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.
junkkMale
Sorry, I’m afraid I havent had the access code. Why am I not surprised?
tonyb
In my simple pursuit of answers (in various forms) I have gone a bit more direct, via:
http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/Schools/Science/AQA-GCSE-Science-2011-(1)/AQA-GCSE-Core-Science.aspx
Especially in light of:
Make the change in GCSE Science a change for the better using the only AQA GCSE Science Student’s Books that deliver:
– better tools to achieve top grades
– better support for practical science
– better guidance for Controlled Assessment
– better digital support available anytime, anywhere via Dynamic Learning
For high-achieving students who want the very best grades, this Student’s Book for GCSE Core Science contains a wide range of practical activities to support different teaching and learning styles, as well as exciting real science examples to enthuse students to implement their practical science skills in their lessons and controlled assessment tasks.
Written by experienced teachers and senior examiners with specific AQA GCSE Science expertise, there are ‘Boost your grade’ boxes and ‘Test yourself’ questions to support A* candidates, ensuring they have the right knowledge and proficiency to get top marks in the new AQA GCSE course.
The Student’s Book is supported by Dynamic Learning resources, revision material and CPD and teacher workshops to help your students learn and to help you teach the AQA GCSE Science course with confidence.
You’ll gather that I share your lack of surprise. And disappointment that we seem unable to gain access to a thriving resource that may help in my/our quest.
Think is, as evidently moderately competent IT users, what do teachers have/know that we don’t?
Alex #197
A close colleague of mine has been along to the CiF thread to praise my old enemy gpwayne, who is by no means the thickest pane in the greenhouse.
I notice your comment at 1 November 2010 8:11AM gets the biggest number of recommendations, and rightly so.
PeterGeany #192
I must be becoming a grumpy old git, because that question didn’t make me laugh at all.
Which energy source causes noise pollution? The Niagara Falls, if you’re up close. Which one affects wading birds? Windmills, if they fly overhead with their legs dangling. And so on.
I appreciate that Junnkmale wants practical help so his kids aren’t put at a disadvantage by having questioning parents, but there’s a wider question at issue here, and I’m wondering whether irrational belief in global warming and the apparent collapse in educational standards don’t have some common source.
tempterrain #196 is surely right that it’s a problem common to all English-speaking countries, independent of their political leanings. My own political leanings may put me at odds with many here, since I see the problem being the privatisation of so much of the education system. A curriculum defined and run by a centralised state has an interest in maintaining standards; competing exam boards which are run as commercial companies have an interest in delivering the maximum number of passes to the schools, which are their customers. Marketing skills are valued above educational ones, and the job of writing the exam papers probably falls on the cheapest employee available.
I try to be balanced in my judgement. I’ve just started teaching at a commercially run school for nurses, where the administration is infinitely more efficient than the French State-run University where I usually teach. But they called on the University precisely because the French expect certain standards from their State organisations which they know are not provided by profit-oriented companies.
The elevation of the managerial ethos in all areas of the state’s activity, which was started by Thatcher and continued by Blair, may be responsible for all kinds of unintended consequences whch will take a generation of social scientists to analyse.
Junnkmale #200
Your quote from the Hodder blurb just confirms what I said at #202. Education has been taken over by marketing men. I’ve worked for advertising companies (and I’ve done illustrations for Hodder Education schoolbooks – small world) so I know what they can and can’t do. Great for pushing a new dogfood, not so good for educating our children.
What struck me about the comments by geography teachers on the Times Ed thread was how their interest was not the subject as such, but the materials available – which exam board, which software, etc. Many of them seemed to be consumers of educational gadgetry first, and teachers second.
Sorry not to have been of more help to your kids. The problem seems to be bigger than that.
Geoff (#202) – thanks! A couple of other comments have scored higher, I think, but mine’s not doing badly.
(Completely and utterly OT but couldn’t resist – there’s a wonderful thread here in Guardian Environment about the merits of washing vs the merits of non-washing (“… a new trend towards what’s sometimes known as soap-dodging.”) Graun commentators seem to be split 50-50 on the subject. In one glorious comment, Paul Kingsnorth accuses all those of us who wash and shower regularly as being dupes of the “global corporate advertising machine” (we’re probably “dirt deniers”, paid off by Big Clean.) I kid ye not.)
Back on the subject of education, I saw this on the Englishman’s Castle blog – a children’s story about 365 penguins. Actually it sounds harmless and rather fun – but it appears to lack a little something in the science department, sadly:
“As you know, the planet is heating up. The ice caps are melting. Year after year, these lovely birds of the South Pole see their territory get smaller and smaller. To increase their chances of survival, I decided to introduce them to the North Pole.”
Bad move, I would have thought, whatever one’s views on climate change…
Well, after a flurry of activity, it seems I may need to hunker down and hibernate in hope of hearing back from a variety of options contacted to assist in my quest.
There are a couple more leads I think via earlier posts, so I will recheck these.
One notion was to try OFSTED, but given today’s headlines perhaps not the most stellar outfit to oversee quality standards for our kids…
Though, thank heavens, a world away from this specific aspect of education, I refer to this minor bit of ‘news’: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-11682161
‘In a statement, Ofsed responded to the findings by saying: “Ofsted has already implemented a number of changes in the way we work as a result of this review and to address the recommendations made.”
Apt first acronym spelling, all things considered. Just, not sure if using the term ‘lessons will be learned’ is a smart one to chant.
Another is our national broadcaster, but looking at this page I do wonder if Geoff’s point on the marketing men taking over is not locked down to a irretrievable degree:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education/
One wonders if Lady GaGa has any interesting thoughts on geo-engineering as part of the course in her name.
There are of course, the possibly less paywall-restricted edu sections of the MSM.
Or one I stumbled across (well, just sent, ironically, by a medium reprinting a PR shot) that one hopes will only suffer just by being an ocean… or more… away:
On the principle that ‘no parapet is too exposed’ I have gone full bore here, as it is high-profile all around (though relative paucity of public comment on various provided boards is intriguing given the fuss already across MSM):
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/what-the-green-movement-got-wrong
http://blogs.channel4.com/gurublog/can-a-green-be-pro-nuclear-and-pro-gm/431
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/what-the-green-movement-got-wrong/episode-guide/series-1/episode-1
Hasn’t started well, my questioning the umbrella debate parameters as poorly articulated and insufficiently nuanced for meaningful debate has had me slapped down by the host as pre-judging… which was not my intention.
http://twitter.com/#!/krishgm
Be interesting to see if they mod in some currently ‘under review’. I see my dilemma to for sure fall under the purview of this discussion as it is about what is, or isn’t ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, from media stories to exam questions.
On the positive side, a few blog mods have let my comments through.. for now. We know what can happen later!
Oh, lor… I stayed up for that???
Apols, don’t waste your time.
Other than showing what a total waste of space most high profile ‘enviro advocates’ are that lazy media can only be bothered to invite if they are on their speed dials, it was a few hours I’ll never get back.
On the plus side, it made the standard of argument advocated by AQA revision guides look sophisticated.
Shameful waste, and those who took part, especially C4, should be feeling sheepish tomorrow.
How many idiotic concepts have WE been taught, when it was our time to having to reply with the right answers?
As for the total waste of time…as I tweeted a day or two ago, TV journalism is a lot of TV and lot less of journalism. And it will get worse and worse.
Alex Cull
Introducing penguins to the North Pole might prove to be a blessed relief for the seal population there, by switching the ever increasing number of polar bears to a diet of “poultry” (or penguin eggs).
Max
Yes, that was a terible programme which only served to confirm my increasing prejudice against George Monbiot. Whatever skills people thought he had when he was hired certainly seem to have deserted him now.
The worst part is that these are the same people who got it wrong then who are telling us things now we know to be incorrect.
tonyb
JunkkMale, TonyB, unfortunately missed the C4 programme as I was too tired yesterday, but will probably watch it on C4’s iPlayer equivalent. From most accounts, it would appear to be watchable but for all the wrong reasons…
Max, I seem to remember a spoof article about the opposite happening, i.e. relocating polar bears to Antarctica.. In either scenario, the bears do well but the penguins don’t!
Maurizio #208
You said on your blog about the new bot;
“ps Had myself a couple of encounters with @AI_AGW. What I remember noticing, was the absolute lack of interest in moving the discussion beyond the usual statements. Just like the average AGWer…are we sure it WAS a chatbot?”
I don’t know if you follow things over here but that is an uncanny description of our favourite Antipodean climate alarmist. So could he be a bot? It would explain a lot of things…
tonyb
JunkkMale
Thought you would be interested in this presentation to Australian school children on climate change (a terible presenter) In the bottom right hand corner is a link to the ‘Australia youth climate coaltion.’
tonyb
And my fault for introducing it to this thread. Sorry.
I had hoped by its evident profile to find a broad range of talents getting engaged, and in turn lure a relevant few to pitch my still unanswered question to. That opportunity was indeed presented (two outings) but, sadly, again ignored in the babel (though the actual ‘numbers’ of folk posting in was minute considering the tribal blocs so worked up).
Always interested in more info. But… is there a missing link (no pun intended:)? I can’t see anything.
junkkMale
Just testing you…
Here is the link;
http://www.aycc.org.au/2010/10/13/climate-change-the-latest-climate-science/
[…] people are wrong, including Bill McKibben, Joe Romm, John Holdren. Countless people and especially children are being duped, day in, day out, into believing that the end of the world is […]
tonyb #212
You can easily help clear out the air. Next time there is a rampaging warmist around here, get via e-mail some form of “proof of humanity”. Otherwise, we’ll have to take it as a clever bot…
A reply , of sorts, from one (claiming to be – not meant rudely but, well, who knows?) in the field of education at last, on the Ch4 blog:
I am grateful she has taken the trouble to try and reply.
However, as here, and as Maurizio may testify, it can be frustrating that when you ask a question the ‘answers’ address near everything but. I can see why my kids’ eyes rolled. And I am no fudge-merchant or AI bot bent on distraction!
Also, in context I can’t see them playing that one back and scoring top marks. However, interesting to find my two 14 year olds seem to be at ‘A’ level standard… or higher flown.
At least they were smart enough to know what they didn’t know to bring it to Dad. The rest as they say is… [to be continued]
Junkkmale,
Yes I do take your point about Gobbledegook. I’m just as much opposed to it. It’s not restricted to the educational fraternity – it widespread through the entire corporate world too.
“Blue sky thinking, pushing the envelope etc, thinking outside the box ” – typical office-speak. I’d like to rid the world of the phrase “going forward”. It all sounds very progressive but that’s the way time flows. What’s the matter with “in the future”?
The campaign for plain English do an admirable job.
http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/
The IPPC reports are pretty well written. But even if the odd bit of management speak does creep in, we’re all guilty from time to time, it doesn’t mean they’ve got the science wrong.
A civilised response near topic deserves further engagement.
What is ‘meant’ vs. what is observed as evidence or, more broadly, ‘understood’ (competence of self-electing messengers for critical messages being somewhat of an interest of mine) rather goes to the core of my ongoing dilemma on this thread.
The question format offered little wiggle-room for ‘meant’, and seemed pretty keen on narrow conformity… or else.
And though the good lady did also rather make a deeper point in hiding behind jargon to fudge around actually answering the specific question asked, she at least had a stab.
Still avoided, sadly, in some instances.
Hence continuing to poorly serve my kids’ immediate needs and longer term interests.
I owe the lady an apology.
She has replied, again, and in some detail. With an answer. Only the answer is the question is unanswerable.
The best we can hope is that ‘not too many marks’ are at stake. Hardly reassuring.
I include her reply in full here, but from now on will restrict myself to any further exchanges, as necessary, there:
http://blogs.channel4.com/gurublog/can-a-green-be-pro-nuclear-and-pro-gm/431
Her last point resonates with one made a lot earlier on matters of ‘interpretation’, which frankly should not apply too much in the question that has set this off, but still obviously did/does.
It shouldn’t matter, but quality of delivery can make stuff hard to stick with. I think many in the audience would have decided his kids had opted well.
The follow-up comments are illuminating.
In my pursuit of higher-profile media avenues closer to home, I have come across this lady:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/katharinebirbalsingh/
A smidge one-trick, playing (perhaps with justification given the short-term indulgence of media with controversial celebrity) on the less than stellar circumstances off her recent enforced career ‘readjustment’, I am wondering if her new soapbox would be an opportunity or further distraction. She does at least seem to care about the craft of teaching and ‘educating’, over parroting dogma.
PeterM
The “plain English campaign” (219) seems to be a good thing, but I cannot agree with you that
I’d say both the “English” and the “science” are questionable.
From the “science” standpoint, I’d have to agree with Dr. Judith Curry that the level of uncertainty was grossly understated and that IPCC was guilty of “torquing the science” (i.e. “fudging” the data).
IPCC may not have “got the science wrong” that CO2 is a GHG, that its concentration is increasing, that a significant part of this increase may be due to human contribution, and that this should result in some GH warming of our planet
But by “torquing the science” (Curry’s words), IPCC ends up turning this impact into something much more worrisome than it really is. This is achieved by model assumptions on strongly positive feedbacks, which more than triple the 2xCO2 impact, but which are not supported by empirical data (and have actually been falsified by more recent physical observations on cloud feedbacks).
It is also worrying for the validity of the “science” that an IPCC forecast of 0.2C warming per decade turned out, in actual fact, to be a cooling of 0.07C over the first decade of the 21st century.
This cooling (despite record increase in CO2) is attributed to “natural variability” (i.e. “natural forcing”) although IPCC had estimated that all natural forcing since 1750 had an insignificant radiative forcing and warming impact.
[No “natural climate forcing” over the 250 years from 1750 to 2000 and then a major negative “natural climate forcing” resulting in 0.20 + 0.07 = 0.27C net cooling over the brief period 2001-2010, just does not make sense.]
So it looks like IPCC did indeed “get the science wrong”, doesn’t it?
In a recent interview of Dr. Curry in Scientific American by Michael Lemonick of Climate Central Inc. we read:
So Curry agrees that the “science” is not settled on what the 2xCO2 climate forcing would be, nor how it would be amplified or mitigated by feedbacks.
[IPCC models have assumed a strong amplifying effect, but more recent physical observations indicate a net mitigating effect; the difference between these two is critical for the whole IPCC premise that AGW presents a serious potential threat.]
As to “bad English”, I could not find any spelling or grammatical errors, but that is not the topic here.
In my opinion, an example of “bad English” is the so-called “scientific” use of the ”likelihood” estimates. Here we see a “torquing” of the “likelihoods”, for example in the “likelihood” estimates of past and future severe weather events. We see an implausible greater “likelihood” that future severe weather events will result as a result of “human contribution” than is estimated to have occurred in the late 20th century.
Then there are statements such as “Antarctic sea ice continues to show interannual variability and localized changes but no statistically significant average trends”, when, in fact, it is growing at almost the same rate as the much-ballyhooed Arctic sea ice is shrinking.
Is this “bad English” (or outright lying)?
Peter, you are (pardon the expression) on thin ice with both statements
and
Like I wrote above, I’d say that the evidence shows that both the “science” and the “English” are questionable.
Max
PS This all may not be directly on the topic “what the hell are we doing to our children?”, unless “what we are doing” means we are allowing misguided educators and teachers to use exaggerated future disaster scenarios based on questionable IPCC estimates to “brainwash” or (even worse) to “frighten” our children. We should not allow this to happen in taxpayer funded public schools.
[Once the children are old enough to understand this all, they should be clearly taught that the IPCC view is one opinion, and that there are others, which are just as plausible that do not agree. They should also be taught the arguments and rationale for both viewpoints, so that the pupils can learn to think for themselves and draw their own conclusions.]