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.
Max,
How about “they should be clearly taught that the IPCC view is [the collective] opinion [of thousands of scientists who have contributed its publication]” ?
They could also be taught that there are many other scientific bodies in the world. The UK’s Royal Society, the US National Academy of Sciences and many more on this list all concur with the IPCC findings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Is that too scary for the kids to know about? Or maybe that can’t be taught, as its just “argument from authority”? The kids have to do their own experiments to find out the answer?
PeterM
What you are suggesting has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of the premise that AGW, caused principally by human CO2 emissions, has been the primary cause of 20th century warming or that it represents a serious potential problem (the “dangerous AGW” hypothesis espoused by IPCC) .
The IPCC view has become “dogma”, as it is not based on empirical scientific evidence. The “thousands of scientists” is a red herring, Peter (and you know it).
The opinion of the political leadership of a handful of scientific organizations does not provide any scientific evidence for that premise whatsoever – it is simply an “argument from authority”, and, as such, should not be taught in a “science” class.
Both of these things could be taught to more mature pupils in a “politics” class.
The IPCC view on “dangerous AGW” should certainly be discussed with older pupils in a “science” class, as one as yet scientifically uncorroborated hypothesis (along with the others out there) but not as “reliable scientific knowledge”.
Despite all the political nods of approval you mention, it has not yet reached that status.
Nor will it do so until it is validated by empirical scientific data derived from actual physical observations or reproducible experimentation, and has scientifically resisted attempts at falsification, following the “scientific method” (which should definitely be taught to the pupils).
And if the latest findings on cloud feedbacks and net overall climate sensitivity with warming plus recent cooling of our planet despite record CO2 increase cannot be scientifically invalidated, it appears that the model-generated “dangerous AGW” hypothesis will have been falsified by the real life facts.
So I would go along with teaching it to older pupils as one hypothesis along with the others out there, with arguments for and against each, and let the pupils rationally think for themselves in arriving at any conclusions based on the actual scientific data presented (rather than simply “swallowing” one as yet scientifically uncorroborated point of view as “fact”.
And, as I have written you before, fear mongering to frighten smaller school children is unacceptable and inexcusable. Any teacher who is guilty of this reprehensible behavior should be first warned, and if it is repeated, fired on the spot. Period.
Seems pretty simple to me.
Max
JunkkMale
The response (147) originally written by PeterM and suggested for your kids to use as an answer to their teacher is on the mark, and may even be fun fantasizing about with them, BUT…
I don’t think you really want them to fight this uphill battle with the much stronger “voices of authority”, do you?
Teaching them to think for themselves rationally but not to openly challenge their teacher sounds to me like a better approach.
“Faking it” by choosing the least stupid answer in order to pass a skewed multiple choice test is one thing, but if the teacher asks what they think about the “dangers of human-caused climate change”, then I would see nothing wrong in them stating their honest opinion, along with the reasons. They won’t get “exploded” (like in the 10:10 “splattergate” film) and if the teacher is any good at all, I hardly believe he (or she) would be so stupid or opinionated to give his pupils a bad note simply because they disagree with him.
[But I’ll admit that maybe I’m wrong on that last point – it’s been while since my kids were in school, and those were different (less politicized) times, when science teachers taught their pupils real science (rather than filling them up with socio-political pseudo-science dressed up as “science”)].
Having said all that, I believe you are on the right track by informing your kids and encouraging them to think for themselves, but keeping them out of a direct confrontation with their teachers – they should not be the ones who fight this battle. It has to be you.
And it probably should best be fought in a non-personal way (so as not to implicate or hurt your kids in any way), as was suggested by other bloggers here.
I hope you are successful in helping to cause a positive change.
As they say in French: Bon courage.
Max
PeterM
You have suggested (224) that in science classes pupils should be taught the IPCC party line as today’s “scientific knowledge” regarding “climate science”.
I’d drop the “thousands of scientists” canard, but let’s get a bit more specific on the rest.
What should pupils in science classes be taught, specifically, about climate science?
Let’s discuss the “2xCO2 climate sensitivity”, one of the key “unknown unknowns” referred to by Dr. Judith Curry.
This is the “alpha and omega” of the IPCC claim that AGW, caused principally by human CO2 emissions, has been the primary cause of 20th century warming and the hypothesis that it represents a serious potential threat.
If the CS is 3.2°C, as estimated on average by the IPCC model simulations (2.0 to 4.5°C) then AGW could be a potentially serious problem.
If it is around 1°C, however (as it is estimated by IPCC to be without any feedbacks), then AGW is no problem.
Now to the impact of clouds on all this:
Scientists know that low altitude clouds reflect a significant portion of the incoming SW solar radiation back to space, while clouds also act to absorb and reradiate LW radiation from the Earth’s surface, thereby blocking it from going out to space (the greenhouse effect). It is known that the net impact of clouds on our climate is one of cooling, in other words, more energy is reflected out to space by clouds than is absorbed.
The question is: what happens if our planet warms – will the reflection of incoming energy increase more rapidly than the absorption of outgoing energy to cause a net negative feedback (reducing the 2xCO2 temperature impact), or will the reverse be the case, to cause a net positive feedback from clouds (thereby causing more warming)?
Citing data from 2006 and earlier, IPCC tells us:
This seems like an honest assessment.
Yet, despite this “large uncertainty”, IPCC cites model simulations, which all show an estimated strongly positive net cloud feedback (there appears to be no “uncertainty” here).
This feedback is strong enough to result in an increase of the model-simulated 2xCO2 CS of 1.3°C (from 1.9°C with all assumed feedbacks except clouds to 3.2°C including the assumed cloud feedback).
So should teachers tell their pupils that the 2xCO2 CS is 3.2°C on average (as assumed by IPCC models), or should they tell them “cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty” (as stated by IPCC in the same report)?
Should they teach them that projected warming from today to year 2100 could exceed 2°C (a range of, say, 1.5 to up to 4°C), or that this estimate is still based on too much uncertainty to take too seriously?
A dilemma.
But wait!
The dilemma for the science teachers gets even greater.
After the IPCC report was published, a study by Spencer et al. demonstrated, based on actual physical observations from CERES satellites, that the overall net feedback from clouds with warming is strongly negative (rather than strongly positive, as previously assumed by IPCC, based on model simulations).
The implications of this new empirical data are enormous on the whole uncertainty of whether AGW is a serious threat or not.
If we eliminate the warming impact from clouds (as estimated by IPCC model simulations) and replace it with a net cooling impact from clouds (as physically observed by the new study) we end up with a 2xCO2 CS of around 1°C or slightly lower.
This means that we would expect to see a theoretical GH warming from today to year 2100 of well under 1°C (or about the same as we have seen over the past 100 years) and, more importantly, that AGW is not a serious threat, which requires “immediate action”.
Which “scientific truth” should the teachers teach their pupils?
The dilemma for the science teachers becomes a conundrum.
Here would be my suggestion for a balanced approach:
· Teach the pupils that IPCC has made some estimates of future warming, based on model simulations on the impact of doubling atmospheric CO2
· These model simulations were based on assumptions regarding the impact of cloud feedbacks, all of which were based on strongly positive assumed net cloud feedback
· The model-simulated impact of doubling CO2 averaged 3.2°C, which means that we could see theoretical GH warming by year 2100 of 2°C, or even higher, which, in turn, could be of concern
· At the same time IPCC conceded “cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty”
· After IPCC issued its report, however, actual physical observations have shown that clouds exert a fairly strong net negative feedback with warming.
· As we know from the “scientific method”, empirical evidence from actual physical observations or experimentation always “trumps” model simulations based on hypothetical deliberations.
· So we now know that cloud feedbacks are most likely to be strongly negative, unless the latest study can be falsified by conflicting empirical evidence from even newer physical observations (which has not yet occurred).
· This means that the warming we might expect by year 2100 from AGW is most likely to be no more than 0.7°C, or about the same as we have seen over the 20th century, and is therefore nothing to worry about.
· Of course, all of this assumes that there will be no major impact from natural forcing factors (or natural variability), where climate science is today limited by too many “unknown unknowns”
· We know from the past that changes in ocean currents and solar variability can cause major climate shifts, for example the record warm year 1998, which was at least partially caused by an unusually strong El Niño event, so to assume that natural variability will have no impact on future climate is likely to be incorrect.
· Since the end of 2000 our planet’s atmosphere has stopped warming; in fact there has been a slight cooling trend in both the troposphere (as measured by satellites) and at the surface (as measured on land by weather stations and over the ocean by satellites).
· At the same time, it appears that since Argo measurements were installed to measure the upper ocean temperature in 2003, this has also cooled
· Scientists at the UK Met Office tell us that this observed net cooling of the planet (despite record CO2 increase over the same time period) can probably be attributed to the as yet unidentified natural variability factors mentioned above, lending more credence to the suggestion that natural forcing plays a significant role in our planet’s climate, along with human factors
That would be my idea of a balance approach, Peter.
Do you agree?
If not, what are your specific objections?
Please state your reasoning and try to be specific.
Max
Max and Junkkmale,
Yes, it’s fine, in general, for kids to “think for themselves”, but should this be about everything they are taught in schools? Should they be encouraged to disagree about anything, and everything they think, or more likely ‘taught’ at home , might be wrong? Should there be no right or wrong answers any more – just different opinions?
You are saying the IPCC and ever other world science body have just “one opinion” on climate change. And that is just as valid as your opinion or the opinion of any 15 year old?
What other opinions are just as valid too? There was no genocide in WW2? AIDS and HIV are unrelated? The Earth was created in 7 days? Are you suggesting that these should be encouraged and taught too?
Or are you suggesting that climate science should be treated differently?
PeterM
You ask several questions (regarding what kids should be taught in schools)in your 228.
As far as “what they should be taught on climate science”, I have already spelled this out in detail in my 227, asking you for your specific comments – so the ball is in your court there and I will not repeat all this here.
To the other points.
To “think for themselves” is the greatest lesson children can learn, and it covers any subject. This includes analytical and rational thinking, rather than simply rote memory, and it is what will hopefully help them become productive adults.
In this process, they need to learn the basics of math, science, history, languages, literature, etc. as the basic foundation for being able to “think for themselves”.
Of course they should not (as you write)
That would be silly and counterproductive.
You ask
I do not believe that any of the above points you mention should be taught as “facts” for the following reasons: WWII genocide is historically documented, HIV-AIDS connection has been scientifically and clinically demonstrated, geologists have estimated the age of the Earth using various techniques (and it was clearly not created in 7 calendar days).
Hope this answers your questions.
Now I would like for you to address my points on what children should be taught about climate science (227).
It’s your turn, Peter.
Max
Check out the “key stage 3” syllabus on the BBC “Bitesize” website
Out of 11 questions we have 4 on this enviro-theme:
I hate this.
1) Too much emphasis on this nonsense at the expense of learning real science.
2) A one-sided coverage of a controversial topic.
I think at the same age I was learning about Hooke’s Law for the extension of a spring with different loads. Real Science.
Jack Hughes
The test questions are pretty silly, I’ll agree.
Then there is a basic error in number 9
The correct answer, of course, is: “none of the above”
Most of the energy in coal or oil comes from carbon, and the carbon originally came from atmospheric carbon dioxide, which is believed originally to have come from the Earth’s interior through volcanoes, fissures, etc.
The plants were an important step in the process, but they are not the origin.
So the teacher fails this one.
The other questions are so stupid that whoever thought them up should be flogged publicly.
Max
Max,
You ask ” I would like for you to address my points on what children should be taught about climate science (227). It’s your turn, Peter.”
OK. I’ve just linked to this book written by the US National Academy of Sciences on the NS blog but it’s just as relevent to this blog too.
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676#description
It title is “Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years”, its written in a matter of fact way with no predictions of imminent doom for mankind. It goes a little further than the title might suggest in predicting what future temperature changes may be too. It seems an excellent book. Would you go along with its contents or is it “just another opinion” and no more valid than Junkkmale’s?
I made a mistake re-engaging.
Overnight a score of new questions spewed demanding answers, whilst the orginal posed remains avoided with obfuscation and distraction, often unpleasantly articulated.
That original does not require an opinion; it simply reprinted what was asked of a 14 year old to gain precious marks by answering ‘correctly’.
That we are at 200+ posts, many dragged anywhere but, mostly by one petulant adult incapable of so doing, speaks volumes.
I am devoted to reductions in waste. With such clear, charmless examples of time and waste on display, over and over, further engagement with this individual is pointless.
PeterM
Rather than responding to the specific points in my 227, you side-stepped by referring me to a book with the question
After reading through the book you cited: Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years (2006), it sounds basically OK to me, Peter. It seems to be based largely on the same pre-2006 data as IPCC AR4 WG1, so is a bit out-dated in this fast-moving field (as is AR4) and possibly a bit one-sided.
As it’s title indicates, it spends a lot of time on the past temperature record but no time on the derivation of the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity and hardly any time on current trends plus future temperature projections.
For example, it says that it is warmer today than during the LIA and that it was about the same temperature during the MWP as today, but there is more uncertainty about “temperature reconstructions for the period from A.D. 900 to 1600” (peak and end of MWP) than about later periods (i.e. the LIA and the modern warm period).
I notice that it does not cite the recent comprehensive summary by Loehle, which showed a slightly warmer MWP than today, nor any of the 20+ studies I cited earlier showing the same, but rather cites four studies by Mann et al. So the book is out-dated plus possibly a bit one-sided, I would say.
A 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 1.5 to 4°C (with an average of 3°C) is mentioned as an assumption but, unfortunately, its empirical derivation is not discussed in any detail.
The points I made on cloud feedbacks, etc. are not covered at all, and there is no mention whatsoever of the recent study by Spencer et al., which demonstrated that cloud feedbacks are strongly negative, rather than strongly positive, as previously assumed by the IPCC model simulations, and that the previously assumed 2xCO2 CS should therefore be reduced to somewhere below 1°C. Hopefully the book will be up-dated soon, to include these important new empirical data, which fundamentally change our knowledge on the impact of clouds and the resulting 2xCO2 climate sensitivity.
I’m also missing a reference to the recent observations by Lindzen and Choi, which demonstrated a 2xCO2 CS of well below 1°C. Again, this new information came out after the book was published, so it will probably be included in an updated version.
I also miss any reference to Svensmark or his cosmic ray / cloud hypothesis. This is unfortunate, because it leaves the impression that GH warming (principally from CO2) is the only suggested explanation for temperature changes, whereas we all know that there are other, equally plausible, suggestions relating to natural forcing. Maybe the book will be updated once there are published results from the CLOUD study at CERN.
I miss any mention of the observed cycles in our planet’s climate, including the more recent multi-decadal oscillations of around 60 years each that have been recorded since 1850, which do not show a robust statistical correlation with atmospheic CO2, but rather a “random walk” statistically speaking.
I also miss any mention of the most recent cooling (since end 2000), but, again, this may well be due to the fact that the book was published before the current cooling trend became apparent.
The same goes for the recently observed cooling of the upper ocean (Loehle).
Finally, I miss the mention of the high level of uncertainty inherent in today’s knowledge of our planet’s climate, particularly with regard to natural variability and natural forcing factors, which the IPCC report has essentially ignored as a possible driving force of our climate. The book seems to rely too heavily on IPCC alone, with its myopic fixation on anthropogenic forcing while ignoring natural factors. A pity.
So I’d say that this text could be referenced to advanced pupils as a starting point for past climate change, along with the important updates of more recent data cited (Loehle, Spencer, Lindzen), more emphasis on the current situation plus a mention of alternate hypotheses, such as that of Svensmark, using the “balanced” approach I outlined in my 227..
So I have answered your question regarding this book as a supplemental text for science classes. But now please answer my specific questions to you in 227.
Do you have any specific objections to my stated “suggestion for a balanced approach” to teaching climate science and, if so, on which basis would you object?
Please, Peter, for once try to be specific if this is at all possible for you to do.
Awaiting your reply.
Max
Meanwhile, back on trying to figure out how to improve our kids’ chances of playing the system whilst still gaining a valid education…
‘Enviro’ is a ‘fact’ of life, so I feel it is legitimate to address and even incorporate, though 4 out of 11 does suggest an obsessive focus.
We are, again, confronted with black and white multiple choices.
This one has been highlighted..
I would have failed, I guess, by seeking to make a stab with ‘none of the above… and all’. ‘The energy’ comes from chemical reactions in combustion, released as explosive heat and force. This was surely bound into the molecules of plants, consumed by animals who, in death, became fossil fuels. All from the energy rained down as a consequence of fission from reactions in the sun, an entity in turn spawned by the big bang. Originally. Prior to that, you’ll need Stephen Hawking and the Pope plus various other guys in colourful vestments to thrash it out.
But the question structure seems not to be allowing for such thought processes.
Some of the others seem… questionable, too.
Fully agree. The focus, at this stage, should surely be on the basics and tools to inform sensible answers to more complex matters of interpretation… hopefully with complementary common sense in question setting, teaching and exam marking to allow for all… possibly perfectly valid… that can come back as a consequence. Not enthused at the chances on current evidence.
However, perfectly coincidentally, I am looking at a letter from my boys’ Headmaster and Chair of Governors advising of a conversion to Academy status, starting in Spring 2011. This has many consequences outlined, not least the freedom to not follow the National Curriculum.
They invite parents to chip in. I think I may just do so on a few issues. Opportunity has been presented just when it was needed to get involved and leave my kids out of it… and free to enjoy learning.
This does not inspire:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11696836
I have, of course, written to share the dilemma debated here.
In light of what has been, is and will be discussed here, the BBC podcast is worth listening to, bringing me to here next:
http://www.ofqual.gov.uk/
Interesting to note that on the home page AQA features, and not in a good way.
Junkkmale (236)
From the BBC link: “The awarding bodies know that and so they make it possible for everybody to succeed.”
All shall have prizes, then! Or, as G&S observed some time ago, ‘When everybody’s somebody, nobody’s anybody’.
We have a ghastly local example of the unintended effects of targets and testing here on the Isle of Wight, which is currently dismantling its 3-tier educational structure by removing a fine set of middle schools and closing small village primaries that cannot expand to take the extra classes.
This is largely predicated on the allegedly low performance of the middle schools at KS2, where there has been a regular drop in marks from the KS1 results attained at the primary schools. However, there is an explanation for this that the authorities did not want to consider, namely that the KS1 results were never externally moderated, while the KS2 ones were! The primary schools were thus able to massage the results, safe in the knowledge that the next stage would not be their problem. Next year, it will be, a situation we await with interest…
As for your original three questions, I’m still not sure what the ‘right’ answer was meant to be , even if the pupil had been listening to the propaganda.
This is worth a read:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Eleven-Plus-Book-Genuine-Questions-Yesteryear/dp/1843172976/
I suspect that many GSCE students would struggle with the maths.
James P (238)
It appears that, all in all, the only class that should be needed by a British pupil is a class in Rhetoric. Because the most important thing is to be able to argue in favor of whatever one fancies.
Max,
You say that teaching kids that temperatures in first decade of this century were no higher than the the last decade in the 20th century, the “its stopped warming” argument would be “my idea of a balanced approach”. Or, part of it, maybe.
Then you ask “Do you agree?”. Well, if by balanced you mean teaching both the correct and incorrect answer, then I suppose I must.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/aug/25/teachers-choosing-exam-boards-gcse
Well, I guess it is proving an ‘education’ to this parent.
Even as with each new avenue, I mainly seem to find the thick plotten.
As it’s all kicking off now, not sure I am into awaiting too long, and ‘interest’ is putting it mildly.
On the BBC podcast, when the OFqual head equivocated just one too many times and refused to answer a question with ‘it will be in the report next year’, the monitor almost went out the window.
As to those darn questions, they are but a few of thousands, but where there is smoke there may be a fire raging, and for the sake of my kids’ futures I think a small investment in time now against a major rectification effort later may be worth making.
This sounds a bit familiar.
Not in a good way, obviously.
Baby steps.
I have had a very prompt answer from a very helpful lady at OFqual:
Of course I am now used to ‘the answer’ being still elusive, but the process of elimination is proving effective, if time consuming.
Today’s efforts have, at least, provided another avenue of inquiry.
PeterM
You ask me (241):
No, Peter, I believe it is sufficient to teach the observed facts without adding any conclusions or rationalizations.
The observed fact: Since the end of 2000 the atmosphere has shown a linear cooling trend, both at the surface and in the troposphere. Since new Argo measurements were installed in 2003, the upper ocean has also shown a cooling. At the same time, atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased to record levels, according to measurements made at Mauna Loa.
In other words, children, our planet has been cooling over the most recent years, despite increased atmospheric CO2.
No longer term “conclusion” should be drawn from this, but the observed facts should simply be taught without either a conclusion of “it’s stopped warming” or “it’s just a speed bump in the warming, which will return with a vengeance”, etc.
Both conclusions would be conjectural.
If a pupil asks, “why has it not warmed despite the increased CO2?”, I believe a “balanced” answer would be, “this may be due to errors in the measurements or, more likely, to natural climate forcing factors, which we do not fully understand as yet, since the whole field of climate science is still in its infancy.”
Can you now agree?
How about the other points I made on what children should be taught about climate science (227). Can you agree with these?
Max
Max,
The IPCC is itself a balanced report. That should form the basis for any teaching of AICC climate change. As I’ve said on the other thread, it’s not outdated. Since the last AR was published there have been papers suggesting that the situation is less dangerous and others that it is more. They will almost certainly average out to produce the same conclusions next time too.
The last AR had you screaming that it was all a hoax. I doubt if the next one is going to leave you feeling any different.
Incidentally, if you do think “its all a hoax” then you should be arguing for the IPCC and all mainstream science to be kept out of the classroom completely! Is that the next step?
Don’t the Creationists and Intelligent Designers call for teaching “both sides of the argument” too? But if they get it, their next step will to ban Darwin completely.
That is why there should be no compromise on either issue.
Maurizio Morabito
What you have written on the importance of “rhetoric” is very pertinent.
No one nationality masters the English language with all its fine points better than (who else?) – the English.
Saying it eloquently, pointedly, convincingly, etc. is often almost as important as “what” is being said.
As a non-Englishman (Swiss) I always marvel at how masterfully the English language can be used as a weapon in a debate.
However, a major part of our discussion here has to do with “science” (or the lack thereof) and, more specifically, about the empirical scientific evidence supporting the commonly held IPCC hypothesis that AGW represents a serious threat to mankind and our environment.
Either this empirical evidence (based on actual physical observations or reproducible experiments) can be demonstrated, or it cannot. Basta.
Here beautiful words do not help. They may try to distract from the real issue, but these attempts are futile.
And the problem for the “dangerous AGW” believers is simply that they are unable to show the empirical scientific data to support their hypothesis.
The hypothesis is beautifully supported by greenhouse theory and by model simulations based on hypothetical considerations, but this does not provide the empirical evidence required to move it from an “uncorroborated hypothesis” to a “corroborated hypothesis”, let alone to “accepted scientific knowledge” (following the process of the “scientific method”).
Even worse for the believers of this premise are the recent physical observations a) on strongly negative cloud feedbacks with warming, b) on recent atmospheric as well as upper ocean cooling despite the measured increase of atmospheric CO2 to record levels and c) on our planet’s overall energy balance.
These show us that there are powerful natural forces at work, which we do not yet fully understand, and which may have, therefore, been a major cause for past warming. This, in turn, tends to invalidate the “dangerous AGW” hypothesis.
If the recent physical observations cannot be refuted scientifically, they will result in a direct falsification of this hypothesis, moving it from an “uncorroborated hypothesis” to the waste bin of history as a “falsified hypothesis”.
Rhetoric, no matter how eloquent, dialectical or flowery, will not be able to change this.
Max
PS I predict that this will happen – but not without a whole lot of “rhetoric” to try to keep it alive.
Max manacher – au contraire, I believe that in this country, no matter how science-based, victory will grace those with the most eloquent rhetoric.
It’s not by chance that they had so many years of Tony Blair, the most dialectical man this side of Churchill.
And I am still thinking about the original question by JunkkMale, rather than trying to figure out if everybody can agree on what is “empirical data”.
At this moment, my reply is that we shouldn’t worry too much, actually the children will be far better off by replying according to what they had been told, because school grades are a measure of one’s capacity to output what was there already in input, rather than a gymnasium of the reasoning.
And if the end result will be that they’ll understand that there is no Authority to which one should delegate one’s thinking, so much the better.