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.
For those seeking more polarised, overtly political debate on this issue (or any other diversions), this may be a productive thread to turn one’s attentions to: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tomchivers/100049071/are-science-and-scepticism-left-or-right-wing/
What has encouraged me here is not only the commitment to good science and better education to serve our kids’ futures as they deserve, but also the desire to DO something over and above petty point scoring in debate.
Perhaps because most are parents, with real concerns.
Rounded, agenda-free, basics-grounded syllabuses, teaching parameters and clearly defined examination structures need to be restored as a matter of some urgency.
I am keen for my boys to know how to think and enjoy the resources to have all necessary to do that on a factually sound basis, and with skill. What I am less keen on, at this stage in their lives, is them being told what to think as well.
In helping me progress on my journey to help with some necessary areas in need of review, I find of most value the qualified factual insights kindly shared (along with a genuine desire to improve the lot of the next generation).
Whatever one’s leanings (and I subscribe to the notion that only a bird with equal, and well balanced wings is capable of successful flight. Any undue heft to one or other merely resulting in going in circles), there are some core fundamentals suggested as being off kilter and in danger of wobbling further astray.
This needs correcting.
Indeed.
The comments, from cited howlers to empathetic professional acceptance, to worrying ‘the system is screwed’ opinion from folk within it, are frankly a mirror of this thread.
Holding firm seems the only course.
Bokonon’s criticisms seem to be echoed in the book mentioned at the Guardian link I gave at #337, and also in many of the comments.
Alex’s links at #333 give a fascinating insight into how a small bunch of people, setting up a handful of interlinked websites, can give the impression of a mass movement , and get their hands on some serious dosh. Does Tonyb know about the Nowhere Island project? Since his research is directly relevant, maybe he should get a share of the half a million.
tempterrain: wise words at #340 and 346, but I’d prefer to keep the discussion relevant to Junkkmale’s concerns.
OT but I hope still relevant technical question: is it possible my OS/browser combo is messing with post numbers? Or am I just not understanding the system?
I just ask because when I try and tie those quoted above with the actual number in the thread, the poster name cited does not seem to tally.
Unless another ‘slots in’ as I write, this I would peg at #354 to follow Geoff’s at #353
Lunchtime break. Some levity: http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/school-subjects-to-be-dicked-about-with-200812081444/
Back to ‘work’. Interesting tweet>blog, especially some comments:
The proof reading at SKY did raise a titter, mind, given the topic.
Junkkmale #352 on my screen, #354 on yours (?)
We seem to be 2#s out of sync. Possibly becaud-se I’m on Central European Time?
That’s great for you Pete……but why do you feel that others should be saddled with your debt?
Is this the “shared misery” that Winston Churchill spoke of?
None of this was “free” Pete……it’s only that YOU didn’t pay for it.
This is how it works……the government stole earning from your fellow countrymen and paid the debt that YOU incurred with THEIR money.
So, you got something for nothing……you stole money from your fellow countrymen and you’re proud of that?
Re: your… er… #±357… on my screen:)
One for better techies than I. I just assume Macs mess everything up. Keeps us on our toes.
Brute,
You say “So, you got something for nothing……you stole money from your fellow countrymen and you’re proud of that”
That’s just nonsense. Like many of my generation in the 70’s, I was the first of my family ever to go to uni. Its not that we were any more intelligent than previous generations but we were offered an opportunity and we took it. If we hadn’t been helped we couldn’t have gone on. That’s the reality.
The reality also is that we’ve paid for our education many time over in income taxes, so I’m quite sure that over the course of our lifetimes we’ll nearly all be net contributors.
You should look at how liquid pumps work sometimes. If you don’t prime them you don’t get anything out of the other end – ever.
I have planted another seed…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/8157689/The-writings-on-the-wall-for-our-failing-education-system.-But-can-anyone-read-it.html
And another…
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/katharinebirbalsingh/100065368/this-education-white-paper-signals-a-fundamental-shift-at-the-top/
And another…
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100065304/turning-ex-soldiers-into-teachers-is-an-inspired-idea-by-michael-gove/
“Prime The Pump”?
Where have I heard that before?
Oh yes, Keynesian Marxism.
Who earned the water (capital) to begin with?
What right do you have to “use” someone else’s property?
Who owned the water before you decided to forcibly confiscate it and use it?
Hey, I’d like to come by and “use” your house for four years to help me get on my feet………I’m certain you won’t mind, right?
If you don’t agree, I’ll have the government thugs come over and force you to “let” me “use” your house.
I’ll be over on tax day…….alright?
Brute,
I’ve met some people with strange views in my time but none quite as strange as yours.
Typically even Coalition voters in Australia, the more right wing parties, support the idea of government spending on education. They might have reservations about the quality of certain courses and the wisdom of encouraging quite so many youngsters to go through the uni system and they might just be right about that. But that’s another story.
When governments are talking about spending cuts, they always make a point of excluding education and health spending. Although it doesn’t quite always work out that way in practice. And why do they do it? Because, by and large, the electorate recognise these services are important both to them and the working of the economy. The Coalition’s usual line, at election time, is that ‘Canberra’ is bloated with too many civil servants who aren’t doing anything of any use and they could all be sacked tomorrow! Again it doesn’t quite work out like that when they do win an election, but they daren’t promise mass sackings of teachers, doctors and nurses. It would be electoral suicide.
You may not like it, but that’s democracy.
No Pete, it’s theft.
If you desire or have need for a teacher, a doctor or a nurse, then you have every right to go and hire one……..ON YOUR DIME.
I happen to have need for a plumber right now, but I don’t ask you to pay for it.
I chose not to have children……..It isn’t my responsibility to pay the freight for your children.
Of course this would apply if I lived in Australia………..but I think you get my point.
Brute,
What are you saying? As far as I know, I have three kids. However, I can’t really be absolutely certain, not to the 100% level, that I don’t have any more.
How can you know for sure you don’t have any? Didn’t you do the normal things that young people do?
If ever one wanted to showcase bitter irony…
On the day further relevant contributions from informed contributors are invited to this thread, on the basis of the quality of the debate about UK schooling, a schoolyard spat outside a room of class kicks off to distract the efforts of those working calmly, seeking to learn, and share, on the topic to hand.
Almost like it was meant.
I’m reminded from time to time of this quote.
Sadly I see that our society is being conditioned to accept groupthink as gospel……..conditioned not to “think outside the box”….
Relating to the BBC thread, our leaders would have us follow their preconceived line of thinking in order to readily accept the policies that they have or intend to implement.
Brute
Your comment (369) on the sad trend to “accept groupthink as gospel” and no longer “think outside the box” is very pertinent. Let me add some comments.
It applies to many parts of society – and, sadly, even to the “scientific community” (who should be the very first to “think outside the box” in searching for scientific “truth”).
Of course, AGW has become a multi-billion dollar big business with IPCC set up as the inter-governmental political organization to gather scientific “proof” for its preconceived premise that AGW is a potentially serious threat that must be stopped by imposing carbon taxes on humanity to force the world to stop burning fossil fuels.
But let’s forget the economic and political aspects and concentrate on the science first.
Thomas Kuhn wrote an excellent treatise on the business of “paradigms” in science.
T. S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1st. ed., Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Pr., 1962
Excerpts with comments here:
http://des.emory.edu/mfp/Kuhn.html
Scientific “paradigms” are good in one sense in that they set the “ground rules” within which scientific knowledge is categorized. In other words, they set “limits”. As Kuhn puts it, paradigms are the “rules” that limit the nature of acceptable solutions—they represent “restrictions that bound the admissible solutions to theoretical problems” and they are “predicated on the assumption that the scientific community knows what the world is like”.
The bad thing, however, is that they promote “group think”.
Scientists become invested in the prevailing “paradigm” and hence begin to defend it against threats from the outside. Data points, which do not fit into the limits of the “paradigm”, are ignored, rejected as irrelevant outliers or (in the worst case) not even physically seen.
Rationally skeptical “thinking outside the box” of the prevailing “paradigm” is rejected and those scientists who dare to suggest such thought are ostracized from the “mainstream community” as “deniers” or even “heretics”.
Venerable scientific organizations rubber-stamp the prevailing “paradigm” as “scientific truth”, even though it may not have been validated by empirical data and thus passed beyond simply being an “uncorroborated hypothesis”, as is the case for the “dangerous AGW” paradigm being promoted by IPCC and endorsed by many scientific organizations.
This all works for a while, leading to “group think” and, eventually, to “paradigm paralysis”.
That’s where we essentially were in early 2009 with the “DAGW paradigm”.
But then the evidence supporting the prevailing “paradigm” begins to crumble at the same time as the evidence refuting it becomes too strong to ignore and there is a “paradigm shift” or “scientific revolution”.
This is a painful transition for many (as an example, Kevin Trenberth referred to the recently observed “lack of warming” of our planet as a “travesty” – although, as one who genuinely fears “dangerous AGW”, he should have been relieved rather than alarmed).
[The Trenberth example demonstrates how deeply scientists become invested in the prevailing “paradigm”, as pointed out by Kuhn in his treatise.]
Is the scientific “paradigm shift” beginning to occur?
There are signs that this is the case, as “mainstream” scientists, such as Judith Curry, begin to openly express “uncertainty” and other skeptical scientists, such as Roy Spencer, Craig Loehle and Richard Lindzen, begin to publish papers chipping away at the mainstream “paradigm”.
Climategate and the other revelations of IPCC errors, fabrications and exaggerations have also had an impact.
Despite your rather pessimistic prognosis, I predict that the prevailing DAGW “paradigm” will be replaced in a scientific “paradigm shift” or “revolution”.
And, if Kuhn is right, scientists will return to normal problem-solving within the new “paradigm”, once its dominance has been established and the current “paradigm” has been replaced and discarded.
So much for the purely scientific “paradigm shift”.
The general public has already begun to “small a rat” regarding the DAGW premise (and the futility and unjustified high cost of the policy proposals being made to allegedly “mitigate” against it).
The politicians and other direct benefactors from DAGW may possibly be slower to switch, but even they will eventually jump onto a new “paradigm”. The fact that “cap and trade” was rejected by the US Senate is already a sign that this is beginning to occur.
I’m basically an optimist, Brute. And I believe that the voting public in a democratic society is usually much more sensible than many of the political elite, who often fall into the arrogant trap of thinking they know better what’s good for the voters than the voters themselves do (until they get replaced by the voters).
As far as “scientists” making policy? A bad idea.
Max
Yes Max, I must admit, you’re correct.
I tend to be rather pessimistic…….a character defect I possess (amongst many).
I “smelled a rat” long ago regarding global warming. As a student of history I recognized this confidence scheme from the beginning. Since the dawn of time mankind has sought various ways to separate unsuspecting dupes from their property.
Greed and pride are foremost on the list for the continuation of the global warming scam. Warmists such as Hansen and Jones fall into the “pride” category……they cannot admit that their prophecies have failed to materialize.
Greed is the primary motivation for politicians…………and the companies that manufacture mercury laced light bulbs (for example) whose manufacturing plants (recently relocated to China) seek to increase their profits exponentially by replacing every incandescent light bulb in the world (based on fraudulent reasoning/agenda driven science) and exploiting inexpensive third world labor.
Of course “scientists” see great advantage to perpetuating the myth…………receiving “free” monetary grants and other goodies from the taxpayers through bribing public officials. Why should they rock the boat or bite the hand that feeds them? Just a few short years of toil, funded by taxpayer’s dollars and they can retire to the lecture circuit with a fat pension.
Frankly, I’m surprised a social crusader such as Peter Martin doesn’t object to the exploitation………but as is the Progressive creed…………the ends justify the means.
The oldest story of time…………follow the money.
Brute
Yes, indeed – “follow the money”.
Energy companies (despised by Peter as a supposed root cause of the AGW “problem”) are among the first to line up at the taxpayer-funded government trough to get their share of the billions of dollars.
BP, ExxonMobil, Chevron – they’re all there.
Who would get the lion’s share of the trillions in proposed global carbon taxes, if they were ever to get implemented?
(See the names above, along with many other giant corporations, such as GE, etc.)
Of course “money-shufflers” and sharks (like George Soros) would also get their share (along with smaller fish like Al Gore or tiny “minnows” like Rachendra Pachauri).
And, hey, I can’t really blame them. That’s what industrial corporations and “money shufflers” are all about: making a buck. And if the government is throwing around taxpayer dollars, a corporation would be foolish not to cash in. And they are not foolish.
And if this particular gravy train gets derailed, what the hell, there will always be another.
And it will be good ol’ John Q. Public who ends up picking up the tab. Always has been.
Max
A little (hopeful) levity for a not very nice day, from the ‘hopefully exception that proves the rule’ files:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8170259/Head-teacher-forced-to-apologise-for-error-laden-report.html
Brave… or foolhardy parent? Their kids must have been thrilled.
Meanwhile I still await any carefully-worded feedback from AQA or their publishers on the question now accepted by near all as, at best, unanswerable, yet apparently destined for next year’s curriculum.