This comment from JunkkMale originally appeared on Geoff Chambers’ Moderation in Moderation thread. I’ve moved it here, with the comments it attracted, because I think that this is the kind of problem that seriously needs talking about.
The government talks about the importance of individual actions in the fight against climate change, and it is up to each and every one of us whether we buy an electric car, put a solar panel on the roof, or cancel a weekend flight to Rome. Children do not usually have a choice about what they are taught.
This thread has strayed into many areas beyond the main topic, and I for one have enjoyed the quality of debate on display.
One topic I noted was how certain issues are being shared with our kids. To be honest, it was passing interest… until last night.
The subject of ‘who tells, controls’…. especially in terms of authority figures, was rather brought home to me last night.
My kids are revising currently for some serious exams that do count.
One brought in this book, which forms part of the curriculum: AQA GCSE Science Core Higher Ed. Graham Hill. Pub: Hodder Murray
He wanted some advice on a question. From a series including sections such as 3.3, entitled ‘How do humans affect the environment?’ and 3.5 ‘Global Warming’ (other aspects of global warming and the greenhouse effect also covered in Section 6.4, Air Pollution), and 3.6 ‘What can be done to reduce human impact on the environment?. Here it is, as posed, under 6.4, p113:
21. Which of the following three do you think will actually happen? Write a paragraph to explain your answer.
a) We’ll worry and blame ourselves for climate change for thousands of years.
b) Fossil fuels will run out and renewable energy will save us.
c) The oceans will evaporate as the Earth heats up and humans will die.
His face, when I opined that ‘none are very coherent, accurate, or suggest definite answers that are sensible, at least as posed’, was a heartbreaking picture. He just wanted… needed to provide the ‘right’ one as the system demands it to be one of them. Sighing at the ‘will happen’, I therefore attempted to assist based on the hope that the paragraph of explanation would be rewarded if well argued and having a basis in fact and scientific interpretation.Forget a), which is facile and shows a poor grasp of even basic climate science terminology, though maybe does reflect the ‘worry’ mindset being churned out in some quarters.
If you have to choose, choose b) as fossil fuels will run out. They are finite. As to whether ‘renewable’ energy ‘will’ ‘save’ us, that rather depends on how many of ‘us’ there are, and from what we are being ‘saved’. It seems, currently, optimistic to presume renewable sources can meet all current and projected energy demands.
As for c), well, yes, as the sun goes supernova in a few billion years. But humans may be in a different place by then.
THIS… is what they are being served????!
More touching still was his further plea to me NOT to get in touch with the school with my now serious reservations about the way this information was laid out and the questions posed… as he just wanted to pass the unit and not get in trouble.
If this is the state of education, at least in this area (I now wonder about history, etc), I am seriously troubled not only by the course structures, but the mindsets prevalent in our educational establishment.
Are there any teachers out there who would be prepared to comment? anonymously if necessary.
This thread has strayed into many areas beyond the main topic, and I for one have enjoyed the quality of debate on display.
One topic I noted was how certain issues are being shared with our kids. To be honest, it was passing interest… until last night.
The subject of ‘who tells, controls’…. especially in terms of authority figures, was rather brought home to me last night.
My kids are revising currently for some serious exams that do count.
One brought in this book, which forms part of the curriculum: AQA GCSE Science Core Higher Ed. Graham Hill. Pub: Hodder Murray
He wanted some advice on a question. From a series including sections such as 3.3, entitled ‘How do humans affect the environment?’ and 3.5 ‘Global Warming’ (other aspects of global warming and the greenhouse effect also covered in Section 6.4, Air Pollution), and 3.6 ‘What can be done to reduce human impact on the environment?. Here it is, as posed, under 6.4, p113:
21. Which of the following three do you think will actually happen? Write a paragraph to explain your answer.
a) We’ll worry and blame ourselves for climate change for thousands of years.
b) Fossil fuels will run out and renewable energy will save us.
c) The oceans will evaporate as the Earth heats up and humans will die.
His face, when I opined that ‘none are very coherent, accurate, or suggest definite answers that are sensible, at least as posed’, was a heartbreaking picture. He just wanted… needed to provide the ‘right’ one as the system demands it to be one of them. Sighing at the ‘will happen’, I therefore attempted to assist based on the hope that the paragraph of explanation would be rewarded if well argued and having a basis in fact and scientific interpretation.
Forget a), which is facile and shows a poor grasp of even basic climate science terminology, though maybe does reflect the ‘worry’ mindset being churned out in some quarters.
If you have to choose, choose b) as fossil fuels will run out. They are finite. As to whether ‘renewable’ energy ‘will’ ’save’ us, that rather depends on how many of ‘us’ there are, and from what we are being ‘saved’. It seems, currently, optimistic to presume renewable sources can meet all current and projected energy demands.
As for c), well, yes, as the sun goes supernova in a few billion years. But humans may be in a different place by then.
THIS… is what they are being served????!
More touching still was his further plea to me NOT to get in touch with the school with my now serious reservations about the way this information was laid out and the questions posed… as he just wanted to pass the unit and not get in trouble.
If this is the state of education, at least in this area (I now wonder about history, etc), I am seriously troubled not only by the course structures, but the mindsets prevalent in our educational establishment.
JunkkMale, the question bears absolutely no resemblance to the sort of questions I faced when doing my GCE O-Levels in Physics and Chemistry back in the late 1970s, which were to do with actual science. In fact, it fills me with utter dismay, reading this. If it is representative of the general quality of education now at GCSE level, then our schools are clearly no longer fit for purpose.
Junkkmale
You have every reason to be “seriously troubled not only by the course structures, but the mindsets prevalent in our educational establishment”.
Actually, if this had been a question asked in a “theology” class I would have chosen:
And, in the essay part I would have discussed the “Great Flood” story of Noah and the wrath of the Lord at the sins of mankind, confirming that we have already fallen into the guilt trap of taking ourselves too seriously and blaming “ourselves for climate change for thousands of years”, and that this anthropocentric foible is unlikely to change in future “thousands of years”.
In a “science” class I would have a hard time with any of the three answers as written.
b) is certainly partly correct in that
but it may or may not be true that
More likely than not some new technology we do not have any notion of today “will save us” (as new technology always has in the past).
This could be covered in the essay section, as well.
You’ve covered answer c). Supernova, yes. Humans? Unlikely.
So it is a silly question and there should have been a fourth choice, allowing the pupils to “think for themselves” (oh horror!), rather than simply parroting what their silly, opinionated teachers or educational boards are trying to feed them.
Max
Junkmale
I sympathise
My son was set to read a poem by a West Indian writer as part of an examination. It was complete junk-not because the author was West Indian but because it was junk.
My son accordingly expressed his views and got zero points as there was a politically correct answer
I fear that in the absence of a fourth question (as Max suggests) there is only going to be one answer that will get the marks. (Unless your teacher is more enlightened than is suggested by the choice of questions.)
If it wasn’t a ‘serious’ exam I might suggest trying to be a rebel but I think that would be inappropriate in this case.
Perhaps it is an opportunity to point out to your child to play the game but that there are perfectly valid alternative views (and express them) but promoters of AGW don’t allow their discussion. That in itself is anti science.
Tonyb
TonyB and Junkkmale
TonyB is right. School children should not be the ones forced to fight an uphill battle with opinionated teachers.
It must be up to parents to a) teach their children to think independently for themselves and b) take the teachers and school boards to task for doing a lousy job of teaching their children when this is the case (as in your examples)
After all, these guys are being paid by your tax money to educate your kids.
They are accountable to you.
If they are not doing a satisfactory job of educating your children, they should be first warned and then replaced.
And if they are frightening your children with scare mongering of any kind, they should be canned immediately.
Max
Junkkmale #111
Wouldn’t it be ok to answer “none of these”? as long as you wrote a decent paragraph justifying your answer?
How can anyone possibly answer yes to any of them? a) Predicting what mankind will do a thousand years hence is absurd b) The wisest heads in the world don’t know when fossil fuels will run out, or when and if renewables will prove viable, and c) Man will disappear long before the oceans evaporate (with the upper troposphere too hot for precipitation ???)
TonyB and Junkkmale
Perhaps network with other parents to get their thoughts and approach the school as a group?
Dear all,
Thanks for the invaluable feedback.
I am, honestly, still very torn.
As any parent of a teen knows, there are a bunch of issues swirling here, from how they ‘look’ to their mates and to their teachers, to what ‘works’ to ‘pass’ now.
This is the first time in a while I was approached to help and, frankly, I fear I blew it. I honestly tried to work ‘around’ the obvious system set-up, and its rampant pitfalls, but may have allowed my desire for them to understand my frustrations with what was being asked of them to colour the simple act of parental support they were seeking then and there: an answer to a silly little question.
I am going to have to work very hard to get them to include me in such things again. And must.
I have written to my MP, but have insisted on confidentiality, asking what is being concocted between the Depts of Energy and Climate Change and Education to arrive at this juncture.
But, whilst more than appropriate in the ways suggested, seeking above parapet support around from others is really not an option. Can you imagine that, even if I did get parents of sufficient experience and concern to join in approaching the school… what then? The school agrees and ‘we’ take on the local… and then national education board and curriculum?
That’s quite a risk with my sons’ first outing into assessed work.
All very Pastor Neimoller, I know. Hence the MP letter.
Geoff, of course you are correct… scientifically.
But unless we are looking at the canniest way possible to find truly bright students, you must know as well as I do that there is but one answer they are seeking, from three provided, in the boxtickocracy that is modern education (or anything else).
A teacher with a form is looking for that answer. Just possibly, with luck, there will be complementary points for a well articulated answer around that.
I hope.
JunkkMale,
I would encourage you to look deeper into what your child is being taught in school……I think you’d be horrified……most parents are these days.
I just googled AQA GCSE Science Core and am exploring.
GCSE Foundation Tier Science A Unit Biology B1a (Human Biology) March 2010 has nine questions: on basketball, drugs, cholesterol, fertility treatment, sports drinks, sport, measles, thalidomide, and antibiotics.
To get q1 right you have to know that your nose is for smelling, your eyes are for seeing, your ears for hearing and your hand for touching the ball. (I hope that’s the the right answer; I haven’t checked)
It’s not science at all, but reading comprehension of basic texts about the human body and social policy.
It really is worse than we thought.
All
Here is my opinion on all this:
Lousy, opinionated teachers need to be encouraged to improve their performance; if they do not respond to this encouragement, they should be warned; if they again fail to get the word, they should be fired.
Teachers who frighten their pupils with fear mongering should be canned immediately.
Brute has a good point.
Get together with other parents. Organize an “concerned parents” group.
Talk to the school boards directly. Tell them you want change.
Name names.
Put heat on the guilty teachers.
After all, your tax money is paying their salaries to give your kids a good education; if they are derelict in this duty, or spinning the education too much with their own personal ideas, then they are not doing the job you are paying them to do.
And if they are frightening your children with fear mongering of any kind, they need to be removed immediately.
You need to put an end to this “dumbing down” and frightening of our school children, and only you can do it.
Max
PS The above comments are only valid if you are living in a democratic society. If you happen to be living in a totalitarian state, where educational policies are determined unilaterally by the political elite, then this approach will only get you imprisoned or executed.
Max #10
The problem with your approach is that the warmists could use exactly the same type of argument: “We need to get rid of teachers who are sceptical of the science…” etc. When I lived in England, political parties had seats on the Board of Governors. Imagine the havoc they could play if they all insisted that teachers must toe the party line, especially as all parties are unanimous on global warming.
What got me interested in global warming was the High Court case brought by a parent who wanted “An Inconvenient Truth” banned from schools. When the judge ordered corrective statements to be added to the film, my first reaction was; “How dare a judge decide what’s to be taught in schools!”
Incidentally, does anyone know if the parent was acting on his own, or was he part of some group?
Alex said something first up in this thread that warrants further attention, and that concerns the standard of science teaching.
I may have mentioned previously that I was asked to deliver a talk on the sceptical view point to a group of 11 year old grammar school material children, currently at a private school.
A number of things immediately struck me. The first is how nihilistic they were. They had been told (not by their class teacher but as part of the overall education curriculum) that man had badly damaged the planet and unless they got their parents to repent and turn green, and did so themselves, then by the time they left school the planet would be practically unrecognisable to todays version.
There is an unpleasant little play they had enacted one Christmas-which I had also previously mentioned here- which basically revolved round the damage man was doing, for which they got rebuked by animals as varied as polar bears to cows.
Now the point of this is that their level of knowledge of the science was astonishingly limited. They thought that around 80% of the atmosphere was composed of co2 and of that all was man made.
Now I’m sure I don’t remember my level of science at that age but I certainly wasn’t fixated on the idea that CO2 was such an overwhemingly poisonous gas which we had created through our mismanagement.
I suppose some of you are saying-ah well at least tonyb was invited to speak, thats a good sign.
Well, firstly it was a private school who can to some extent have some freedom in setting their curriculum. More importantly this teacher-as opposed to the one who had pictures of polar bears on melting ice floes on the wall- was something of a sceptic. The reason?
Little did I know when I wrote this article
“This long article -with many links- examines the little known period 1815-60 when the Arctic ice melted and the Royal Society mounted an expedition to investigate the causes.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/20/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice/#more-8688
That a direct (proud) descendant of one of the crew deemed to have been the first through the North West passage in the 1850’s-for which they received a prize of several thousand guineas-taught at a nearby school and would invite me to speak to their class. Living history.
Tonyb
Here’s a typical question from Unit Biology B1b (Evolution and Environment)
http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/gcse/qp-ms/AQA-BLY1BP-W-QP-MAR10.PDF
QUESTION EIGHT
The Lua tribe of the Philippines rely on ‘slash and burn’ agriculture. They cut down and burn an area of forest big enough to grow their crops. After about two years they move on to use another area of the forest. The Lua tribe has survived in the same region for many years. Their agriculture has to be managed very carefully.
8A The population of the tribe increased, so they burned a bigger area of the forest in which they lived. What would be the most likely effect on the species that normally live in the region?
1 The animals would live at a higher population density in the remaining forest.
2 The animals would move away from the farmed area but die in the remaining forest because there would be too much competition.
3 There would be more types of native species because new areas of forest had been cleared.
4 There would be no effect on the native species.
The agricultural methods used by the Lua tribe had little effect on the carbon dioxide concentration in the air.
8B The most likely reason for this is that . . .
1 their population was not growing fast enough.
2 when the Lua tribe burns the forest, oxygen is taken in and carbon dioxide is released.
3 the Lua tribe did not plant rice on the cleared land.
4 the amount of carbon dioxide released by burning was the same as the amount of carbon dioxide reabsorbed by the crops.
8C A forestry company was given the right to harvest the mature trees in the area, but also burned other areas. Why was the company accused of increasing the chance of climate change?
1 Cutting down trees causes an increase in the temperature of the atmosphere.
2 Burning trees releases the ‘locked up’ carbon as carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which then traps heat.
3 Using the trees for timber releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere more quickly than photosynthesis can absorb it.
4 Fewer trees in the area allows more space for microorganisms to respire and release carbon dioxide.
8D Deforestation by the forestry company led to a reduction in biodiversity.
Why should society be concerned about this decrease?
1 A greater biodiversity reduces the chance of climate change.
2 The forest food chains would be shorter.
3 Some of the organisms that were lost may have been of future use.
4 There may be an increased use of herbicides in the area.
Look at Q8B. Surely the reason the Lua tribe had little effect on the carbon dioxide concentration in the air is because they’re a tribe for goodness sake. Nothing they do has much of an effect on anything. And how do we know they didn’t plant rice? No-one tells us anything.
The questions are all a test of comprehension and reasoning ability. You can get through with a decent vocabulary and common sense, and zero knowledge of biology. There are questions about sheep, bullshorn acacia and bristlecone pines, but you could substitute Jabberwocky or Oozelum bird and still get the right answer.
(Actually, I think I’d be an ace at GCSE. It’s an excellent training for sounding off on blogs on subjects you know nothing about).
Tony,
Thanks for ‘porting’ my post, and those that followed it, to this new home. I apologise for taking things OT, but there were a few posts that just resonated at the time and I wanted to share what had so rattled me.
It will be interesting to see what may transpire; I hope something positive.
That said, maybe the head of steam has already eased as folk absorb the pervasive nature and invevitability of what I was confronted by… rather shamfacedly for the first time.
I would truly be interested in any feedback from the educational establishment, from those that draft the curriculum to those that impose it to those in the class that ‘set’ and ‘mark’ such material.
Is the calibre of question as cited acceptable?
How can the inevitable requirement to conform in providing ‘answers’ be justified?
Etc.
But, oh boy, is this a big, complex and multi-faceted issue, honestly beyond mere individuals (like me) to get their heads around.
Like so many ‘professionals’, a lot is based on trust, and when that fragile relationship is compromised (presuming the example cited is deemed to be poor on an accuracy and educational basis, which so far all seem to feel it is) as it applies to the teaching of our children, one hopes that legitimate concerns are taken seriously.
Agree. I guess labels are inevitable and maybe even necessary, but I am not big on competing tribal protagonists and ‘isms, ‘ists, ‘zis, ‘iers, etc from any direction.
Naive perhaps, but I would wish things were, and encouraged to be more based on fact and what ‘is’, as opposed to agenda and what people believe others should think things must be.
And as with discussions on the BBC and ‘objectivity’, I am appalled that ‘balance’ may be deemed satisfied by countering one extreme with another and trying to operate on the law of averages.
But this is, especially with teaching, inevitable. What we seem to be relying upon is that an institutional desire to meddle is complemented by a mature appreciation that it will happen, and an allowance that talented, free-thinking individuals on the ground will ‘discuss’ differing views sensibly. And that, often, the correct answer is ‘we don’t know (yet)’.
That… seems in this case to not be happening. A definitive view has been decided upon, and materials provided to shape that, with a rigid structure channeling teachers and their charges to do little more than repeat a mantra. Not sure that is teaching. Or an education policy destined to inspire initiative. Or one I can feel too great about.
At the very minimum, I now see my already stretched kids having to carry two sets of competing information in their brimming brains: that which ‘the establishment’ demands to ‘pass’, and that which I now feel obliged to share to encourage them to also think.
The two should not be in competition.
Tonyb #12
do you know the song about Lord Franklin? It’s here, beautifully illustrated
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLt4cPzr5ws
Posted as I was drafting mine. Like minds :)
And… QED.
I would love to be a fly on the wall on any discussion between a teacher and class of teens on this. There is so much to call on, and into question. But, taking my kids’ experience, they are more expected to obey orders to facilitate marking and come up with ‘an’ answer from those offered up. No ‘5) – None of the above’, again.
That’s telling ’em. I’d be on Alan Davis negative levels in UK quiz show QI.
Great comments on this thread, by all. Re climate change in science education, I hope the following links will be of interest.
Firstly, I found this online resource by ACE (Atmosphere, Climate & Environment), which includes plenty of global warming fact sheets for schoolkids of various ages. Some information provided here is actually rather sensible (see this section on models). Other information is on the silly side: “It has taken millions of years for life to adapt to the conditions on Earth. A climate that changes too quickly will alter these conditions and affect the homes of plants and animals throughout the world.”
If the look and feel of those web pages seems a little old-fashioned, that’s because the site has not been updated since Defra withdrew funding in 2005. However, that might not prevent the material being continually re-used.
This more up-to-date online science resource is provided by the Association for Science Education. Search for “climate”, and a number of links to other resources appear, including the website of an NGO called Practical Action (member of the ‘Stop Climate Chaos’ campaign, along with Greenpeace and WWF), which “has a range of enrichment and enhancement activities to support the teaching of climate change.”
On Practical Action’s homepage, you can see this: “FACE UP TO FOUR DEGREES. Copenhagen failed. Without action we’re facing a 4°C rise in temperature and disaster for the world’s poorest people. Join Practical Action’s new climate change campaign and show world leaders that inaction is inexcusable.” Little room for uncertainties there!
Have to go shopping now, so more later.
Vast chunks of Science is like this (especially 21st Century Science, no Ohm’s Law or anything like that) and Geography and Citizenship, which is an excuse to push left-wing views.
As your son sort of implies, going in and saying “I think this isn’t true” will get you into trouble. While children’s views are welcomed in theory, only those that fit are welcomed in practice.
Every subject bar none is tainted with it. (It’s gone way beyond the days where they tried to make sure not every question was about white British people). If there is a question on statistics in mathematics, it is likely that it too will be loaded propaganda.
Even my subject, Computing/ICT. Design a website as a practical project, for example.
Can you select a topic that interests you for your site, which would massively help with motivating those who aren’t that keen, can you do a website about Manchester United ?
No, everyone has to do it on (bleep) “Five a day”.
“Perhaps network with other parents to get their thoughts and approach the school as a group?”
It’s not the school that’s doing this. Well, it is, but they don’t have any choice. OFSTED et al will enforce it.
The exam questions enforce it (the tale of the West Indian rubbish poet is typical – irrespective of how well you argue that it’s rubbish poetry, you’ll score 0).
The best you can hope for for your children is to (i) don’t bother with Geography ; it isn’t Geography any more and (ii) make sure they do proper seperate sciences, not 21st Century Science.
Geoff Chambers, #11:
As it happens, the Dimmock case is going to feature largely on this blog next week, so I’ll put down some notes about it here as a lead-in.
The application for Judicial Review was made by Stuart Dimmock, a lorry driver from Essex who was also a school governor and had two sons at a state school. He was concerned that the government had decreed that An Inconvenient Truth should be shown in all schools, and that doing so would contravene the Education Act 1996 which prohibits the ‘promotion of partisan political views’ in schools. The case was financed by an entrepreneur from Ayrshire who was associated with the New Party. I believe that Lord Monckton was also involved.
The process of Judicial Review is a procedure by which courts supervise the exercise of public power. To bring such a case you need to find at least £50k, and probably double that. Legal Aid does not apply.
When I was confronted with the prospect of reading Mr Justice Burton’s judgement in the Dimmock Case, my heart sank, as I had never attempted to read a High Court judgement before. In fact it is a well-written, marvellously lucid, and even witty page-turner, once past the first couple of pages which set out the legislative framework.
I had wondered how a judge, who obviously would not have expertise in the field of climate change, would manage to reach an equitable judgement in such a minefield. The answer is that judges are concerned with nothing other than the law and evidence; the subject matter is irrelevant. The way in which Burton navigates his way faultlessly to a conclusion is a joy to behold.
At that time Robin Guenier was commenting on this blog and, as he originally trained as a barrister, I asked him to have a look at it. He was as impressed as I was and we agreed that if ever the evidence for AGW was exposed to the highly developed forensic skills of a senior judge in a court action, then the outcome was likely to be spectacular. Judges are not concerned with political correctness, orthodoxies, consensuses, reputation, sentiment, or b******.
The Dimmock Case was not, of course, concerned with the evidence for AGW, but only with the way in which the evidence was presented by Al Gore in his film. In view of what Geoff has said about a court deciding what should be taught in school, it is worth mentioning that the Judge found that, on the strength of overwhelming evidence, which in the end the government’s lawyers did not challenge, AIT was indeed a partisan film and also misleading, but that it could be shown in schools provided that it was accompanied by appropriate teaching notes that identified its inaccuracies and bias. He was adamant that he would not be involved in how these were drafted.
The warmist MSM and blogosphere attacked the decision on two grounds. One was a matter of grammar. In parts of the judgement the term error, used in connection with the inaccuracies in the film, was enclosed in quotation marks. They suggested that this meant that the judge did not really think that the errors were errors at all. They ignored the fact the he uses the quotation marks only where he is referring to evidence presented by the parties involved, but did not use them when expressing his own opinion. They also dismissed the case because it had been financed by a political party with a reputation for promoting extreme views. This was fatuous, as it implies that either the judge had been bought or that he was sympathetic to the New Party. The utter rationality of the judgement, and the overwhelming strength of the evidence as set out by Burton, makes it clear that this could not have been the case.
As will become clear next week, I am now in the same predicament as Mr Dimmock in that I have received a decision from a statutory regulator that is perverse to the extent of being breathtaking, and it should be challenged. This can only be done by applying for Judicial Review. As it happens, the matter involves both AIT and Mr Justice Burton’s judgement, which is why I am very familiar with the case.
If anyone visiting this thread has not read the Dimmock Case judgement, and as I said at the beginning of this over-long comment, it’s a fun read, it can be found here. As an appetiser try Paragraph 3.
There is a sense in which this sort of rubbish being imposed upon young minds is worse than it being done to more mature ones. I think, however that you will be interested in this paper from Auckland University Department of Architecture where my daughter is in her 4th year. My daughter and some of her friends find it very annoying – they feel that they are not learning anything useful with this sort of rubbish:
4th year architecture topic at the University of Auckland in July 2010
Topic Description
The defining characteristics of the 21st Century will be Climate Change and Fossil Fuel Depletion. Our buildings, transport systems and food production systems all rely on an uninterrupted and increasing supply of energy for our economy to grow. In New Zealand, we have passed ‘peak gas’ and we are approaching ‘peak hydro’ as our glaciers melt due to Climate Change. Rainfall is predicted to significantly reduce and the world is entering the era of ‘peak oil’.
How can cities survive with less water, less food and less energy? This question is being asked across the globe and major cities (but not Auckland) are setting up programmes for decarbonising themselves. Interestingly, it is architects who are being asked to lead this work.
This topic provides an opportunity for those interested in the environment to tackle the problem. Over the first few weeks, guest speakers will be invited to talk to the group about such things as renewable energy, ecological corridors, urban food production, future transport systems, rainwater collection, a hydrogen economy, resilient building use and many other issues. We will use this information and our own research to produce a masterplan for Auckland.
We will electronically model the CBD and jointly investigate aspects of the masterplan that will run through the city such as a cycle superhighway and ecological corridors. We will then divide the city up and individually look at ‘mending’ the city block by block. This may mean demolishing energy guzzling buildings or changing the use of buildings to urban food production or introducing renewable energy systems. It will also include rainwater collection systems, recycling & composting. Highly glazed, air-conditioned office blocks will not survive Climate Change and the private car will be running on empty.
Finally, we will put all the individual pieces of the city back together again to form a comprehensive masterplan of a decarbonised city that can be exhibited. Our research will also be included in the exhibition so that others can understand the decisions necessary to change the city for a changing climate.
TonyN
The Dimmock case is interesting.
As you point out, the judge does not take a stand on the validity of the “science” supporting the “mainstream view”.
This is accepted as being correct without question and the latest IPCC report is cited as the basis for this “mainstream view”.
The judge points out specific instances where AIT does not represent this “mainstream view” (melting ice caps, 7 meter inundations in this century, Katrina caused by AGW, etc.), clearly listing these as “errors”.
Other interesting points were
· The analysis of what constitutes an unauthorized “partisan” or “one sided” presentation and
· The concept of schools being forced to allow “equal air time” to views contrary to the “mainstream view” in order to “offer a balanced presentation of opposing views”
But even more interesting to me was the section on “guidance”.
As I understood the judgment, the judge states that,
In other words, the purpose is not to “influence”, but rather to “stimulate” children, and for this to occur, the “guidance statement” presenting views alternate to the “mainstream” must be pro-active, rather than just passive.
I do not know whether or not this judgment constitutes a legal precedent for guiding school teachers and education boards in the UK with regard to “teaching” AGW in schools.
If so, it appears to me that it might be used by concerned parents to insist that their children are not being “brainwashed” with a one sided or “partisan” view on AGW but are presented both sides of the debate equally and impartially in order to “offer a balanced presentation of opposing views”.
Max
Max
What you say in your last paragraph is interesting, and I think that you may be right. The problem remains that the only recouse would be Judicial Review and that costs! At the moment I believe that there is a move afoot, led by environmentalists, to get the Supreme Court to make this legal process accessible to people who do not have bottomless pockets. They are relying on the Aarhus Convention, which requires legal processes to be accessible to all, and it is interesting that, for once, warmists and sceptics may be on the same side of the barricades, albeit with very different motivation.
John Shade has a newish blogsite which is looking into the question of CAGW propaganda in schools at http://climatelessons.blogspot.com/
You might also be interested to read a guest post I wrote at Bishop Hill a few months ago on a pilot study which took place in English schools. http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/4/8/education-or-green-propaganda.html
[I left a comment at John Shades site this morning in the hope of tempting a teacher to this thread, TonyN]