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,
#68 wasn’t my post. This issue, AGW, isn’t the first to create difficulty between some parents and the educational system and it probably won’t be the last. It is easy to see how this kind of conflict can arise when religious issues are involved, but I must say I would never have foreseen this one, where it’s not religion but what can be clearly identified as political dispute along these sort of lines:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/06/why_liberals_fear_global_warmi.html
The author makes the point that the left would place AGW higher as a threat than say Islamic terrorism, whereas for those on the right the converse is true. Recent posts on this blog would tend to support this analysis.
On climate change, the only possible line that schools can take is the one recommended by the leading scientific body in the country. In Australia, this is it:
http://www.csiro.au/resources/Science-for-Schools.html
It is possible that some schoolteachers in Australia are going much further than would be warranted by the known science on AGW. That must be just as wrong as denying it to be any sort of problem at all. I’m sure most Australian teachers would read up on the advice being given to them by the CSIRO and try their best to neither understate nor overstate the true scale of the problem.
It’s probably much more difficult for schools on questions of terrorism. For many it would depend on its context. For instance the same New York Irish community which would have been 100% opposed to the events of 9-11 may well have been slightly more equivocal on the terrorism carried out by the IRA in the previous two or three decades in the UK and Northern Ireland. For schools to get that one right is just about impossible. On that issue, there are bound to be parents who would get offside with the education system, however well it was handled.
PeterM
You cannot be serious, when you write to Junkkmale:
Whether or not CO2 is a GHG is not the issue under discussion at all here, Peter, as you fully know.
It is whether or not AGW, caused principally by GH warming from human CO2 emissions, has been a primary cause of 20th century warming and whether or not AGW from human CO2 is a serious potential threat to humanity (otherwise known as the “dangerous AGW postulation).
This is the “party line”, which is disputed by those who are rationally skeptical, in the scientific sense, of this postulation.
Can you grasp the difference here? It is not that difficult (if you want to.)
And, to get this back on topic here, this is the “party line”, which is being fed to our children in school by misguided teachers and educators, along with a large dollop of fear mongering.
And that is why you are seeing comments from many concerned parents on this thread.
Max
PeterM
As long as the “dangerous AGW” postulation remains an uncorroborated hypothesis (as it is today – see earlier posts on the NS thread), it should only be taught as such, along with equal mention of other “uncorroborated hypotheses” on the subject of our planet’s climate (such as those of Lindzen, Spencer or Svensmark).
Pupils should be encouraged to discuss all alternate hypotheses critically and rationally and make up their own minds which seems most logical to them, rather than being “force fed” one hypothesis, just because it may be
the one supported “by the [political leadership of the] leading scientific body in the country”.
Younger pupils, who are not yet ready for such discussions, should be told that there are several alternate hypotheses regarding changes in our planet’s climate, but that they should not be worried – nothing bad will happen to them (or to the polar bears or penguins) as a result.
That would be my response to your statement.
Max
Max,
It is possible to over-complicate the scientific argument at times, and possibly I might have been guilty of that myself when I suggested that postgraduate study in Physics is required to understand the issue properly. That is certainly necessary when looking at how the atmosphere behaves in detail.
However, there is an easy-to-understand argument, which is just as valid, and which starts with the simple and well known fact that CO2 is indeed a GHG and has been known to be such since the 19th century. You don’t need a high powered computer to know that if CO2 levels double then the GH Effect is likely to increase. Arrhenius did the initial work on that in the early part of the 20th century.
So I would dispute your assertion that “whether or not CO2 is a GHG is not the issue under discussion at all here”. There are many sceptics/deniers out there who would argue that it has no effect on global temperatures whatsoever. Its just harmless plant food! Increased CO2 is therefore a good thing, I think is how the argument goes. Many of these people are also parents of school age children who are arguing that schools should not teach that increased atmospheric CO2 is likely to produce more warming.
Start reading around and the scale, and scope of where information is ‘supplemented’ can get a bit mind boggling:
http://climatequotes.com/2010/10/23/how-the-un-manipulates-the-media-and-the-public-on-biodiversity-part-1/
I quite like the idea of biodiversity and a sensible, empathetic attitude to trying to minimise human impact on our surroundings and those we share the planet with, but now my senses are on edge, I read the section on ‘Education’ with a much greater sense of unease. Especially when, sure enough, I am seeing ‘reports’ in certain media pretty much dancing to the tune suggested, And how long before the educational establishment decides to ‘fall in line’ with such UNimpeachable ‘guidance’?
ps; As ‘lines’ are getting a bit jumbled, if not crossed (a lack of familiarity with who are obviously longstanding protagonists has, I confess, got me confused as to who is talking to who. Indeed who is who between actual and nicknames known to others), as I still don’t seem to have heard anything yet on my 1st and repeated #69, any answers as yet to those specific exam questions posed and the intro para that preceded them, from any so keen to be heard but still, I regret, so incapable of having anything relevant or worthy of saying?
PeterM
You write:
Of course, science teachers should teach their pupils that CO2 is a natural trace component of our atmosphere and is a plant food, essential for all life on our planet.
They might also mention studies that show that increased CO2 concentrations have led to more rapid growth of forests and various crops, so that increased CO2 could be a good thing in some respects.
They should also teach their pupils the basic greenhouse theory and that CO2 is a GHG, which can cause moderate warming of our climate and that scientists estimate that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 could result in a temperature increase of slightly below 1C (all other things being equal).
They could also teach that the relationship is estimated to be roughly logarithmic so that each increment of added CO2 has a lower impact than a previous increment.
Pupils should also be made aware that there are also many natural forcing factors, some of which we do not understand fully today, but that these have been responsible for most of the climate changes our planet has seen over the past.
A discussion of Ice Ages, including the most recent one, would also be interesting.
This is all “reliable scientific knowledge”. [There may be a few individuals out there, who do not accept that this is all so, as you have implied, Peter, but that is immaterial here.]
What is not “reliable scientific knowledge” today is the hypothesis that AGW from human CO2 has caused a major portion of 20th century warming, nor the premise that this represents a serious potential threat.
That hypothesis, which we can call the “dangerous AGW” postulation, is still an “uncorroborated hypothesis” (scientifically speaking), no matter how many political leaderships of scientific organizations state that they may support it.
Such “uncorroborated hypotheses” should not be taught as “reliable scientific knowledge”, but rather as exactly what they are: “uncorroborated hypotheses”, giving “equal time” to other conflicting “uncorroborated hypotheses” that are out there (as I have mentioned).
And fear mongering of children by teachers, whatever the supposed “just cause”, is intolerable. Period.
That is the point, Peter.
But I believe that this conversation is getting a bit repetitive, so unless you have something new to add, we should cap it off.
Max
JunkkMale
You come back to the original discussion here.
The three “multiple choice” premises you cited, along with the preamble
are absurd.
Your advice to your son to choose b) (fossil fuels) as the least absurd premise was the best advice under the circumstances. In his “paragraph” he could then explain that fossil fuels may never really “run out” as stated in the premise and that “renewable energy” may not be what “saves us”, but that, as fossil fuels become scarcer and new technologies are developed, they may no longer be the principal source of energy for electrical power generation or transportation.
However, I believe (as you apparently also do) that unless a fourth option, “none of the above (please explain)” is added, the questionnaire should be thrown out as an indictment of the stupidity of the school board or teacher that formulated it.
The “none of the above” option forces the pupil to “think for himself” in explaining why the three suggested premises are not actually the only options.
If my child were asked to fill this out, I would certainly not expect my child to fight the uphill battle with the system, but I would complain directly to the school, stating my reasons.
Children should be taught to think, not to simply swallow and parrot rubbish.
Max
I really wish that science teaching would cover the debate and the evolution of the debate over Climate. Cover the evolution. Cover the variance of predictions. It’s hard, but it’s the Right Thing.
In the same way, as a proud agnostic, I firmly think that Creative Design should be included in the science curriculum, along with material about falsifiability of predictions of scientific theories. As far as I’m concerned, it’s clear that Creative Design isn’t a scientific theory since it doesn’t make any falsifiable predictions. That would be obvious to anyone who understood the material.
But I seem to be in a minority of one on this.
manacker says:
October 25th, 2010 at 3:47 pm
JunkkMale
Never really left, and fervently wishing a few invited to do so might at least start engaging.
However, as you have alluded, if there are any not in agreement that something has gone awry, they seem reluctant to grasp this specific nettle.
A slight comfort, but only that.
My preferred next step, but now constrained by a promise made to ‘get through a bad patch’ and regain trust for the future.
No argument there. But I am now confronted between what should be, what might be, and what, possibly, without my knowing, ‘is’.
Scary times.
Junk Male
Max said
“Your advice to your son to choose b) (fossil fuels) as the least absurd premise was the best advice under the circumstances. In his “paragraph” he could then explain that fossil fuels may never really “run out” as stated in the premise and that “renewable energy” may not be what “saves us”, but that, as fossil fuels become scarcer and new technologies are developed, they may no longer be the principal source of energy for electrical power generation or transportation.”
Difficult to disagree that this is the least worst option especially as there is no question 4 which would enable you to pursue ‘none of the above.’
As for what to do next? Do you keep quiet and not embarass your child (they are easily embarassed) Do you complain to the school and risk ruining the relationship with the school AND your child?
There is a special relationship between the three of you. It may be the teacher concerned is a zealot, it may be they don’t believe in what they are having to teach.
I don’t know how prickly the teacher would be if you spoke to them, but it is certain your child would resent it.
I wonder if this is a time to be pragmatic on the ‘local’ level and accept what has happened and escalate this privately to the Education Authority to see if what is being taught is mandatory- and comes from an even higher level- or if something can be done at an intermediate level-that is to say the Education authority.
In that case there is no direct conflict with your school or child.
tonyb
Would it be useful to have a third party organisation that could take up complaints with schools without identifying parents or children?
JunkkMale
I’d agree with you fully that these are “scary times”, with parents like yourself
When classrooms are being used by misguided teachers plus a school board or educators who all feel it is OK to frighten school children in order to make them “aware” of what they, themselves, perceive to be a most serious problem, we have a “serious problem”, indeed (but it’s not our planet’s climate, it’s our educational system plus our teachers and educators).
The test you mention is an absurd farce, of course, because its sole intent is to raise this “awareness” of this perceived serious problem in the minds of the school children rather than to teach them to think for themselves.
What is more ominous here is that the pupils are expected to agree that there is a serious climate problem caused by human use of fossil fuels. The expected answer (whether the pupil chooses a, b or c) is that
The students who conclude this in their “paragraph” will get a good grade (no matter which of the three statements they choose).
What kind of a “grade” will those pupils get who, for example, choose b) and then (in the paragraph) point out that fossil fuels will probably not really “run out”, but simply become more scarce in 150 years or so, and other sources, including nuclear power, some “renewables” plus other new technologies, will gradually replace them over this time period for lower added-value end uses, such as electricity and motor fuels, so that they are used only for higher add-value end uses (such as petrochemicals and fertilizers, for example).
I suspect that the pupil who gives this answer will get a bad grade and be told that he is missing the main point here, namely
And that is scary.
Max
@TonyN
The idea of something like the Patients’ Association for parents might be a good idea.
Junnkmale #69
Here’s my thoughts on “these specific questions and what lies behind them in order to get to ‘which of the following three’ and ‘will happen’?” based on my experience in teaching and market research:
The paper was written by a committee, one member of which wanted three questions on global warming and resource depletion. She proposes three questions like:
“Which of the following is the most probable:
1)The world will warm up a few degrees and millions will be displaced as climate refugees;
2) The world will warm a lot and millions will die
3) The oceans will evaporate as the Earth heats up and life will cease to exist”.
Alarmist, but logical within her own mind set. Others object that three questions are too many, and the responses too frightening, so they tone them down, and combine them into one incoherent whole.
My honest opinion could be considered libellous by AQA, but if it ever came to some official enquiry, it should be easy enough to find an educational psychologist willing to testify that the question as it stands breaks all the rules of exam setting.
Messenger, #87:
Or a cross between the Patients’ Association and Child Line, using the net and voluntary workers. Wouldn’t that be very much in the spirit of Dave’s Big Society?
Well perhaps not quite in this case.
This is the kind of thing we’re looking for, I think. It’s three years old, but there’s an email address. Perhaps TonyN would like to contact him.
http://www.civitas.org.uk/blog/2007/06/a_physics_teacher_begs_for_his.html
this has a long list of blogs and links
http://geoactive.wordpress.com
My earlier comments appeared to have raised a few hackles and my ability as a parent has been called into question so I feel obliged to post further.
Some background is in order to assist in clarification. I am a retired Police Officer, I served in one of the finest Forces in the world, in Hong Kong. There I was taught that it was only upon EVIDENCE that any case could be based; whilst fifteen detectives might BELIEVE that a suspect was guilty, without tangible EVIDENCE I had no cause to charge the suspect to Court. That EVIDENCE-based methodology I have carried over into my general way of thinking about things.
It is also something which I inculcated in my daughters. I taught them never to take anything at face value, I urged them always to seek evidence, to find proof before accepting assertions from anybody or from any purported ‘authority’. I taught them that without evidence, without proof no claim, be it scientific, political, economic or social is acceptable.
I was immensely gratified when my teaching blew up in my face in an hilarious moment which we all recall with amusement. My older daughter was just 16 when I told her that it was late and that it was time for computers to be switched off and the lights extinguished. “Why?” came the query. “Because I said so” said I. Her quick reply? “Dad, that’s argument from authority. We need something better than that!”
My pride in my daughters rose even higher when I learned that one of the reasons that both were classed as “disruptive” pupils was because, when the film “An Inconvenient Truth” was about to be shown to the assembled school, my daughters both asked for the hand-out which they knew had to be distributed. A number of other pupils joined in with this request as all had read in the newspapers about Mr Justice Burton’s ruling that the film contained at least nine scientific errors.
Apparently the clamour grew to such an extent that the hand-outs, which had been supplied with the film but NOT distributed, were eventually given out. From that point on all of the children distrusted everything which they saw on the screen and their subsequent comments showed this.
I have never sought to indoctrinate my daughters with my own beliefs; I have tried to teach them to seek their own conclusions and to base those conclusions on fact, on evidence and on proof.
They have both looked at Global Warming/ Climate Change/ Climate Disruption and, based solely on the evidence, the proof, the facts that they have been able to find both have concluded that this hypothesis is untenable.
One of the comments above is “They don’t understand the theory but they still disagree with it!” I would ask that commentator to argue whether or not there is a tropospheric hot-spot with my younger daughter (aged 19) and let’s see who comes off best!
Have I been a ‘good’ parent? Such an evaluation is subjective and open to a myriad interpretations.
I consider that I have best equipped both of my young ladies with inquisitive minds which demand proof positive of any assertions made to them. Is that ‘good’? I think that it is.
In answer to one of the later queries, the older daughter is now studying for her MBA, the younger is studying Law.
Stephen Brown
Yes. You have been (and are still) a ‘good parent’.
The world needs more like you, who take an active interest in their childrens’ education and, most of all, teach them to ask questions and be rationally skeptical of what they are told unless it can be documented by empirical evidence, rather than simply “because this expert said so” (i.e. rejecting the “argument from authority”, as you say your one daughter did at age 16).
As you say (from your experience as a police officer in Hong Kong – a place I learned to love while living there for 3 years), it’s all about evidence.
And yes, your daughters are right
They are correct, the premise that AGW has been the primary cause of 20th century warming and represents a serious threat is an “uncorroborated hypothesis”, along with many others, which is not supported by empirical evidence derived from actual physical observations or experimentation.
In fact, latest empirical data tend to falsify this hypothesis (observed strongly negative net feedback from clouds, recent cooling of the planet despite record increase in CO2).
Therefore, until these physically observed falsifications can be refuted scientifically, the hypothesis is “untenable” as “reliable scientific knowledge” and may even become a “falsified hypothesis” i.e. “back to the drawing board” for IPCC.
Keep up the good work and congratulations to your daughters, who have learned to think for themselves!
Max
Geoff Brown
If your daughters are so interested in science how does it work out that one is studying Law and one business (MBA)?
Sadly their background is quite typical of many AICC deniers who have the opinions but not the understanding. Yes, they all look up contrarian arguments like the one you’ve mentioned on tropospheric hotspots, its warming on Mars, its all an Urban heat island effect, yes its warming but there is no evidence that it is caused by human activity, etc etc
There is a few more to be going on with in this Scientific American article
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense&page=2
Not to put too fine a point on it, they simply don’t know what they are talking about.
[If you have something useful to say here, then say it. If you just want to wind people up by being rude to them then do it elsewhere. TonyN]
PeterM
You pretentiously and arrogantly write to Stephen Brown regarding his daughters (without having any real knowledge on the matter)
Do you realize how totally absurd and prejudiced this statement is?
Do you realize how such statements make you look like a silly, pompous ass?
Do you “know what you are talking about”?
Think about it a bit, Peter.
Max
[As I told Peter this morning, I want this thread to stay focused on the issues raised by the header post. I’ve moved your last three comments to the NS thread. If you want to post a link to them form here that’s fine, TonyN]
Max,
[snip] see your comment #93
Well I’m not sure that I was being rude to anyone. Just telling it like it is. I’m sure Stephen Brown would have met many amateur sleuths in his time who fancied themselves as another Miss Marple or Hercule Poirot.
What would he say if he was told that he was doing his job all wrong? In those circumstances I would say a little ‘winding up’ may well be more than justified.
Are Stephen Brown’s daughters genuinely concerned that the science behind the IPCC reports is incorrect? Or are they motivated more by political considerations such as a dislike of people like Al Gore and a suspicion that the AGW question is all a scam designed to justify higher taxes?
[That is not what is being discussed here. Last warning. TonyN]
Pete,
[snip] This thread is about education, not taxation. Tony N
Brute,
[snip] See #97
jlk
If this is the state of education, at least in this area…”
I think you would be hard-pressed to find an area where it is not at this state.
At the beginning of this year we find that “New NASA Web Site Launches Kids on Mission to Save Our Planet.”
The Climate Kids website has ‘Big Questions’ with answers, e.g.:
“What does global climate change mean?”
-“Earth has been getting warmer fast, causing lots of serious problems”
–“Humans are causing this warming”
etc.
http://climate.nasa.gov/kids/bigQuestions/
I am thankful that my kids completed school years ago.