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.
no matter how science-based…one’s reasoning that is
PeterM
In lieu of responding to my proposed specific point-by-point teaching approach on climate science (227), you switch the topic and write (246):
This is not true, Peter. There have been many examples cited on this blogsite showing that there are exaggerations, errors, omission and outright falsifications in the IPCC report.
There are also many scientists who have taken issue with the IPCC conclusions and forecasts for the future, as you know.
And there have been new data from physical observations, which were made after the IPCC report was published and which drastically change the conclusions reached on the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity and, thus, the impact on our climate of added CO2, as I have outlined in some detail.
Open your eyes, Peter. Don’t stick your head in the sand and act like a “denier”.
I have suggested a “balanced” approach.
Comment on my proposal specifically, point by point, but don’t bring up such absurd blanket statements such as “the IPCC is itself a balanced report”. This only makes you look silly.
Still awaiting your specific comments. Peter.
Max
Maurizio Morabito
You may unfortunately be right about the overwhelming importance of rhetoric in the UK.
I cannot judge this, but I am still hopeful that “science” will eventually prevail.
I see that scientists like Judith Curry no longer support the IPCC and are courageous enough to speak out openly, and this gives me this hope.
It will not happen overnight, because of the many powerful vested interests (and the use of “rhetoric” – and “dialectic” – as a weapon against the truth), but I am convinced that this hysteria will pass (as others have in the past).
Max
Max,
I don’t think its correct to say that Judith Curry no longer supports the IPCC. At least from what I’ve read she is making her point that she believes the some uncertainties have been understated. I don’t think she’s quite spat the dummy and taken her ball home.
You say that there are many scientists who have taken issue with the IPCC’s conclusions. Yes, but so too have many scientists taken issue with Darwin’s conclusions.
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/
Why should the two groups be treated any differently?
Max,
You just aren’t qualified to make any sort of bullet pointed list of what can and can’t be taught in schools. I’m not saying I am either.
In Australia that question is referred to the CSIRO and other countries would have similar scientific bodies who should advise both politicians and eductaionalist.
And anyone who thinks they know better on the basis of what they’ve read on some contrarian website or the Daily Mail or whatever is just a ****wit!
Something I, my kids, and possibly some others keen on keeping things focussed on the point and not a load of pointless ***** masquerading as debate that infects this thread, will be grateful for.
PeterM (246)
Only because they want their beliefs to be treated as if they were science and thus be included on a curriculum that forbids religious teaching in any class, let alone science.
If you substitute ‘belief in models’ for ‘belief in scriptures’, the parallel with AGW is quite striking.
PeterM
You have again missed the point and side-stepped the issue with your 253. Yawn!
What is done in Australia to decide how and what children will be taught does not really have much to do with our topic here, which is how misguided educators and teachers plus a politicized school system are misusing schools to systematically brainwash and frighten children in the UK regarding the imaginary dangers of AGW.
I outlined some suggestions to arrive at a more “balanced” approach to the underlying science than only that single myopic viewpoint, which is espoused and promoted by IPCC in AR4, by including new data breakthroughs that have become available after this report was issued; I then asked for your comments regarding these scientific points.
You are unable (or stubbornly unwilling) to discuss these specific points. You continue to avoid a discussion of the “science” (as you have since we started our exchange on this site), instead switching to side tracks and waffles, such as your most recent post.
It has become painfully obvious to one and all here, Peter, that your reason for doing this is that you fear that the science is flawed and that you can only defend your personal belief of “dangerous AGW” by evoking silly and totally irrelevant “arguments from authority”, rather than scientific “arguments from evidence”.
So be it, Peter.
Trying to discuss anything scientific with you is a waste of time.
After observing your strange behavior, I have come to believe that this is for one simple reason: you really have no notion of what you are talking about, despite claiming to be a physicist.
All you are able to do is parrot the IPCC AR4 party line, no matter how flawed and outdated this may be, but not to defend it logically and rationally with scientific arguments.
It looks to me like you are a phony, Peter. Too bad for you, buddy.
Max
PeterM
You just wrote (252):
Adding:
Wake up and pull your head out of the sand, Peter.
Here is what she wrote (see my 2457 on the NS thread):
http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/03/reversing-the-direction-of-the-positive-feedback-loop/
Seems pretty clear to me, Peter, without any silly rationalizations on your part as to “what she really meant”.
She meant that she decided that she “could no longer in good faith support the IPCC and its assessments”. Rather simple. Got it?
Max
JunkkMale
Not to belabor a point.
Let me start off by conceding that I am NOT speaking as a parent who is going through the problem you face with your children in today’s school system in the UK, so I do not face (as you do) the dilemma of challenging corruption and stupidity within the “system”, which could backfire by getting my kids into trouble, or simply accepting these problems.
That being said, I believe it is a slippery slope to simply tell kids that they have to choose and endorse silly answers to even more stupid, loaded, multiple-choice questions in order to get by in the system, even if they feel these answers (and questions) are stupid and rigged.
Acknowledging that corruption and stupidity exist is not the same as blindly accepting it. However, the kids are not the ones who have to fight this battle. They may be forced to “play along” with a corrupt system or a misguided teacher in order to pass a test, but I would imagine that they would certainly feel much better about this if it were explained to them by their parents (as you are apparently doing), and if they know that you (as their father) are challenging the corruption of the system at another level, where it will not directly impact them negatively, but may hopefully eventually result in the elimination of this corruption and stupidity for the next class of school kids.
Just my thoughts as an outsider to this problem who can, nevertheless, feel for your dilemma.
Max
Max,
You say that “What is done in Australia to decide how and what children will be taught does not really have much to do with our topic here”
Australia may be a long way from the UK but there’s not a lot of difference between English and Aussie kids, the school systems are similar, and climate change problems just as real. Australia is that big island continent in the South Pacific ! Australian teachers are very well regarded, and the UK recruits, or used to before the GFC, many young Aussie teachers to spend few years teaching in some of the more difficult schools there.
As far as I’m aware there is no significant criticism of how the subject of climate change is taught here. Of course there will be some criticism – but they’ll be the same ideological objections we’ve seen dressed up as scientific argument on this blog. Australian teachers are good, but they aren’t trained climate scientists, so they take they advice from those who are – namely the Australian CSIRO and make use of this sort of thing.
http://www.csiro.au/resources/CarbonKids-Teacher-Notes.html
And no reasonable person can fault them for that, surely? But you can obviously. So that does raise the question of whether you are “reasonable people”?
PS I’ll come back to what Judith Curry may or may not be saying on the other thread. But, she does seem to be all over the place, it changes from day to day, so that may not be too easy.
PeterM
Your comments on Australian teachers versus those in the UK are interesting:
I cannot comment on the “school systems” but would agree that “climate change problems [are] just as real” (namely, not very important in the overall scheme of things – climate always changes for all sorts of reasons, as we are now seeing, and we – in the UK, Australia or Switzerland, for that matter – have always managed to cope with these changes, as we will now).
Please do come back with your personal interpretation of “what Judith Curry may or may not be saying on the other thread” – the quote I cited is from last week, so a fairly good idea of her current thought.
From her recent written statement it appears that she, like many others (including me) originally gave more credence to IPCC and then, after closer examination and rational deliberation, concluded (as she wrote last week) that she “could no longer in good faith support the IPCC and its assessments”.
I would not hold this against her, as you apparently do, Peter, when you write rather disparagingly, “she does seem to be all over the place, it changes from day to day”. This observation is incorrect.
Instead, I’d say that she has spent some time and effort thinking it all through rationally and skeptically (in the scientific sense), rather than simply swallowing one rather myopic line of reasoning as expressed by IPCC.
But I’ll agree that this discussion fits better on the other thread.
So let’s continue it there, and get back to my suggestions for a more “balanced” curriculum for older science class pupils on climate and global warming, which are more pertinent to this (“what the hell are we doing to our children?”) thread, where I would welcome your specific comments.
Max
On the matter of “taking advice”
Reason suggests that reasonable people should use their reasoning skills to reason for themselves, taking the words from Authorities as reference and reference only rather than subjugating themselves and their lazy brains to somebody else’s reasoning ability (or lack thereof).
On the other hand teachers even in independent schools are not paid to reason or even to nurture the pupils’ reasoning skills, rather their objective is to enable as many children as possible to pass their next exams. So just don’t pretend too much from teachers and their tests.
Ta for the empathy. I should point out that I am now more a partner in cynicism with my sons, having agreed to play the system for immediate results, but also staying aware that it, and too many of its highly-qualified and overpaid administrators, are complicit suck-ups and sell-outs who seem to have zero professional pride or integrity.
I am simply trying to do something that is becoming more and more complex at each turn, namely navigate a pragmatic path on behalf of my kids’ immediate educational needs, whilst not letting go of a much bigger, idealistic picture when it comes to the value of what they are taught, learn, get examined upon… and end up trying to apply.
Baby steps. I have a meetings scheduled with the school headmaster and another with my MP.
I was also called yesterday by a representative of AQA. They seem.. ‘concerned’, but are going about things in an odd way.
He asked if I had the book and could send him a copy of the page and cover ‘to ensure that it is authorised by AQA’.
I replied that I did not, as it had gone back to the UK secondary school who provided it. I also asked why AQA would not be aware of such a publication, in that I had provided publisher, title, editor and relevant page numbers, plus transcript. I opined that this would surely be enough to track it down their end.
He said ‘Oh’. He also promised to email me his contact. Yet to appear.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100063065/why-is-a-school-celebrating-that-islamophobic-monster-richard-the-lionheart-someone-should-complain/
For some reason, this resonated…
If only he knew…
An interesting debate, it reminded me of this quote from Doris Lessing’s 1971 preface to the Golden Notebook:
Not really in keeping with Mr. Cameron’s Big Society shift of responsibility from state to individual then, is it?
And if it is a static, rigid system, it seems hard to reconcile the experiences of one’s own eyes of the situation then (as I was, along with a few others here), and now (as my kids and I are).
Forgive me, but sharing some slight empathy still with a teenager, in any case ‘that’s the way it has always been’ or ‘because we say so’ was never really going to cut it.
Sorry.
ps: I do wonder if, in this box tick world, that call from AQA to ask if I had a copy of their own course book was enough to close the case their end? The ‘make it go away’ munchkin has not followed up, as promised.
Silly boy. Silly AQA.
Junkkmale
Sorry I haven’t been following this thread. Its importance goes way beyond your sons’ education. There are serious questions about the quality of education which are not being raised via the normal channels of public discussion. I suspect this is largely to do with the reorganisation of education and the place taken by private commercial companies / charities (how can they be both?) like AQA which are pretty immune from investigation. One line of enquiry: google and you get 220,000 hits. There’s some discontent out there which needs organising on a website.
Lukewarmer #264
Much as I admire Doris Lessing, I’d take her opinions on education with a pinch of salt. She once said – possibly in the intro to the Golden Notebook you quote – that the best way to learn was to get hold of thirty books on a subjet that interested you, lock yourself away for a week and read them. Great advice for potential Nobel prizewinners, not so good for the rest of us.
Junkkmale
My note above about googling “AQA rubbish” was not meant flippantly. I haven’t explored the results, but a lot of people – students and teachers – are annoyed, and some of them seem to be motivated enough to follow up some kind of concerted effort.
I wonder whether the fact that it’s so difficult to find organised protest on the subject of education standards isn’t due to the same sorts of factors which have worked to stifle dissent on global warming – education journalists who are complacent and compliant like their environment colleagues. I’d expect to see left-wing journalists complaining about the privatising and marketing of education, and right-wing ones complaining about state indoctrination. And both joining forces when standards ae soo obviously being debased. It’s not happening. Booker and Monbiot, diametrically opposed on our pet subject, both have the fire and talent to tackle this subject, both alas are busy elsewhere.
Let me add even more cynicism…nobody complains about educational standards because most consider schools like a parking areas during office hours, with any “education” an un-necessary bonus, at least until the A-levels get in sight.
If educational standards were important, teachers would be paid as much as footballers. At least, the good teachers.
All fair points, and suggestive of a long slog.
Unsurprising but frustrating. I am selfish enough to be more interested in my sons’ short term career needs, and suspect they will be well beyond any changes that may get instituted by any accepted (which is a stretch given what is in place and being ring-fenced defensively already) agreement on things needing to shift as a matter of urgency. So in fact any stirring now appears more of a sacrifice in effort and imposition on them that may be not be worth it for the family.
However, I do see little windows of opportunity, and as AQA in its manifest forms is at the core of this particular thread, there is merit in persisting with them.
I am also aware that if there are compromises at this stage, there can be many more, and more potentially damaging come ‘O’ and ‘A’ levels, in turn leading to problems once arriving at a hoped for sensible degree with academics expecting and demanding basic skillsets and thinking ability over parrot dogma.
And then, as an employer, I know what kind of person is of most use to my business. Plus, of course, the country… and the future.
Maurizio #268
Your flippancy shows you’ve been living in England too long. I like to make fun of the cultural pretentiousness prevalent in France – philosophers in designer jeans sounding off on telly talk shows about the Brutishness of Americans etc – but at least we still have someone in the government called “Ministre de l’Education” and not “Minister of Fun Things to do on Saturday Afternoon for all the Family”.
Junkkmale #269
If it’s all too depressing, then just think of your kids, do what’s best for them, and leave the Ofquals of this world to do what they do best – sit in their plateglass officeblocks designing mission statements and logos for themselves. As you say, as an employer you know what kind of person is of most use to you and to the country. Turn out a couple of them and hope there are enough other employers and citizens like you.
This business of AQA being a registered charity bothers me though. I mean, they’re running 40% of the education assessment in English schools. How does it work? Is their boss working for nothing, like Pachauri? Are the exams marked by unpaid volunteers? Do they have AQA shops in the High Street selling cast off satchels and calculators? Something in me doesn’t really want to know.
This issue may be a sort of litmus test as regards opinions on education and parenting:
http://bigjournalism.com/wthuston/2010/02/01/homeschooling-german-family-awarded-political-asylum-in-u-s-where-is-u-s-media/
The question is: do parents have a right to teach their offspring anything and everything they like just because they are parents?
Junkkmale #265
Sorry I wasn’t being flippant by that quote, but it is ever thus.
In all seriousness though, are you going through the latest on dark energy/matter, cladistics, epigenetics, abiogenesis of oil (joke), cold fusion (joke?) etc and questioning the sharp end science and how the kids are being taught?
The key thing to teach your sons is critical reasoning – that will get them the job, once they’ve got the pieces of paper which say they have parroted the state’s agenda. Science is badly taught per se – try reading Douglas Allchin’s stuff on Pseudohistory or his excellent Phlogiston paper, for starters. Most of the teaching is scientism not science.
It’s not quite on the same scale but I have a chemistry degree and still don’t know what to spread on my toast! Stork SB, St Ivel Gold, Olivio, butter, spreadable butter, lard etc. And they never even mentioned omega oils.
Geoff #266
Not sure I get your point. Not like you to Ad Fem. Is the quote I cite relevant/ true or not?
On the 30 books thing, I agree really, because there are no simple ways to expertise. The Internet makes it a lot easier but I think we all tend to assume that being able to answer a quiz question (even the QI version) equates to expertise. It’s a long slog when you work with experts (or even are one) and realise that all that stuff about tacit knowledge is true. Google “Chaucer 85 titles” and follow the first link if you don’t believe me.