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.
Double irony.
I compliment the system, and I bemoan those ho want to bang on about anything but the topic.
2nd time lucky…
And hire a Delorean. The last post was a year ago, and the one preceding it he previous year. I will have a scope under other terms but it seems a bit of a maze. Plus the thread I did get was about as much use as trying to glean any sense from a Monbiot (A)GW ‘we must…’ thread. Precious little about education and an audience I doubt capable of rational response to my specific needs.
I’d say so, which kinda informs my answer to..
I’ll have a gander, but given my strong will to live, and certain demands on time already, may have to pass.
I fear it may be a long wait, as my various OS/browser attempts have all vanished, and any attempt at an activation or reminder merely gets one sent in a circle.
I saw one of my nicknames on the home page logged as a new member, so the problem seem to be in the confirmation system. I’ve looked everywhere but there seems to be no direct contact and the help/FAQs are useless.
Do they have a secret handshake?
Meanwhile, thanks to a Disqus system that is almost as good as the one used here (if prone to crashes/glitches), I have had ‘a’ reply to posting my question in the Indy (no idea on the Graun yet as it has no follow-up comment/reply facility to see if any brave teacher tried to go OT and answer a plea for help as opposed to joining in on the PC game trashing):
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/daddy-where-will-the-polar-bears-live-2121710.html#comment-92756476
Sadly not from the quoted ‘expert’ I had tried to tease out, but one who seems to have also more grasped the problem than any solution:
I have replied, more in sorrow for our shared, ongoing dilemma.
I also note that the exchange was one of the lowest rated, as others continue to fight the juicier, but to me now so highly polarised as to be near pointless, tribally extreme ‘tis/t’sin’t’ (A)GW fight, leaving folks like me stuck on no man’s land watching a never ending artillery exchange fire overhead that serves little but to churn up mud.
My search continues…
This may need to be in two parts..
geoffchambers #168 says:
November 1st, 2010 at 5:54 pm
Here’s the forum we’ve been looking for
http://www.tes.co.uk/forums.aspx?navcode=14
Type “climate change” in the search box and stand back
And hire a Delorean. The last post was a year ago, and the one preceding it he previous year. I will have a scope under other terms but it seems a bit of a maze. Plus the thread I did get was about as much use as trying to glean any sense from a Monbiot (A)GW ‘we must…’ thread. Precious little about education and an audience I doubt capable of rational response to my specific needs.
geoffchambers #171 says:
November 1st, 2010 at 8:32 pm
With so many threads, the difficulty will be in finding the relevant ones.
I’d say so, which kinda informs my answer to..
tonyb #170 says:
November 1st, 2010 at 6:37 pm
There was the facility to download teachers notes but you had to register and by this time I had lost the will to live.
Perhaps someone with a child in the edcuation system (junkkMale?) would like to register and see what the teaching material consists of?
I’ll have a gander, but given my strong will to live, and certain demands on time already, may have to pass.
tonyb #169 says:
November 1st, 2010 at 6:01 pm
I’ve registered but now I’m waiting for an activation code! I’ll let you know
I fear it may be a long wait, as my various OS/browser attempts have all vanished, and any attempt at an activation or reminder merely gets one sent in a circle.
I saw one of my nicknames on the home page logged as a new member, so the problem seem to be in the confirmation system. I’ve looked everywhere but there seems to be no direct contact and the help/FAQs are useless.
Do they have a secret handshake?
Meanwhile, thanks to a Disqus system that is almost as good as the one used here (if prone to crashes/glitches – irony here as this thread has rejected this post twice), I have had ‘a’ reply to posting my question in the Indy (no idea on the Graun yet as it has no follow-up comment/reply facility to see if any brave teacher tried to go OT and answer a plea for help as opposed to joining in on the PC game trashing):
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/daddy-where-will-the-polar-bears-live-2121710.html#comment-92756476
Sadly not from the quoted ‘expert’ I had tried to tease out, but one who seems to have also more grasped the problem than any solution:
crashtestmonkey wrote, in response to JunkkMale:
My suggested answer:
“I think a combination of parts of all three answers. We will blame ourselves for climate change until we discover that even after significant CO2 reduction, the climate is still changing. Mankinds ability to accurately record atmospheric CO2 levels is limited to the past 52 years. Technology advances rapidly. How accurate were instruments in 1958? What tolerance was applied to the readings? Fossil fuels will eventually run out. To say renwable energy will save us assumes that we are correct regarding AGW. Science is not based on assumptions but proven repeatable experiments that produce predicted results. Current climate models do not take into account the largest contributor to temperature rises: water vapour. Particulate pollution is also excluded from climate models. For temperatures high enough to completely evaporate all the oceans on the surface of the planet, humans would be long dead already.
I have replied, more in sorrow for our shared, ongoing dilemma.
I also note that the exchange was one of the lowest rated, as others continue to fight the juicier, but to me now so highly polarised as to be near pointless, tribally extreme ‘tis/t’sin’t’ (A)GW fight [further irony in light of latest sidetracking attempts], leaving folks like me stuck on no man’s land watching a never ending artillery exchange fire overhead that serves little but to churn up mud.
My search continues…
Meanwhile, thanks to a Disqus system that is almost as good as the one used here (if prone to crashes/glitches), I have had ‘a’ reply to posting my question in the Indy (no idea on the Graun yet as it has no follow-up comment/reply facility to see if any brave teacher tried to go OT and answer a plea for help as opposed to joining in on the PC game trashing)
Sadly not from the quoted ‘expert’ I had tried to tease out, but one who seems to have also more grasped the problem than any solution:
crashtestmonkey wrote, in response to JunkkMale:
My suggested answer:
“I think a combination of parts of all three answers. We will blame ourselves for climate change until we discover that even after significant CO2 reduction, the climate is still changing. Mankinds ability to accurately record atmospheric CO2 levels is limited to the past 52 years. Technology advances rapidly. How accurate were instruments in 1958? What tolerance was applied to the readings? Fossil fuels will eventually run out. To say renwable energy will save us assumes that we are correct regarding AGW. Science is not based on assumptions but proven repeatable experiments that produce predicted results. Current climate models do not take into account the largest contributor to temperature rises: water vapour. Particulate pollution is also excluded from climate models. For temperatures high enough to completely evaporate all the oceans on the surface of the planet, humans would be long dead already.
I have replied, more in sorrow for our shared, ongoing dilemma.
I also note that the exchange was one of the lowest rated, as others continue to fight the juicier, but to me now so highly polarised as to be near pointless, tribally extreme ‘tis/t’sin’t’ (A)GW fight, leaving folks like me stuck on no man’s land watching a never ending artillery exchange fire overhead that serves little but to churn up mud.
My search continues…
Junkkmale,
You urge me to answer the original question of “What the hell are we doing to our children? ”
OK. Maybe ‘we’, in the process of giving them an education are turning them away from traditional values and towards different and more progressive beliefs. We are no different intrinsically from our grandparents and great grandparents. We aren’t any more intelligent, but our attitudes are worlds away. Furthermore, the difference is most marked in those of us who have been lucky enough to be educated to a higher standard than those who haven’t.
I’m not just talking about climate change but a whole range of social and political issues. Those who disapprove of this process often refer disparagingly to the “left-wing intelligentsia”. When was the last time you heard the term “right-wing intelligentsia”?
Even right wing papers like the Australian acknowledge the existence of this effect:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/unhappy-lefties-tend-to-be-too-clever-by-half/story-e6frg6zo-1225842050686
They put it all down to “intelligence”. I’d argue that it was probably more to do with education than
intelligence, although it is difficult to separate the two statistically as the two tend to be closely correlated.
JunkkMale 176
No activation code as of this morning, so thats 12 hours.
tonyb
Still do, and the irony of your still not doing so by any means possible is not lost, especially when, in your #174, you come out with.. ‘But I’d just ask the question:…?’
Why should anyone waste their time with you, as you seem so dedicated to wasting everyone else’s?
That’s rhetorical, I accept.
I fear your #180, #174 and the #172 have little bearing on the specific discussion to hand and really require no further attention.
Just popped back to the Graun PC game thread to see if any could chip in and help my kids, being there must have been a fair few engaged from the ‘community’. None to date.
To all others, I apologise for the repeat posts. Having mocked other posting systems, I fear Karma had her fun with me, and delayed upload long enough to really hang me out to dry.
Something grimly inevitable about that. Ta for trying.
Have you gone through the ‘fun’ loop of ‘need a reminder?’ or ‘activate your registration?’ yet?
As I joked, there must be a secret teacher code known only to the personhood.
PeterM
You got into a bit of a political side-track instead of answering Junkkmale’s original qhestion:
Teaching children new things is a good thing.
Brainwashing them with socio-political drivel, instead of teaching them the basics, is a bit more questionable, even if we call it “turning them away from traditional values and towards different and more progressive beliefs”.
Filling them full of fear is totally unacceptable.
Especially when this fear is based on lies (you will all be burned up or drowned, tornadoes and hurricanes will kill you all, polar bears and penguins will all die out – all as a result of global warming caused by human CO2, of course).
There is no valid excuse for frightening and traumatizing children. Period.
And, unfortunately, that is “what the hell we are doing to our children” (where “we” are misguided schoolteachers, who think it is their job to make their pupils “aware” of the AGW hobgoblin, which they personally fear).
Max
Last night, and early this morning, JunkkMale ran into some problems with the spam filter which I’ve now attempted to straighten out.
Phew. Ta for that. I was awaiting a knock on the door from GCHQ for my evident ability to kill the internet!
We do appear to have a slight disagreement on this one, even among those who are critical of the teaching profession, between , on the one hand Peter Geany, who thinks that children just “couldn’t care less” about climate change and, on the other, Max, who keeps harping on about “frightening and traumatizing children”.
So, it does seem unlikely that the real reason for this discussion is much to do with the psychological wellbeing of children but rather a good old fashioned right-wing concern that kids are being exposed to too much leftish influence from the teaching profession? Does that sound about right?
I must say that I’ve had so little problem with TonyN’s spam filter recently, unlike many of you guys who seem to get quite a hard time from it, that I’ve come to wonder if its perhaps really some thing more than just a spam filter? Maybe it does have some “crap filter” capability too? :-)
PeterM
You opined (to JunkkMale’s question: “what the hell are we doing to our children?”
Don’t be so absurd, Peter – it doesn’t “sound about right” at all.
Have you not seen the many articles which point out how children are being traumatized by fears of rampant global warming, floods, hurricanes, oppressive heat, extinction of polar bears, penguins, etc.?
Irresponsible teachers are using fear mongering with their pupils in a misguided attempt to “raise their awareness of this impending disaster” (i.e. “brainwash” them to have the same irrational anxiety the confused teacher himself has on AGW).
This has absolutely nothing to do with “right-wing” or “left-wing” thinking, Peter.
It would be just as appalling and unacceptable if school teachers were frightening their pupils with ultra-conservative, fundamentalist religious concepts of “hell-fire and eternal damnation” (which used to happen in some places).
Your attempt to turn this discussion around into a “right-wing vs. left-wing” ideological dispute is plain stupid. It is about “what the hell are we doing to our children?”, got it?
There is no justification or excuse for teachers frightening children. Period.
If you believe that this is justified, then please state your reasons (but they better be damned good).
Max
Max and Peter Geany,
I’ll just leave you to sort out between yourselves if children are being “traumatized” or whether “they couldn’t care less”. You can’t both be right!
I’d say that neither of you are correct. Naturally children are concerned for their future, but, on the whole are still optimistic enough to believe that mankind won’t be so stupid as to irretrievably damage the Earth’s climate. I’d say they’ve probably got it about right.
Forgive me if I’ve already posted this:
http://notrickszone.com/2010/11/01/climate-change-dis-education-at-german-primary-schools/
The uses of cherry picking and straw man arguments and divide and conquer are as old as the hills.
And can, if used with subtlety, be effective.
However, straying into insult can prove hard to resist, and lays bear the frustrations of those seeking to use all of the above in desperate attempts to defend untenable positions.
As it stands, my original question remains unaddressed much less adequately answered.
Which, with what has poured forth by way of an alternative, is informing me every bit as eloquently on where sensible debate on this topic could spiral when left to some who would claim ownership of future thought and deed, if perhaps without that intention.
PeterM
Don’t act like a fool.
You write:
Yes, Peter, we can “both be right”.
But you have to read what is posted.
Peter Geany wrote that his (teenage or older) children had gotten immune to all the hype:
Get the drift, Peter?
Peter Geany’s teen-age children have “switched off” of the AGW hype being fed to them in school and possibly elsewhere. I would guess that these are children with above-average intelligence, who may also be getting some rational and sensible input from their father on all this.
Now to the general problem, which has been cited in many studies in England, Australia and elsewhere, which show that school children in general are being traumatized by the AGW fear mongering of their school teachers, so that many actually fear for their future. This probably includes younger children who are still more impressionable than those of Peter Geany, and thus more easy to brainwash and traumatize with fear mongering.
So the two have absolutely nothing to do with one another, Peter.
Do you understand now why both Peter Geany and I “can both be right”? (It’s quite simply because we were writing about two different things.)
As I wrote earlier:
And this is totally unacceptable, no matter how you try to rationalize it, Peter.
Max
JunkkMale
You asked a simple question:
[TonyN: I’m afraid the tabloid headline was mine, not JunkkMale’s. He might have been more subtle]
I think the studies I cited (UK and Australia), plus the one just posted by geoffchambers (Germany) answer your question:
That’s my answer.
So I think the next question should be
If the answer here is
Then we only have ourselves to blame.
Max
PS On the TV-ads (UK as well as in Australia) I know that several bloggers here are doing something. I hope they are successful in stopping taxpayer-funded AGW propaganda in the future.
Quiet correct Max. PeterM needs to stop putting his own spin on what is happening over here and what we say. He is in no position to judge matters.
Whilst the rhetoric is still being ramped up, and people like Bob Ward are running around trying to dis all and sundry our up and coming generation are quietly learning a lesson in their own way. When they are 30 somethings they will not be so accommodating as the what I call the stupid generation, those between 30 and 45
We have just sat down and had a laugh as a family at some questions put together by a physics teacher for a GCSE exam. Remember these are 16 year olds who take this exam although because all exams are modular now my daughter is taking her first next week at the age of 14 and 9 months. But I think you will all agree this is hardly what they want to help them revise
Which energy source
18. Is the quickest to generate electricity?
19. Is the slowest to generate electricity?
20. Has the highest capital cost?
21. Creates the most Sulphur Dioxide?
22. Affects wading birds?
23. Comes from the centre of the Earth?
24. Causes small villages to be flooded?
25. Causes noise pollution?
Peter Geany
How about adding (to the questionnaire: “which energy source”):
26. Is the least reliable (hours per year)?
27. Is the most expensive per KWH generated?
28. Is the least expensive per KWH generated?
29. Is the easiest and quickest to turn on when the demand is there?
30. Does not generate electrical power when there is a demand, but only when the basic energy source is available?
31. Is by definition restricted to generation during daytime?
32. Requires a backup facility to cover periods (up to 65% of the time) when it cannot supply energy?
33. Has the highest land requirement for siting the generation plant?
34. Kills the most birds?
35. Requires the most “rare earths” imported from China?
36. Requires the most petroleum imported from the Middle East?
37. Runs on a reliable domestic energy source, which is available 24/7?
38. Has a significant “spent fuel disposal” problem?
Just some thoughts to round out the questionnaire…
Max
Peter Geany
Quite aside from having fun with silly “loaded” questionnaires, I think it is commendable that you are taking the time to sit down with your kids, clearing them up on some of the hokum they are being fed by their schools and getting them to think for themselves rationally and skeptically (rather than just swallowing the pseudo-scientific political drivel they are being fed by the “system”).
I know that there are those who believe that “teachers always know best” and parents should, therefore, not “interfere”, but I am not one of those.
Max
Max
Thank you for the distinction TonyN, though I could hardly claim much beyond a dogged pursuit of a simple aim. But at least this may put to bed some silly attempts being attempted to distract from that.
Mixing some metaphors, I have found myself in a bit of a minefield, but rather than turning back see some merit in proceeding onwards, if with baby steps.
I am pursuing this with an eye to bigger issues, but more focussed on things that do need answers, and could well need and be capable of change soon, if not now.
Getting bogged down in epic discussions on ‘climate change/(A)GW’ etc, do have a place, but for me, not here. As already evidenced, things can too easily be steered away from key questions on what is being taught to our kids, and as importantly how they are expected to respond at the point of assessment to gain those all important grades, whilst still enjoying an education in how to think as well as ‘learn’.
Hence my staying close to this question, as posed, at all times.
So far, no one in support of the current (and, heaven forfend) future educational route who has attempted a reply (and there have not been many who have even risked getting engaged) has even attempted to address this specifically. I suspect because it is indefensible. And, if so, then this needs to be admitted, and further questions asked on how it got there, how it was expected to be taught, marked, etc, from board level through individual teachers to our poor kids. Especially those smart enough to see the divide between what could be, explained as such.. and what is expected (for marks) to be parroted as what ‘is’.
That book got spirited away by two teens savvy enough to see what may happen if I found the time to read all those chapters that seem a rather uni-directional niche focus of ‘science’ .
All topical issues are worthy of inclusion into a mix, but now sensitised to some examples where things go beyond to information into agenda, I smply have to wonder how we get from AQA GCSE Science Core Higher Ed to full dedicated sections such as 3.3, ‘How do humans affect the environment?’, 3.5 ‘Global Warming’ and Section 6.4, Air Pollution.
All legitimate, but oddly emphasised niche areas of ‘science’ in general at this stage of their education, especially if to the exclusion of other, possibly more basic and rounded aspects that can be used later to inform such topics. Which is why I am now interested in what else is out there.
These I feel are legitimate questions to ask. And the obfuscation I have so far experienced at near every turn suggests to me that there some who don’t like the answers they may be forced into giving.
As they will lead to more. Which is when the next baby step takes place.
ps:
With some trepidation… any joy on gaining access?
Max,
In many ways I do sympathise with those who do call for higher standards of education in the Sciences and Maths. I don’t know about America or the UK, although I suspect its a similar story, but I’d say they weren’t good enough in Australia.
You can argue about the political complexion of governments, but I don’t believe that really has much to do with it. It’s quite common to hear otherwise well educated Aussies openly admit that they are hopeless at Maths and Science. But they’d never do that if they had trouble reading or writing. So it’s a cultural thing and I’d say it was probably common to all Anglo based societies.
I must say that I do think the GCSE questions in #192 are a bit woolly. I’d have liked to see more mathematical content in them but that’s just my opinion as a Scientist / Engineer. It doesn’t follow that any criticisms of the educational system, which as I say, are effectively criticisms of our own culture, mean that the IPCC have got it wrong on the question of climate change.
And that does mean that there is no reason that what the IPCC , the Royal Society, the CSIRO or the National Academy of Sciences have reported on the question of climate change shouldn’t be taught in schools. Any more than what they have reported on anything else shouldn’t be taught either.
JunkkMale, just to say that if you haven’t revisited the Guardian computer game thread in the last day or so, there’s quite a detailed and civil response from gpwayne.
Ta for the heads up.
I do confess to hoping it was going to be more illuminating from a position of authority, but was more than welcome in being another to add to those of us not seeing much merit to the question and wondering how it came to be.