At least “Burning Man” has an art component to it, “burning dolls”, not so much.
This is so stupid, so inane, so grade B movie “Plan 9 from Outer Space” level that all you can do is laugh at it. It is the latest effort from Al Gore’s “Climate Reality Project”. I suppose after this exercise in child brainwashing, anything goes. Watch:
From the YouTube Description:
The science girl takes a comedic look at the differences of climate vs weather. Created for the live broadcast of 24 Hours of Reality: The Dirty Weather Report.
Even more bizarre are the comments from the faithful on YouTube.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
David, you clearly have an ax to grind. When one’s opposition has such an ax, debate isn’t about informing one another, it is about getting your point across. I have not responded to you because I don’t think you want me to inform you of anything. I think you have engaged in this discussion to simply get your beliefs stated in some form of contrast with mine. What I find interesting is that actually, your belief is closer to the new standards than you think.
Comprehension used to be about regurgitating details, main idea, inferences, conclusions, and predictions. In the old multiple choice format, there was only one right answer, even for inference and prediction questions.
The new standards focus less on the “right answer”, and more on understanding how an author presents his/her ideas (be it fictional or informative). We call that craft and structure. To figure that out, we are asking kids to engage in “close” reading and responsive writing. When that becomes the focus, the search isn’t for the “right” answer but for what the author’s purpose for writing might have been and what his/her point of view might be. No where do the new standards tell us to tell children that this or that purpose or point of view is the “right” one.
Are we not closer than you think in our comments?
Pamela Gray says:
November 25, 2012 at 9:12 pm
Thank you for your response. That is very encouraging as multiple choice pales in comparison to a written response so a student has to express much more detailed answers. If you view my posts as an “axe to grind”, it reveals more about your position than mine. There is no way of knowing for certain how many bright and capable minds have fallen through the cracks, labelled as “poor students” when that may have not been the case.
Have you seen papers written by todays University students? They are appalling. Almost illiterate for the most part. This is the result of multiple choice but that is not the whole story. Peoples knowledge level is also diminished despite easier access to information. Read other blogs on the net, and you will see how poorly most people write and how uninformed they are. WUWT? is completely different in this regard as the standards here are much more stringent. The empirical evidence of what I am saying is all around you if you have a look. I will concede that we may be closer in our views than I initially thought.
I am now very confused by this education stuff. Yes, I have seen papers written by university students and they are appalling. However, if I understand the argument here, it’s that method is more important that the right answer. Isn’t that how we got AGW? The method’s good, the people doing it are scientists and the right answer does not seem as important as the method. I don’t understand how concentrating on method over right answers helps in any way.
People have often commented on Al’s hypocracy. Jetting around to this or that spot, his house using more energy in a month than a small city uses in a year. (That’s probably an exageration but you get the point.) All justified in the name of his Green cau$e.
Here he exposes some poor kid to the fumes from burning plastic in an enclosed room. (And burning coal is dirty?!?!) What a guy!
Reality Check, the AGW “method” is not good. Why? The supporting details are weak and do not support the AGW leap to conclusions warmers make. Teaching students to discern good method from bad and strong supporting details from poor supporting details is a very important skill and one that is thoroughly supported in the new standards. Let us hope we never tell our students which position is right or wrong. Let us hope we teach students to critique informative papers, in WUWT style, regardless of which side of the debate we are “debating”.
I do not see how you can avoid teaching a position is right or wrong. I suppose it’s like saying you support science, but refusing to say you oppose AGW or wind energy or ethanol, etc, and hoping that people will decide your science trumps theirs. Plus, if we cannot teach which position is correct but we try to teach which method is correct will it not be confusing that methods can be wrong but answers cannot. Or are we just saying the teacher will not take a position. I had a philosophy professor do that, saying his opinion would have too great an influence on his students. You can imagine what I thought of that.
There is no problem with teaching children to question and to debate science here, but do we seriously believe that the object of this discussion is to reach no conclusion about the rightness or wrongness of the AGW position. Also, while the method may seem not good to you, they do to others. How do you avoid saying you are right and that means AGW is wrong. Sure, you can dance around it, but it is what you are saying. Someone is wrong in their conclusion. (Or can the method be totally wrong and the answer right, or the method right and the answer wrong?)
This matters because I frequently see this method used in discussing things like AGW and wind power. If we cannot take a stand against these things but just hope everyone follows the science and reaches a conclusion that is value neutral, or maybe agrees with us, or with the opposite group? What is the value in teaching no value?
@Reality check who says:
November 26, 2012 at 7:14 pm
“”I do not see how you can avoid teaching a position is right or wrong.”””
Please define your terms, what to you actually mean by right or wrong? Not everyone would define it as; correct or incorrect! And then to really muck up the works, there is correct but inaccurate or not factual.
@Laurie–I feel like I’m back writing philosophy papers. “Correct but inaccurate or not factual” I have no idea where that applies in real life or what you mean by it. I understand conditional T/F and other such tables, etc but don’t really see how these are value except to make people’s head hurt. Perhaps I’ll check my fuzzy logic book. Before I get into an argument about semantics (generally designed to avoid answering the question asked), explain in simple terms what your point is, other than to redirect the discussion with intellectual fluff. (Note: I do not participate in nihilist “discussions” except at 3 AM when I’m bored and have time to spare. It’s not 3 AM and I am not up for mind games. You’ll have to find someone else to play with, should this discussion head in the direction thereof.)
If what you mean by correct versus incorrect has to do with a proposed hypothesis versus the null hypothesis, I believe the AGW hypothesis is based on thin evidence and in any event, is not significant (the data and gold standard analysis demonstrates this). So let’s use a version of right/wrong. Does CO2 have a significant affect on the global average temperature outside of natural variation? No. Or at least not yet. In order for the CO2 hypothesis to take precedence over the “no affect” null hypothesis, it needs to get a lot hotter.
Is that right/wrong enough for you? It probably is but how did I get to that conclusion? Did someone tell me and I simply hung on their every word? No. It was from a close reading of research and an armchair weather nerd’s supply of graduate level statistics and methods critique coursework.
Pamela: Yes, that is right/wrong enough for me. Okay, no one told you the conclusion. But someone told you about AGW or you saw or read it. You then researched it. If a teacher told the class that AGW is correct, the students are free to do exactly as you did. They can research both sides and reach their own conclusions. The teacher, in an ideal classroom, would also talk about the problems with the theory. At some point, however, time constraints make it impossible to cover all sides of every issue. Encouraging children to study further on their own should be a way to help with this. If the teacher is adamant about his/her view being the only one, the student can try to work around this. There will always be situations were people clash and win/lose scenarios arise. This will happen at work, with neighbors, etc. This is practice for dealing with the rough parts of life (at an age where mistakes don’t cost them their job). My point is you can learn without someone drawing a path for you to follow and there’s nothing stopping children from further research outside of class. Parents should encourage children to read and learn more about any subject. Overly punitive, rigid teachers may be a royal pain to students but the students will be faced with this kind of thing their entire life.
Here is a sample of the rigour now facing children.
Know multiplication facts thru 12 by the end of 3rd grade.
Count to 100 by ones and 10′s by the end of kgt.
Know subtraction facts 1 thru 5 by the end of kgt.
Know division using 2-digit divisor with remainder by the end of 4th grade.
Heh. I knew all of these before kindergarten and could read as well. My grandparents taught them to me, who had 6th and 8th grade ‘educations’ obtained in the very end of the 19th and very early part of the 20th Centuries (born 1893 and 1895). Both of them knew more and had better educations (from the real world) than many PhD holders do today.