Schools

[Smudger]

Good evening Peter, I don't think you'll alienate anyone just for stating a point of view, good for you, wether or not we agree or disagree at least members will know where they stand with you, there's a lot to be said for that.

Happy posting and good luck with your No 4.

Regards,

Rich.

Yes, but he hasn't just stated a point of view - he has made a fallacious and highly insulting comment about the professional integrity of a very large number of people, a small percentage of whom may belong to this forum.

Dave

But this is my strongly held belief; should I not be allowed to express it? And why is it a fallacy? It could well be true.

Are we so politically correct that we must temper our beliefs and opinions so as to avoid causing offence to anyone?

If that's the case, maybe the advocates of man-made CC should do the same!

We try not to insult people gratuitously on the basis of prejudice and ignorance. Generally.

 

[Rich]

Good evening Peter, I don't think you'll alienate anyone just for stating a point of view, good for you, wether or not we agree or disagree at least members will know where they stand with you, there's a lot to be said for that.

Happy posting and good luck with your No 4.

Regards,

Rich.

Yes, but he hasn't just stated a point of view - he has made a fallacious and highly insulting comment about the professional integrity of a very large number of people, a small percentage of whom may belong to this forum.

Dave

But this is my strongly held belief; should I not be allowed to express it? And why is it a fallacy? It could well be true.

Are we so politically correct that we must temper our beliefs and opinions so as to avoid causing offence to anyone?

If that's the case, maybe the advocates of man-made CC should do the same!

We try not to insult people gratuitously on the basis of prejudice and ignorance. Generally.

Have you no thoughts on the OP Smudger? :lol:

Rich, (AKA) The village *****, gratuitously accorded me by DT. :lol:

 

[Dave S]

But this is my strongly held belief; should I not be allowed to express it? And why is it a fallacy? It could well be true.

Are we so politically correct that we must temper our beliefs and opinions so as to avoid causing offence to anyone?

If that's the case, maybe the advocates of man-made CC should do the same!

Nowhere did your post indicate that it was your belief - instead you presented it as if an indisputable fact.

I have no problem with you (or anyone else) expressing scepticism or even disbelief in MMCC. I have no problem with you (or anyone else) challenging the arguments that scientists have been making for decades (long before CC became 'in vogue').
But I do have a problem with your offensive remarks about the integrity of the scientific profession, in the same way that many here were offended last year when someone implied that all tradesman are rip-off merchants.

Dave

MMCC - man made climate change

 

[tnimble]

I own a car Laura because I have little choice. I actually live on a bus route with a bus shelter immediately opposite my home.
Bus into town every hour on the hour with a return on the half hour, so I either have half an hour to accomplish what I need to do or one and half hours.
I like public transport but with osteo arthritis of the spine, being bounced up and down in a bus is murder!

Nothing you can do about, you have a real reson to own a car AND use it all the time Many don't, they have a multiple hout commute (including time ill spend in traffic jam) just because they have a car, so thay can't be bothered to move or seek a job nearer to home. And then there's the status symbol that is still present for many.

The government pays lip service to cleaner/greener living only, I'm afraid.
I am not knocking you when I point out that Vegan living is not a sustainable life form in a truly 'green' world. Animal bye products are pretty well the only alternative to artificial fertilisers.

And that is just fine,. Its where animal has taken a dump or its last breath where the flowers grow. What is wrong is putting animals in stables packed side to side, engaged and lock them up in metal bar harnasses to first harvest their sh*t and food for their children, and then harvest their bodies.

In addition animal bye products are again the only alternative to certain other oil based products.
The first essential to a truly 'Green' existence would be to take all necessary steps to reduce our population, on our own land we can only support about one third of our present population with something approaching our present standard of living.
Can you see our governments doing that?
Teaching in schools about climate change without a sense of responsibility won't make much difference, and I doubt that it will aid many into employment either.

Roy.

The hole of our society is based upon a constant growth in population and economics. Both are unsustainable. They won't change that, because that hurts and makes them look bad. 'Our' benefit from this growth is another's misery. if this is our nature, then we will "even out the playing field" and let us die of hunger and rising water levels. If its just the nature of some, we can change and mentally evolve beyond the I want it all and i want it now at any expense.

 

[Maia28]

I'm a scientist and have found nothing insulting in any of the comments on here. Indeed, I think that it is always important to challenge the integrity of scientist as we are, by the nature of our work, partisan. If you accept MMC, then it axiomatic (to me) that the only response that could possibly be effective is extreme population reduction combined with reduced consumption.

As to whether CC should be taught in schools and the competence of geographers in doing so, I'm not sure. This is exactly why more and more of us are sending our children to independent schools to avoid the politically driven curriculum. I doubt whether CC could be "taught" in a meaningful way or what purpose it would serve. IMO, schools should be there to provide a foundation for learning through establishing the fundamentals as others have said. You only have to see the gibberish in the PSHE curriculum to understand that schools have become less of a place of teaching and more of a factory for processing raw materials (badly).

Andy

 

[Digit]

I can't disagree with any of that Laura

Roy.

 

[Digit]

Brave man Andy! :lol:

Roy.

 

[seanybaby]

I think we should teach polotics in skools :tongue9:

 

[seanybaby]

As well as inglish to teeech peepol to spel :roll: hehe

(hammer)

I'm off to buy an over priced plane :roll:

 

[Smudger]

Good evening Peter, I don't think you'll alienate anyone just for stating a point of view, good for you, wether or not we agree or disagree at least members will know where they stand with you, there's a lot to be said for that.

Happy posting and good luck with your No 4.

Regards,

Rich.

Yes, but he hasn't just stated a point of view - he has made a fallacious and highly insulting comment about the professional integrity of a very large number of people, a small percentage of whom may belong to this forum.

Dave

But this is my strongly held belief; should I not be allowed to express it? And why is it a fallacy? It could well be true.

Are we so politically correct that we must temper our beliefs and opinions so as to avoid causing offence to anyone?

If that's the case, maybe the advocates of man-made CC should do the same!

We try not to insult people gratuitously on the basis of prejudice and ignorance. Generally.

Have you no thoughts on the OP Smudger? :lol:

Rich, (AKA) The village *****, gratuitously accorded me by DT. :lol:

Yes. Expressed on p5.

 

[tnimble]

Thank you for your very contributing post Andy!

 

[RogerS]

Mmmm..scary given that, from what I can gather, most education is now slanted in favour of passing SAT tests with multi-choice questions and any concept of evaluating the pro's and con's of the why's and wherefore's of anything has long gone out of the window.

Not true.

Guess it depends who you speak to. My information came from one of the youngest Scale 4's (at 26) in the country and also from an English teacher of some 30+ years of teaching. And also the subject...I'll grant you that.

 

[Digit]

A 56 yr old retired art teacher of my acquaintanceship holds the same view Rog.

Roy.

 

[Smudger]

A 56 yr old retired art teacher of my acquaintanceship holds the same view Rog.

Roy.

Let me see some evidence.

I think you are confusing SATs with National Curriculum tests.

What subjects, what levels, what parts of what tests?

 

[Smudger]

By the way, I was a Scale 4 at 26 (in 1975), but there haven't been Scale 4s for years now.

 

[Digit]

Strangely enough Smudger I don't know as we generally find other subjects to talk about!

Let me see some evidence.

DNA or finger prints?
Like Roger I simply passed on another's views, they don't necessarily accord with my own.

Roy.

 

[Dave S]

I'm a scientist and have found nothing insulting in any of the comments on here. Indeed, I think that it is always important to challenge the integrity of scientist as we are, by the nature of our work, partisan.

Suggesting someone is partisan is one thing, stating that they are dishonest is another.

This may not offend you, but it does offend me.

Climate change is a CON. There I’ve said it.

It’s a myth that’s perpetrated by pseudo-scientists, greedy for huge grants to continue their research, and by politicians ever eager to find new ways to raise taxes.

Dave

 

[Maia28]

This may not offend you, but it does offend me.

Climate change is a CON. There I’ve said it.

It’s a myth that’s perpetrated by pseudo-scientists, greedy for huge grants to continue their research, and by politicians ever eager to find new ways to raise taxes.

Dave

Then I would suggest that you are being a touch sensitive Dave. I'd agree with much of the sentiment that it is a con and perpetrated by pseudo-scientists keen to attract further grants. When quality of science is measured by research income and many of the ESRC, NERC and EPSRC awards in this area are targetted programmes, the whole thing becomes self-perpetuating. I also think that there is quite a lot of dishonesty in the scientific world, not least in producing results that do not match the data but will satisfy reviewers - I say this as an editor of a journal. Also remember that quality of a researcher is generally judged by the number, impact factor and citation rates for their papers and says nothing about the actual content of their published work.

Having seen no evidence that green taxes or carbon trading schemes have done anything but raise costs for the consumer - they certainly haven't translated into further research funding for example - then I'm not surprised that they give the impression of just being a new way to raise tax.

Andy

 

[Rich]

Thanks for posting that review Andy, it's certainly opened my eyes as to how the taxpayer is being ripped off, as regards to scientists, I can't comment as I'm not one, but I have no doubt that they are ensuring that their financing is covered, I don't blame them for that, but at the end of the day, if I am funding research, then the TRUTH must be told.

Regards,

Rich.

 

[StevieB]

Speaking as a scientist (although not a climate change one) I DO take offence at the suggestion that most scientists are concerned only with self-perpetuation of their own careers and are dishonest Andy

I'd agree with much of the sentiment that it is a con and perpetrated by pseudo-scientists keen to attract further grants. When quality of science is measured by research income and many of the ESRC, NERC and EPSRC awards in this area are targetted programmes, the whole thing becomes self-perpetuating. I also think that there is quite a lot of dishonesty in the scientific world, not least in producing results that do not match the data but will satisfy reviewers - I say this as an editor of a journal.

As an editor of a journal it is your job to try and ensure only good quality peer reviewed articles do make it into print. Whether this is through editorial control or assessing comments from peer reviewers before making a final accept or reject editorial decision, you are the guardian of what is published and as a consequence what the media pick up on.

Having published in Science, Nature Genetics, and the Lancet among others I truly believe in the work that I do and the validity of the work I produce. Your asscertion of there being quite alot of dishonesty in the scientific world does nothing to enhance the already low standing of scientists among the wider populance and is I suggest an opinion that does not exactly chime with your role as an editor.

Your gripe seems to be with the measurement of success by research output and grant income. That is not the fault of the scientists, that is the result of government policy. Lobby to get the RAE assessment changed, speak to the research charities that fund research, develop an alternative measure of progress etc etc but you cannot blame people in the system for the way the system works - thats like moaning about commuters crowding trains instead of getting the train operators to run more services.

Steve