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.
Alex -it’s just mass contro
ta for that.
I have been moved to comment:
Somewhat dubious, given the odd criteria applied in some media, that this will get ‘selected’.
If it does get archived, and one gets to see the show and ‘debate’, I will be interested in how these venerable pols decide to acquit themselves, and if aided, abetted or fairly chaired by any moderator from the BBC.
I actually saw it just now… they must have moved the slot.
Mr. Ball was perhaps a bit excitable, but considering what he’s up against a bit of passion is understandable. I also might take issue on the GHG-free consequences of nuclear too.
However……..
Those two pols were, frankly, risible.
Not only did they have no argument worth a damn, as excuses all they could manage was at best ill-informed cheap shots but in fact worse.
To try and claim the cited GSCE book ‘as just one’ is bad enough (there should not be ANY), but also, clearly UNTRUE.
And they have both now stated that its contents are unacceptable.
So guys, when are we going to have a quick gander at the curriculum you two have and are pushing, which my sons are, as we speak, being examined upon?
“Filling their heads with doom and gloom”
For me this is the worst aspect of this nonsense.
My own school days spanned from the moon landings through to the dramatic introduction of silicon chips. A time of excitement and confidence about the future. Of energy and enthusiasm – natural feelings for children and teenagers.
Now the whole zeitgeist seems to be weary pessimism – horrible to see in a school.
Jack,
I agree there would be no need for any doom and gloom, if the world were making serious attempts to fix the CO2 problem. But, sadly, denialism and greenwash are what’s on offer from the older generation. I dare say that that makes some sense – we’ll all be well and truly gone in 30 or 40 years. There’s no way we can be held accountable!
Kids should be naturally optimistic but there’s plenty to dent that optimism – unfortunately.
Managed to watch the programme on iPlayer – yes, Mr Ball was a bit all over the place, but the others didn’t put up much of a fight (largely because he didn’t let them get a word in, edgeways!)
It would be heartening if the BBC were to go on to make a full-length programme (Panorama?) on the subject of doom and gloom filled school textbooks and lessons. We have a ready-made title for it, too: What the hell are we doing to our children?
A while ago, that prospect would have seemed impossible, but now I’m not so sure.
Indeed. But in terms of priority, one might be justified in being more immediately concerned with a politco-media establishment that seems either very chilled out or, worse, proactively complicit in moving from educational basics to agenda-motivated advocacy as a matter of box-ticking policy.
I do not relish my kids competing for an international science job with the Asian ones still being taught Chemistry, even with an A* with cherries and sprinkles that gets their school head a glowing mention in an OFSTED report.
A poster on the above thread has now zeroed in on the actual exchanges.
http://autonomousmind.wordpress.com/2011/03/02/climate-change-propaganda-and-use-of-public-money/#comment-5239
I would dearly love to hear these cabinet level experienced gents amplify on how this is ‘just one book’, and acceptable even if just that.
They and Mr. Hickman must compare notes on ‘La, la. la… I can’t hear you; why are you not talking’ ear muff techniques.
Plus I’d have liked to see the Transport Minsiter’s bluster on wind power stats and electric cars developed. One guesses he has an electric Roll Royce on order once he takes up his likely post-political role as an EU renewables commissioner or Chairmanship of a subsidy sink.
Meanwhile another has proffered a few more links germane to the educational thrust of this thread:
http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/sustainableschools/upload/CC%20Final%20guidance%2
http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/sustainableschools/upload/CC%20Final%20guidance%204oct.pdf
Speaking of oddly selective media…
… anyone know where, or if those comments invited by the BBC in response get posted?
My parents were at school in WW2 when there really were some real problems for the people of Britain. Real bombs killing real people and the real threats of starvation and invasion.
At no time did adults decide to scare children. In fact it was the opposite – parents naturally tried to shield their children from the horror of war.
The school curriculum was not distorted beyond recognition in a propaganda drive.
But now the zeitgeist is an eco-munchausen’s syndrome – a weary pessimism and an obsessive-compulsive to invent enviro problems.
I can just remember a time before the environment was invented – it was a happier time.
The last document linked by Junkkmale at #430 appears to contain the famous corrective information which Justice Burton ruled should accompany showings of “An Inconvenient Truth”. At a quick scan, I can’t see any detailed treatment of the errors. The mentions of sceptic views are interestingly brief.
There’s detailed guidance on how to mount a day-long project on global warming, with enough material to fill a degree syllabus, it seems to me. The whole document is terrifying, and would really repay detailed analysis.
Jack Hughes #432
“My parents were at school in WW2 when there really were some real problems..”
Funnily enough, the government document quotes Gore quoting Churchill, making the comparison between global warming and WW2, as did Green MP Caroline Lucas in a recent talk at the Imperial War Museum. Perhaps the association of CO2 with gas masks has sparked something in their tiny brains?
It did seem something more to celebrate, along with science, before.
That, said, consequences of abuse need to be accepted and guarded against.
But I say enthusiasm, education and inspiration need to be inculcated first, rather than fear and caution and constraint.
Which is what, at the basic level, seems to Mr. Ball’s point.
Yet it’s one either missed or being suppressed by grey drones like these two ‘professional’ politicians and willing helpers in the education and media communities.
Such folk seem to have risen to the top, but not in the manner of cream, and now crush anything that does not serve narrow social engineering agendas. These are folk I seriously doubt I could last in conversation with in a pub long enough to knock back a shot, let alone stomach a pint in their company.
They don’t even allow discussion or debate if they can help it, and seek to weasel things through by attrition or subterfuge or censorship.
Junkkmale,
Phew ! Isn’t this the sort of stuff that might interest the Plain English Campaign?
http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/examples.html
Jack Hughes,
Yes, of course, the WW2 generation did their best to protect their kids. However, they openly acknowledged their predicament and weren’t in denial of the scale of the problem.
That’s the difference.
Wasn’t the time “before the environment was invented” when Londoners held their noses when crossing the river? And died in large numbers there was no wind to clear away the smoke from thousands of coal fires?
I don’t suppose they’d have been too happy about that!
All the more valuable for the addition of a URL, one is sure.
Not much else there, let alone worth replying to, but here goes, bearing in mind a caution from the thread owner before to make nice …
Without surprise, in the face of overwhelming shared information and fact that could warrant sensible discussion, the inevitable resort seems to be to play the person more.
I have never been too sure of your role or intention, but wearily accept that contrarians see some value in distraction as rearguard actions to a crumbling worldview.
One can only hope that, with your own efforts, in the eyes of others this latest contribution serves a valuable function. If perhaps not in the manner intended.
Apologies for any remaining confusion. In replying, I have tried to reflect the realities of education standards* accepted and/or excused in some quarters.
‘innit.
* Accepting that it is unfair to highlight lapses in English usage dashed of in a blog thread, but just to point out, pot/kettle-wise, this sentence may benefit from some work…
With the pedantry persisted in being odd, if unsurprising given the following:
Which, on reflection, could also apply to blog exchanges.
JunkMale and Tempterrain
Tempterrain (PeterM) has opined about earlier “pre-AGW hysteria” days:
But Peter knows full well that the “killer fogs” were NOT caused by CO2, the current climate hobgoblin, but rather by the noxious pollutants that are emitted from burning coal without flue gas cleanup: primarily SO2 and particulates, but also NOx, mercury, arsenic, etc.
The emitted CO2 was totally harmless, as everyone (even Peter) knows.
Max
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/mar/03/bbc-climate-change-science
Tempted to enquire further on ‘irresponsible’ impartiality in matters of science, but given the Guardian’s moderation record, possibly not worth going there?
What the heck…
I’d give about 30 mins. Tops.
And as Max knows, environmental issues aren’t all about CO2 and GH gases. There would certainly been objections, in London and elsewhere, to restrictions on burning coal on the grounds that smoke was a perfectly natural substance and that it interfered with individual liberty.
Well, yes, of course, it is and, of course, it did.
Restrictions on the burning of coal would also have meant that individual Londoners would also have had to spend more to heat their homes. So here we have a classic case of what may be the best for one particular individual may not be best for the whole community. Londoners obviously , and very sensibly, came to the conclusion that the interests, and freedom, of the individual cannot always be considered to be of paramount importance.
PeterM
We are sliding off-topic here, but your premise that “Londoners were individually inconvenienced or deprived of their individual liberty for the common good”, by switching their home heating away from direct coal burning to more efficient (and cleaner) centralized hot-water systems fired by light heating oil and then natural gas is seriously flawed.
There is no “inconvenience” or “loss of liberty” for the individual here. The old system of burning coal in a fireplace is very inconvenient to the individual, while the current heating systems are much more convenient.
Come up with a better analogy, Peter. That one is silly.
Max
Max,
I would guess that many children in London would be quite unaware of the environmental problems of 60 years ago. So it would seem quite reasonable schools should include them in their lessons, and relate the issues then to present day issues.
The closest parallel may be the burning of fossil fuel for transportation purposes and the pollution problems caused. In another 60 years time when they will have probably have been displaced in favour of electric and hydrogen powered motors, the general view may well be that “no loss of liberty” has been involved and the new technology is “much more convenient” etc etc.
But I doubt that will be quite the reaction of people like Brute when they are faced with the loss of their V8 gasoline powered engines!
JunkkMale, re your #425, no comments have yet appeared on the BBC page I linked to, but there are plenty of comments here on the Daily Politics comment page (presumably that’s where they end up, through some sort of obscure process?)
I cannot find yours yet, unfortunately, but of 23 comments about that show, I counted 17 that were supportive of Johnny Ball, 5 that were not supportive (one of these thought he was called “Joe Ball”) and 1 that I was not sure about either way.
One of the supportive comments was this:
PeterM
Yeah. I agree generally that teaching children about the use of coal to heat houses during and after WWII as part of a 20th century history course makes sense.
To brainwash them into swallowing the “dangerous AGW” dogma of IPCC, Al Gore, James E. Hansen or anyone else does not.
And, according to JunkMale, the concerned parent on this thread, that is what is happening today.
Alex Cull’s “Johnny Ball” comment tells it all.
You and I are outside observers of this UK problem, but I hope the concerned UK parents on this thread and elsewhere can raise enough hell with their MPs to get this brain washing and fear mongering of impressionable school children stopped, as I’m sure you will agree.
Max
PeterM
To your second point (which is OT here and probably belongs on the NS thread).
As long as the change from today’s (North Sea sourced) petroleum and gas-based economy to a future nuclear-powered economy is achieved (as local oil and gas deposits play out and imported oil becomes more expensive) without any forced blackouts or useless carbon caps or taxes, that’s fine.
I’m assuming that’s how it will occur, once UK politicians and regulators stop chasing windmills and start issuing construction and operating permits for new nuclear power plants (which BTW are more economical even today than new coal-fired plants).
Otherwise, if they are too faint of heart to face down a few anti-nuke lobbyists and activists, they can simply sign a long-term supply contract with EdF, who would be more than happy to invest in new nuclear capacity plus transmission lines for a piece of the action (vive la France!).
Hydrogen-fueled motors are a bit more dicey. I have worked with hydrogen in the past, and it is an extremely hazardous material. The thought of hydrogen filling stations scattered around, frightens me much more than the thought of global warming. And it’s an expensive and inefficient intermediate step to convert electrical power to motor power, even with new fuel cells.
But even without hydrogen, I think that hybrid and all-electric cars will be the future as battery technology improves, which is already happening.
No “loss of liberty” or “top down forcing” required here, Peter. No big taxpayer funded government subsidies needed. Just plain old sound economics.
And I don’t think you, me or Brute will have to worry about driving hot V8s or anything else 60 years from now.
But let’s move this discussion over to the NS thread, if you really want to continue it.
Max
Many tx. The processes of what gets selected, and where posted, in response to such issues, in such media, is mystifying. I am sure it ticks a box somewhere for ‘listening’.
Ah well, maybe the CiF mods moonlight? Hard thread to scan.
I liked this piece of genius as further ediotorial response to a question:
Ooooooo….k.
Telling on a thread about education and coverage of same.
It seems that the BBC (well, small parts of it) are starting to wonder if what folk say on national broadcast media are always as accurate as they might be, public information and education-wise…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/dailypolitics/andrewneil/2011/03/when_is_a_turbine_subsidy_not.html
John Shade has an excellent article on indoctrination in schools at:
http://climatelessons.blogspot.com/2011/03/under-cloak-of-climate-change.html
in which he examines the climate change propagada put out by a charity called “Norwich Education and Action for Development” which – amazingly – gets more than 90% of its income from the Department of International Development.
So a government department is taking its propaganda into schools under cover of a charity.
How can this be legal?