC computer-models dismiss the rôle of the sun by considering only the small variations of the TSI but ignoring the large changes in the most energetic and influential part of the solar spectrum, the ultraviolet.  (From Climate Realists.)
See also presentations by Prof. Bob Carter, Prof. Nir Shaviv, and others at EikeKlimaEnergie’s YouTube Channel; and see Matt Ridley (at The Rational Optimist):
Correlation ain’t causation.
But for some time I have been noticing that the correlations between certain aspects of solar activity and certain aspects of climate are getting really rather impressive – far more so than anything relating to carbon dioxide.
Carbon dioxide certainly can affect climate, but so for sure can other things, and in explaining the ups and downs of past climate, before industrialisation, variations in the sun are looking better and better as an explanation.  That does not mean the sun causes current climate change, but it certainly suggests that it is at least possible that forcings more powerful than carbon dioxide could be at work.

29 March, 2011

Peer-Reviewed Papers Which Doubt AGW

So much for the “settled science” consensus.
Over 850 peer-reviewed papers which “support skepticism of AGW or AGW Alarm” can be located by way of Popular Technology.net.

UPDATE:  the number is now over nine hundred.
UPDATE II (3 June, 2011)Origin of the Popular Technology.net Peer-Reviewed Paper List.

24 March, 2011

Enforced Donation in Addition to Indoctrination

Students in a Society and History (SAH) class on “the Impact of Climate Change” at a Tasmanian high school, must donate to a Canadian environmental organisation in order to be awarded points in a “scavenger hunt” and to gain marks.

During your current course of study on climate change you will be required to conduct a scavenger hunt as homework to submit at the end of the unit.
You will need to collect data or create as many of the projects on the scavenger hunt list as possible.  The person that collects the most points is the winner and will receive a prize, with runner up prizes as well!!  [sic]
The SAH teacher is also a teacher of English.
The last two items of the list are:
Sell deforestACTION land vouchers to combat climate change.  (15 points for every $2 voucher sold)
Through the deforestACTION web site join the cause and register as a [...] High students (30 points, get 5 others to join through you and get 50 points).  [sic]
Details of what proportion of donations may be spent on administration, marketing, transportation and attractive office furniture are not provided but, according to its web-site, deforestACTION is:
a global action project, involving millions of young people around the world, saving the world’s forests. The project is supported by TakingITGlobal and Microsoft Partners in Learning, as part of the Shout environmental education initiative.
TakingITGlobal was founded in 1999 in Toronto, Canada, by Jennifer Corriero (Executive Director) and Michael Furdyk (Director of Technology).  By the way, TakingITGlobal is “Carbon Balanced”; it “offsets carbon generated from [its] servers, travel, office and staff commutes!”
See Mathew Trevisan, in The Globe and Star, “Social networking for social change”:
In addition to its main site, TakingITGlobal has also created an online education module.  For $30, teachers can set up a virtual classroom where students can post blogs and research social issues.  Teachers can also incorporate lesson plans developed by TakingITGlobal and communicate with educators in other countries.  Almost 950 classrooms in 57 countries currently use the technology.
Ms. Corriero now employs about 25 full-time staff in Toronto and more than 170 part-time workers and volunteers around the world.  Online membership has increased steadily, and funding generates about $1.4-million a year.
But almost all of this money is derived from project-based grants dispersed by Canadian government organizations like the Canadian International Development Agency, corporations like Microsoft, and foundations like the J.W. McConnell Family Foundation.

Religious Instruction in Tasmanian State Schools

Section 34 of the Education Act 1994:
Religious instruction
(1) Religious instruction for students may be provided at a State school with the approval of the Secretary.
(2) The total number of hours of religious instruction provided at a State school in a year is not to exceed the total number of weeks in that year during which the school is open for student instruction.
(3) Religious instruction at a State school is to be provided –
(a) by a member of the clergy, or another person, authorized to do so by the religious body to which that member or person belongs; and
(b) during any time the principal determines.
(4) Attendance at any class for religious instruction is not compulsory for any student.
(5) A principal may require a parent of a student at a State school to notify whether or not the student is to attend any religious instruction provided by the school.
Some pertinent parts of the Guidelines to Religious Instruction
(from http://www.education.tas.gov.au/school/parents/religion/guidelines):
Religious Instruction in State Schools: Guidelines
1. Introduction
Religious instruction in Tasmanian state schools is provided for under Section 34 of the Education Act 1994.  The Act allows for programs to be provided at state schools with the approval of the Secretary of the Department of Education.
These guidelines constitute the Secretary’s requirements for program approval which build on Section 34 of the Act to govern the operation of religious instruction programs in schools.

2. Definition
Religious instruction in state schools is defined as any non-secular instruction provided to school students during any time which they are required to attend school.  Under the Education Act 1994, religious instruction programs are not part of the state-provided, secular school curriculum.

3. Principles
The principles that underpin the operation of religious instruction in state schools are:
  1. Religious instruction programs will be compatible with the codes and practices of the school and the framework of values and purposes on which the school curriculum is based.
  2. The application and approval process for religious instruction programs will be non-discriminatory and equitably applied to all religions and denominations.
  3. Religious instruction programs in schools will respect and recognise the diversity of individuals’ beliefs.
  4. Religious instruction programs will be non-discriminatory.
  5. Whilst providers of religious instruction programs may convey personal beliefs, they will not proselytise.
4. Program Requirements
c) Student participation
Students may participate in a religious instruction program if:
• their parents/carers have been fully informed [...] and
• parent/carer permission has been provided.
Parental approval for a student to participate is specific to a program, is valid for no more than one school year, and may be withdrawn at any time.

A Question:
How does the dogmatic indoctrination of “The Impact of Global Warming” in Alfred’s high school differ from religious instruction?

Religious Freedom in Australia & Tasmania

Section 116 of the Australian Constitution:
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion [...].
Section 46 of the Tasmanian Constitution Act 1934:
(1) Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion are, subject to public order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen.
(2) No person shall be subject to any disability, or be required to take any oath on account of his religion or religious belief and no religious test shall be imposed in respect of the appointment to or holding of any public office.

Environmentalism as Religion

From “Mankind’s Greatest Challenge”, Remarks to the Commonwealth Club, San Francisco, September 15, 2003, by Michael Crichton:
Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism.  Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it’s a religion?  Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.
There’s an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there’s a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability.  Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment.  Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.
Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday—these are deeply held mythic structures.  They are profoundly conservative beliefs.  They may even be hard-wired in the brain, for all I know.  I certainly don’t want to talk anybody out of them, as I don’t want to talk anybody out of a belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God who rose from the dead.  But the reason I don’t want to talk anybody out of these beliefs is that I know that I can't talk anybody out of them.  These are not facts that can be argued.  These are issues of faith.
And so it is, sadly, with environmentalism.  Increasingly it seems facts aren’t necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief.  It’s about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved.  Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom.  Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them.  [...]
With so many past failures, you might think that environmental predictions would become more cautious.  But not if it’s a religion.  Remember, the nut on the sidewalk carrying the placard that predicts the end of the world doesn’t quit when the world doesn’t end on the day he expects.  He just changes his placard, sets a new doomsday date, and goes back to walking the streets.  One of the defining features of religion is that your beliefs are not troubled by facts, because they have nothing to do with facts.  [...]
How will we manage to get environmentalism out of the clutches of religion, and back to a scientific discipline?  There's a simple answer:  we must institute far more stringent requirements for what constitutes knowledge in the environmental realm.  I am thoroughly sick of politicized so-called facts that simply aren't true.  It isn't that these “facts” are exaggerations of an underlying truth.  Nor is it that certain organizations are spinning their case to present it in the strongest way.  Not at all—what more and more groups are doing is putting out is lies, pure and simple.  Falsehoods that they know to be false.  [...]
Because in the end, science offers us the only way out of politics.  And if we allow science to become politicized, then we are lost.  We will enter the Internet version of the dark ages, an era of shifting fears and wild prejudices, transmitted to people who don't know any better.  That's not a good future for the human race.  That’s our past.  So it’s time to abandon the religion of environmentalism, and return to the science of environmentalism, and base our public policy decisions firmly on that.

From “Environmentalism as Religion”, by John M. Ostrowski:
It should not surprise us that environmentalists demand sacrifices, for any religion demands sacrifices.  And like other religions, environmentalism is a human-centered one.  Yes, in its purest form, it is Earth worship; its reverence is directed at something decidedly non-human.  However, the beliefs and tenets of the faith concern humans and their role in natural history.  Inevitably, in the modern world, this role is an antagonistic one for the environmentalists. Humans are the problem, and the solution will demand some bane to human beings.  It is this simple fact that has led Peter Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace and a man who has become disaffected with the environmental zealots, to call environmentalists “anti-human.”
Whereas most religions seek the betterment of humanity, environmentalism is unique in that it seeks the opposite.  The sacrifices that it demands be made will result in severe harm for those who need help the most.  In the developing world, environmentalists see an excellent area for proselytization and a place to implement their policies – for existing infrastructure is hard to change, but poor countries provide environmentalists with a tabula rasa.  They preach the need for solar and wind power in the developing world.  These two forms of energy, however, are not reliable or powerful enough for a world that is looking to industrialize.  Imagine, for example, a modern factory of any type running completely on solar or wind power.  Difficult to imagine?  Of course.  If the environmentalist vision of the developing world is allowed to take root, billions of people who can benefit greatly from industrialization will be condemned to poverty for the rest of their life.  It’s sad that rich, Western environmentalists are so quick to demand this sacrifice of others.  That the people they demand it of are the ones who will be harmed the most by it is downright reprehensible.
Finally, like many religions, there is a strong emphasis in environmentalism on the end of the world.  Fear mongering and predictions of the apocalypse are the primary evangelizing tools of environmentalists.  In the past we’ve endured warnings about overpopulation, nuclear holocausts, and now a global climate disaster.  And like the apocalyptic predictions of other religions, those of environmentalism have never come to pass.  But luckily for them, people have a short memory, and fear is a powerful persuasive tool.  By the time it is clear that anthropogenic climate chance not only won’t cause the end of the world but also isn’t even happening, no one will remember the hyperbolic claims made by environmental zealots.  Instead, we will be entertaining their latest apocalyptic fantasy.

From “The Economics of Climate Change:  an Appeal to Reason” (a lecture given to the Centre for Policy Studies, London, on November 1, 2006), by Lord Nigel Lawson:
The new priests are scientists (well rewarded with research grants for their pains) rather than clerics of the established religions, and the new religion is eco-fundamentalism.  But it is a distinction without much of a difference.  And the old religions have not been slow to make common cause.
Does all this matter?  Up to a point, no.  Unbelievers should not be dismissive of the comfort that religion can bring. If people feel better when they buy a hybrid car and see a few windmills dotted about (although perhaps not in their own back yard), then so be it.  And in a democracy, if greenery is what the people want, politicians will understandably provide it, dressed in the most high-flown rhetoric they can muster.
Indeed, if people are happy to pay a carbon tax, provided it is not at too high a level, and the proceeds are used to cut income tax, that would not be a disaster, either.  It would have to be a consumer-based tax, however, since in the globalized world economy industry is highly mobile, whereas individuals are much less so.  But the new religion of eco-fundamentalism does present dangers on at least three levels.  
The first is that the governments of Europe, fired in many cases by anti-Americanism (never underestimate the extent to which distaste for President Bush has fuelled the anti-global warming movement), may get so carried away by their rhetoric as to impose measures which do serious harm to their economies.  That is a particular danger at the present time in this country.  No doubt, when the people come to suffer the results they will insist on a change of policy, or else vote the offending government out of office.  But it would be better to avoid the damage in the first place. 

The second, and more fundamental, danger is that the global salvationist movement is profoundly hostile to capitalism and the market economy. There are already increasing calls for green protectionism – for the imposition of trade restrictions against those countries which fail to agree to curb their carbon dioxide emissions.  Given the fact that the only way in which the world’s poor 
will ever be able to escape from their poverty is by embracing capitalism and the global market economy, this is not good news. 

But the third danger is even more profound.  Today we are very conscious of the threat we face from the supreme intolerance of Islamic fundamentalism.  It could not be a worse time to abandon our own traditions of reason and tolerance, and to embrace instead the irrationality and intolerance of eco-fundamentalism, where reasoned questioning of its mantras is regarded as a form of blasphemy.  There is no greater threat to the people of this planet than the retreat from reason we see all around us today.

From “Global Warming as Religion and not Science”, by John Brignell:
Faith is a belief held without evidence.  The scientific method, a loose collection of procedures of great variety, is based on precisely the opposite concept, as famously declared by Thomas Henry Huxley:
The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such.  For him, scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin.
Huxley was one of a long tradition of British sceptical philosophers.  From the Bacons, through the likes of Locke, Hume and Russell, to the magnificent climax of Popper’s statement of the principle of falsifiability, the scientific method was painfully established, only to be abandoned in a few short decades.  It is one of the great ironies of modern history that the nation that was the cradle of the scientific method came to lead the process of its abandonment.  The great difference, then, is that religion demands belief, while science requires disbelief.  There is a great variety of faiths.  Atheism is just as much a faith as theism.  There is no evidence either way.  There is no fundamental clash between faith and science – they do not intersect.  The difficulties arise, however, when one pretends to be the other.  [...]
One of the most notorious demagogues of the godless religion is Al Gore.  He is certainly no great orator, but he makes up for it with chutzpah.  His disregard for truth is exemplified by his characteristic and ubiquitous pose in front of a satellite photograph of hurricane Katrina.  Even some of the most vehement climate “scientists” refrain from connecting that particular isolated and monstrously tragic event with global warming.  Likewise his Old Testament style prophecies of further disasters, such as floods due to a rise in sea level, greatly exceed the more modest claims of the “professionals”.  As in the overthrow of the cities of the plain and other biblical prophecies, Gore promises a rain of fire and brimstone on us, unless we change our ways.
Gore also displays all the characteristics of the classical religious hypocrite.  He disregards his own proscriptions with abandonment and ostentation.  By his own measure (carbon footprint) his sins are great; at least twenty times those of the average American.  It is all right though, because he purchases absolution (carbon offsets) through his own company.  As he is a private individual it is not known whether he profits directly, but at a minimum he does not pay out of his taxable income and, worst of all, he demonstrates that the rich are immune from any of the actual privations that attachment to the new religion visits upon its poorer adherents.  This is also not unknown in traditional religions and has been a source of material for satirists throughout the centuries.  [...]
Freedom of speech and publication is at the very heart of science.   Even the most foolish of hypotheses is allowed to be offered for examination.  In much of religion the opposite is true; challenging the established dogma is heresy, for which the punishment has ranged from ostracism to horrific torture and death.   One of the greatest ironies produced by the successful policy of entryism by the eco-theologians is that it is none other than the Royal Society that has been orchestrating the attempt to censor any deviation from establishment beliefs.  Authoritarian politicians, such as Congressman Brad Miller, would give such suppression the force of law.
It is a curious repetition of history that those who advance the hypothesis that the sun is the controlling element in changes of climate are vilified, just as Galileo was, for supporting the Copernican heliocentric description of the solar system.  Yet the sun is clearly the driver for climate – if it stopped shining, the earth’s temperature would drop to near absolute zero.  In the establishment dogma the sun is barely mentioned, while the puny efforts of mankind are gratuitously magnified out of proportion. In a scientific approach to climate, a full understanding of the behaviour of that solitary driver would be the first prerequisite, but this is waived in the interests of piety; so leading solar researchers have been deprived of funding.  [...]
The human spirit is sick.  It soared during the enlightenment of the eighteenth century.  It flowered during the nineteenth.  It beat off the tyrants of the twentieth century.  Now, at an alarming rate, it is surrendering its freedoms to a concocted religion based on fraudulent science.   Of course, it is not only science that has suffered in the overwhelming cultural downturn.  The great artistic tradition has given way to displays of dead animals and soiled beds.   In much of what passes for literature and drama, the expletives remain while the loftier aspirations of humanity are deleted.  Entertainment is debased by displays of banality, cruelty and vacuous, groundless celebrity.  It was science, however, that gave us lives of a length, comfort and healthiness that were unthought-of, even within human memory; a gift that is cold-bloodedly, but covertly, being denied to millions in poorer parts of the world.  Extremists of the new religion regard humanity as an inconvenience or a pestilence that can be disposed of (not including themselves, of course).
Above all, science represented the triumph of humanity over the primitive superstitions that haunted our ancestors, a creation of pure reason, a monument to that evolutionary (or, if you prefer, God-given) miracle of the human brain.  It is too valuable just to be tossed away like a used tissue.  But who will speak for science when the barbarian is already inside the gate?

The Tasmanian Curriculum

From the page entitled “Curriculum” in School Life 2011 – Information for parents about Tasmanian government schools, comes this excerpt:
Science- Students learn to ask questions about, investigate, and develop scientific explanations for the events and phenomena that occur in the world.
Society and history- Students learn how societies operate and change over time and understand how to participate as informed and responsible citizens.