![smuseal[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/smuseal1.jpg?resize=334%2C311&quality=83)
Yesterday, I happened upon the press release below posted at Eurekalert, bemoaning the lack of 100% certainty about climate change in California textbooks. While that was amusing enough, what really caught my eye was the subtitle:
Textbooks from different major publishers give climate deniers equal weight as vast majority of climate scientists who cite scientific evidence of human-caused global warming
This wasn’t a fluke, as the “d-word” also appears in the body of the press release:
“We found that climate change is presented as a controversial debate stemming from differing opinions,” said Román, an assistant professor in the Department of Teaching and Learning in the SMU Simmons School. “Climate skeptics and climate deniers are given equal time and treated with equal weight as scientists and scientific facts — even though scientists who refute global warming total a miniscule number.”
This labeling of people as “deniers” seemed to me to be an indication that the author of the paper was engaging is exactly what he claims the textbook authors are doing – substituting an opinion in place of science.
Speaking of a minuscule number of “scientists who refute global warming” perhaps lead author Diego Román might benefit from an actual analysis of the famous “97% agree” meme:
Why do at least 97 percent, and perhaps as high as 99.9 percent of climate scientists say it’s [Anthropogenic GW] real?
-10,257 Earth Scientists were sent an invitation
– 7,054 scientists did not reply to the survey
– 567 scientists surveyed did not believe man is responsible for climate change
– Only 157 of the remainder were climate scientists
– The “97%” is only 75 out of 77 subjectively identified “specialists” or 2.4% of the 3146 who participated in the survey out of 10,257 invited. What’s interesting is that 3% of the invitees didn’t think the earth had warmed since the Little Ice Age.
I called the press officer for SMU, Margaret Allen, left a message and she returned my call. I asked if she understood that use of such terms like “denier” was offensive, and asked if this was the sort of ethical standard that SMU wanted to present. I also asked if she was responsible for the language (or letting it through) and if she realized that the Associated Press has abandoned the term because it was deemed offensive. She seemed clueless about all of this (she had no idea what WUWT was or who I was) and kept asking if I wanted a copy of the paper rather than answering my questions. She then asked for my email address to send it to, which I provided. I thanked her and the call ended cordially. About an hour later there was no email from her, so I sent her one as a reminder as the paper is paywalled and costs $40 to read. This morning, there’s still no email from her so I have to assume that she’s taken the same position as the author of the paper, that “deniers” must be shunned. I wonder if she realizes she’s engaging in what amounts to scientific racism?
And I wonder, as result of this ugliness that SMU has proliferated, will we see book burnings of books that offer alternate views on climate like this one from San Jose state University?
The full SMU press release is below.
From Eurekalert via SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY
California 6th grade science books: Climate change a matter of opinion not scientific fact
Textbooks from different major publishers give climate deniers equal weight as vast majority of climate scientists who cite scientific evidence of human-caused global warming
If American teens are unsure about climate change or its cause, some school textbooks aren’t helping, says teaching expert Diego Román, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, co-author of a new study on the subject.
Studies estimate that only 3 percent of scientists who are experts in climate analysis disagree about the causes of climate change. But the most recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — the evidence of 600 climate researchers in 32 countries reporting changes to Earth’s atmosphere, ice and seas — in 2013 stated “human influence on the climate system is clear.”
Yet only 54 percent of American teens believe climate change is happening, 43 percent don’t believe it’s caused by humans, and 57 percent aren’t concerned about it.
The new study measured how four sixth-grade science textbooks adopted for use in California frame the subject of global warming. Sixth grade is the first time California state standards indicate students will encounter climate change in their formal science curriculum.
The researchers examined different textbooks, each published in either 2007 or 2008 by a different major publisher. They found and analyzed 279 clauses containing 2,770 words discussing climate change.
“We found that climate change is presented as a controversial debate stemming from differing opinions,” said Román, an assistant professor in the Department of Teaching and Learning in the SMU Simmons School. “Climate skeptics and climate deniers are given equal time and treated with equal weight as scientists and scientific facts — even though scientists who refute global warming total a miniscule number.”
The message communicated in the four textbooks was that climate change is possibly happening, that humans may or may not be causing it, and its unclear if we need to take immediate mitigating action, the researchers found.
That representation matches the public discourse around global warming, in which previous studies have shown that media characterize climate change as unsettled science with high levels of scientific uncertainty. The researchers said only 33 percent of the U.S. public believes climate change is a serious threat.
The textbooks misrepresented, however, actual scientific discourse, which asserts climate change is an environmental problem bearing immense risk, where the human impact is clear, and where immediate action is warranted, the authors said.
“The primary purpose of science education is to represent the science accurately, but this analysis of textbooks shows this not to be the case for climate science,” they said.
Co-author on the article is K.C. Busch, a Ph.D. candidate in science education in Stanford University’s Graduate School of Education.
The authors reported the findings in October at the 11th Conference of the European Science Education Research Association (ESERA), held in Helsinki, Finland.
The findings were also published in the Environmental Education Research journal in the article, “Textbooks of doubt: Using systemic functional analysis to explore the framing of climate change in middle-school science textbooks.”
New national standards align with scientific discourse
An extensive body of prior research has revealed students have many misconceptions about climate change, confusing it, for example, with causing acid rain and ozone depletion, as well as linking it to skin cancer, the authors note.
Now there’s an opportunity to ensure textbooks aren’t part of the problem, by altering misleading language, Román said.
States have begun adopting new national standards for science education as a result of recommendations by the U.S. Next Generation Science Standards. Those standards were developed in part by the National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science and align more accurately with the scientific discourse.
“As the Next Generation Science Standards become adopted and implemented, publishers are writing new textbooks that include climate change,” the authors said. “This reworking of science textbooks provides a rare opportunity to reflect on how we can create texts that enhance science teaching and learning.” The standards were completed in April 2013.
Specifically, the textbook researchers recommend against stripping out uncertainty, since even well proven theories carry the possibility of a better theory that contradicts one or more postulates of the theory.
Instead they recommend clarifying what exactly is unknown and why.
They also recommend the inclusion of humans as agents and as the cause of climate change. That fact is scientifically supported and not controversial among scientists who study climate from a broad range of disciplines, including geology, geophysics, geography, paleoclimatology, glaciology, hydrology, ecology, evolutionary biology, environmental studies and oceanography.
Textbook language doesn’t reflect science of climate change
To study the textbooks, the researchers applied text analysis to conduct an exhaustive examination of the choices and frequency of language, including the level of uncertainty as well as the agents involved.
The textbooks did promote uncertainty when addressing the causes of climate change by using verbs such as could, may or might. And some passages created the view that global warming could even be beneficial. One textbook wrote:
“Global warming could have some positive effects. Farmers in some areas that are now cool could plant two crops a year instead of one. Places that are too cold for farming today could become farmland. However, many effects of global warming are likely to be less positive. Higher temperatures would cause water to evaporate from exposed soil, such as plowed farmland. Dry soil blows away easily. Thus, some fertile fields might become ‘dust bowls.'”
The texts emphasized abstractions, such as deforestation or the burning of wood, without referencing humans.
When attributing information to scientists, the textbooks used verbs such as believe, think or propose, but rarely were scientists said to be drawing conclusions from evidence or data. There was one occurrence when the noun evidence was used, the authors said, and then it was to suggest the notion that climate change is not new:
“Scientists have found evidence of many major ice ages throughout Earth’s geologic history.”
Less frequently used were verbs that describe scientific practices — such as “find,” “determine,” “measure,” “obtain.” The most frequently used word when scientists were present in the sentence was “think,” which introduces the idea that it was decided rather than observed or found as the result of scientific observation and research, Román said.
Language matters, particularly in California, Texas, New York
The findings suggest that textbooks should be more specific about the facts, should cite sources, and should accurately reflect the methods by which scientists reached their conclusions.
“The work of scientists should be represented accurately rather than saying that scientists think or believe, as if it’s a matter of opinion,” Román said.
As a social scientist who studies linguistics and the impact of words, Román said language matters, particularly in the textbooks in the nation’s three most populated states, California, Texas and New York, which set standards for the rest of the country.
“These textbooks discuss the impact of climate change on the Earth in hypothetical terms, in complete contradiction to scientific research findings,” he said.
The researchers note that while it’s accurate that agreement isn’t unanimous, only about 3 percent of climate scientists disagree about the causes of climate change. “Yet textbooks characterize that with the description ‘some scientists,’ so students can assume its 50-50, which is very different from saying ’97 percent of scientists,'” he said.
Does the language reflect a compromise by publishers as they walk a fine line?
“It appears textbook publishers include discussion of climate change to appease one segment of their market — but then to appease another segment they suggest doubt, which doesn’t reflect the scientific reality,” he said.
Textbooks lack specific language to guide student action
Textbook language should reflect the language used in scientific reports, be explicit about the sources of information and should clarify human cause, with specific actions students can take to produce change, the authors recommend.
Yet none of the textbooks explicitly called students to act to mitigate climate change, the authors note.
Generic information, such as “take care of the environment” or “stop burning coal and wood,” lack specific solutions for action.
“Students think, ‘that’s not me — that’s the people in the Amazon who are burning forests,'” Román said. “Textbooks must draw the connection between specifics, such as turning off lights or driving less, to relate solutions to students and their lives.”
###
Textbooks of doubt: using systemic functional analysis to explore the framing of climate change in middle-school science textbooks
- DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2015.1091878
Diego Romána* & K.C. Buschb
Abstract
Middle school students are learning about climate change in large part through textbooks used in their classes. Therefore, it is crucial to understand how the language employed in these materials frames this topic. To this end, we used systemic functional analysis to study the language of the chapters related to climate change in four sixth grade science textbooks adopted in the state of California. The linguistic variables investigated were: types of nominal groups; processes; circumstances; and the modality system. Our findings showed that these textbooks framed climate change as uncertain in the scientific community – both about whether it is occurring as well as about its human-causation. The implications for science education are discussed in relation to how the current political and public discourses of climate change, rather than the scientific discourse, is influencing how textbooks discuss this topic.
a=b=0 solves this equation for an infinite number of values of c and d.
==================
which is exactly what we see in climate science peer review.
1999. New paper out today. climate science proves 0/1 + 0/2 = (0+0)/(1+2)
2000. New paper out today. climate science proves 0/3 + 0/4 = (0+0)/(3+4)
2001. New paper out today. climate science proves 0/5 + 0/6 = (0+0)/(5+6)
…
2015. New paper out today. climate science proves 0/21 + 0/22 = (0+0)/(21+22)
IPCC. climate science 99% certain that a/c + b/d = (a+b)/(c+d)
+emphasis
A more appropriate name for the department would be “the Department of Teaching the Lemmings”
F. Ross,
A more appropriate name for the department would be “the Department of Training and Indoctrination.”
When the current insiders control who is permitted to call themselves a member of the team, is it really surprising that those on the team have uniform beliefs?
Follow the grant money !!!
It is amazing what these climate science contrarians do to expose their ignorance and biases.
When I look back at science itself it occurs to me science is only “settled” for the era in which we happen to live.
A little bubble did burst at the University of Missouri with the resignation of the President and Chancellor. But the “resignation” of the Chancellor, was just a “slide of the hand” as he will become the “Director of Research Faculty Development”. So next year those Faculty who boycotted the President will have retribution knocking on their office doors.
That’s “slight of hand”.
That’s “sleight of hand”.
dumboldguy
November 11, 2015 at 10:26 am
[now you have descended into name calling – you are on permanent moderation now due to your rude behavior -mod]
I found that appended to my comment. And for using the word “moron” and “whackjob”? Do you ever read Doctor Richard Matarese’s diatribes? (He is aka Tucci78 here). I have not seen any warnings to Tucci-Matarese for his egregious “name calling” on WUWT, although Judith Curry has spoken to him more than once about it on her site. Is it “different strokes for different folks here”? Does “permanent moderation” mean I am banned or that you are going to examine and approve every one of my future posts?
[obviously, you aren’t banned. but you seem to be on the path to get there -mod]
(It should also be pointed out that you came here with a very hostile attitude, and started the whole thing with your animosity. ~another mod.)
How old are you, 12 ????
My name’s Tom Judd. For brevity, a lot of people shorten it to TJ. That increases productivity in dialogue. In the same manner I think one should take ‘dumboldguy’ and, for efficiency, rather than continuously type ‘dumboldguy’ (DumbOldGuy), one could simply type DOG.
I think the foregoing suggestion may be useful in having meaningful, but mercifully brief, conversations with the …
He has already said he goes by ‘Dog for short’ (his words). So he’s the short dog.
But now he’s messing with the big dogs, and he doesn’t like it.
I’d call him the chihuahua, but that takes too much typing. ☺
I’m 75 and counting, Marcus, as you might have learned if you had read any of my comments without your perceptual screens tuned to confirmation bias and seeing in them only what you wanted to see. Do you know what is meant by “perceptual screens” and “confirmation bias”. Look them up. While you’re at it, apply some Windex to your Johari Window—it appears to be rather crapped up with WUWT “road grime”.
By the way, how old are YOU? Your question implying that I’m a 12-year-old is exactly the kind of.thing your average mindless TEN-year-old might say in response to my message.
Are you trying to disagree with what I say? Support the little thought-control group that the WUWT “mod squad” seems to belong to? Are you objecting to me mentioning that Tucci-Fucci has behaved badly on Judith Curry’s site? What? The English language is a wonderful tool, use it! (Of course you have to have THOUGHTS before you can express them—-work on that part of it).
Chihuahua,
You came here with an attitude. People are just responding to that, so quit complaining. You brought it on yourself.
Now, if you want to discuss the actual science (or lack of it) that is being sold to the public as “dangerous AGW” (DAGW), then let’s do it. All you need to convince me you’re right are facts, evidence, and most importantly, measurements of AGW.
What’s the fraction of AGW, out of all global warming? Do you have a number? Because without that, all you have is your opinion. And if that’s the case, your’re on the wrong site. This is the internet’s “Best Science” site, it’s not a religious or political blog.
[obviously, you aren’t banned. but you seem to be on the path to get there -mod]
(It should also be pointed out that you came here with a very hostile attitude, and started the whole thing with your animosity. ~another mod.)
First, I challenge the rather bald assertions that I came here with a “very hostile attitude” and “started the whole thing with your animosity”. Show me where I did that in my earliest posts. In actuality, although I may not have been “worshipful” enough for WUWT, I did attempt to talk about science, particularly with reference to human population dynamics, sustainability, and how they related to AGW. I was met with a flood of mindless “hostility and animosity'” from the likes of Tucc78 and DBStealey, and merely replied in kind, albeit IMO more intelligently and gently.
Now Anthony and minions (how many “mods” are there anyway?) are showing hostility and animosity and making threats? LMAO! I have perhaps questioned the basic integrity and honor of WUWT, yes, but if you can’t deal with me any better than this in defending yourselves, you WILL show all that you inhabit a house of cards.
[Your very first comment was trimmed due to it violating the blog policy, note the end:
===============================
Submitted on 2015/11/08 at 6:14 am
So let me see if I’ve got this straight.
1) A group of “activists” held a conference over three years ago.
2) At this conference, they discussed going after big oil in the same ways that were used against big tobacco.
3) They published a thoughtful and intelligent report that outlined how this could be done.
4) All the above was done in the open and with full disclosure.
5) Three years later, someone has discovered that Exxon has sinned and Exxon is finding itself in the same pickle as big tobacco.
Now you’re whining about the fact that this effort has borne fruit, and talking about some sort of “orchestrated” conspiracy and a small “shadow organization” being behind it all?. Guess what, Anthony? UCS, Greenpeace, Climate Central, Scripps, Stanford, Oxford, and Harvard are NOT “shadow organizations”, even though it suits your purposes to try to ignore their involvement. And the real conspiracy is the one you and the deniers are engaged in—attempts to obfuscate the truth about AGW.
I sincerely hope that once they are finished with Exxon, the RICO prosecutions will reach down to the level of the denier blogosphere and sweep you and the rest into the AGW denial conspiracy net. [trimmed. .mod]
==========================
So there you go, you started out hostile, and remain so. -mod]
Chihuahua,
You say:
I challenge the rather bald assertions that I came here with a “very hostile attitude”
You just started posting here a couple days ago. Here are some of your very first comments:
I sincerely hope that once they are finished with Exxon, the RICO prosecutions will reach down to the level of the denier blogosphere and sweep you and the rest into the AGW denial conspiracy net. [trimmed. .mod]…
And:
The real big problem in society is people like you and Watts who refuse to understand… &etc.
And:
For those with a partially open mind…
And:
Why don’t you hit up your friends at Heartland for a few $$$$?
And:
People like DBS never show ANY real understanding of the problem or answers, but they endlessly spout inane OPINIONS and clever bon mots devoid of any factual support or real meaning…
And:
…you need to do a serious review in your “Logic for Dummies” book.
And:
Quoting DeSmog: the unfunny truth appears to be that “big oil” IS chipping in here indirectly. Do you dispute any of this?
And:
Why do so many commenters on WUWT seem to be so in love with meaningless straw men and non sequiturs?
And:
Why can you not quote someone among the 99.99% of climate scientists who are concerned about AGW. Oh, I forgot, you are not interested in truth but merely in continuing to spread and reinforce ignorant AGW denialist BS.
And:
It is hard to know where to begin in the face of such mindless ignorance and cognitive dissonance.
And:
DBS shows his paucity of science knowledge with his “by the numbers” PHD exercise. He quotes from the denier’s BS manual on many of these points…
1. EVERYTHING he says here is WRONG… 2. WRONG… 3. WRONG… 4. WRONG… 5. WRONG… 6. And last but not least, WRONG-WRONG-WRONG on all counts… finish this load of WRONG horsepucky… deluded is what you are, and if anyone has a religion (cliché) here, it’s you and the deniers, because “Science has nothing to do with what you believe”
And so on, every comment from you is full of hatred and bile, directed at people who simply have a scientific point of view that you don’t happen to agree with.
But you still challenge the rather bald assertions that I came here with a “very hostile attitude”. ??
Really? And now you’re complaining because you’re getting push-back??
Dumb-old, if you’re that impotent and unhappy at 75, it’s doubtful that you’ve ever been a happy camper in your long, sad life. This is the internet’s “Best Science” site, but instead of discussing facts and evidence, you came here full of animosity and hatred directed at skeptics of the “climate change” scare.
What did you expect? A kissy-face reception?
I hadn’t noticed the very first comment from “dumboldguy”, as pointed out above, until now. This statement:
“And the real conspiracy is the one you and the deniers are engaged in—attempts to obfuscate the truth about AGW. I sincerely hope that once they are finished with Exxon, the RICO prosecutions will reach down to the level of the denier blogosphere and sweep you and the rest into the AGW denial conspiracy net.”
and coupled with:
“Now Anthony and minions (how many “mods” are there anyway?) are showing hostility and animosity and making threats?”
…says all that needs to be said about the character of this person. We are enforcing blog policy against your disruptive and ugly behavior, clearly stated here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/about-wuwt/policy/
Get off my blog. Your’re banned. I don’t need to take your personal abuse and neither does anyone else here.
Anthony,
You and your long-suffering moderators suffered this fool for too long, but it is to your credit that you did.
Intelligent warmists trying to make valid scientific points are welcome here, indeed encouraged, to your credit. Pointless trolls, not so much.
Thanks for all that you do.
Good move Anthony – unfortunately he’ll probably pop up with a new handle, like the piece of scum who falsely signed my name to similar garbage some months ago. Is it possible to insist that posters be logged in to wordpress? That would at least force them to take a small step to validate themselves.
“Textbook language should reflect the language used in scientific reports” . And the language in climate science is full of may, could, would… Especially if the outcome is alarming, what it mostly is.
“The work of scientists should be represented accurately rather than saying that scientists think or believe, as if it’s a matter of opinion,” Román said.
But so they say in climate science, because they don’t know of the future. All the failed alarms prove it.
I’m waiting for the day when skeptics will be claimed to be mentally ill. Maybe they’ll come out with green pill that will cure us?
The arrogant professor in the journalism school, Click, attempts to silence Journalists recording events at the University.
Typical of liberal activists, hide the truth just like SMU representative.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/11/10/missouri-journalism-school-commends-student-tai-reviews-professors-status/75536062/
“Video of the confrontation with the journalist, Tim Tai, went viral as the school distanced itself from a professor, Melissa Click, who was seen in the video calling for “muscle” to remove another journalist from the protest site. Late Tuesday night, Click resigned her courtesy appointment with the journalism school, although she remains an assistant professor at the university.
“The Missouri School of Journalism is proud of photojournalism senior Tim Tai,” said David Kurpius, dean of the Missouri School of Journalism. “The news media have First Amendment rights to cover public events. Tai handled himself professionally and with poise.””
Well, there are FOUR LAWS WITHOUT WHICH NOTHING WHATSOEVER IN THE UNIVERSE THAT HAPPENS, HAPPENS, on the basis of which I wrote the IDIOT GUIDE TO GLOBAL WARMING:
http://cleanenergypundit.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/idiot-guide-to-global-warming.html
though not stopping to look for any better guidance and information
PS–And he should have written “reject,” not “refute.”
It only takes one refutation for a theory to be refuted. I thought professors had to be able to put their thoughts into words?
WUWT threads combatting the 97%-consensus claim can be found by clicking in the sidebar’s Category drop-down list. Here’s the link it uses: http://wattsupwiththat.com/category/97-consensus/
See also “99% certainty”
[Reply: just putting ‘97%’ in the search box works, too. ~mod.]
“[Reply: just putting ‘97%’ in the search box works, too. ~mod.]”
I tried that first, but I suspect it casts too wide a net. IOW, it will bring up any thread containing the term 97%, even if that is only mentioned in passing and the thread isn’t really in the category of debating the 97% claim.
(sarc warning)
Newsflash WUWT folks…It’s no longer 97%. Not even 99.9%. It’s now a 100% consensus.
Although with a little extra work from Cook et al, we can surely get that figure even higher.
Correction, the unanimous consensus appears to only exist theoretically, in North Korea.
But – hey, if North Korea can do it, then what’s stopping us here in the free world?
As observed, by the often insightful satirical blog – The People’s Cube
Recommended:
http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples-blog/north-korean-voters-unanimous-we-are-the-100-t13304.html
I copied the following from SMU’s very own website:
‘Dr. Diego Román is an Assistant Professor in Teaching and Learning at Southern Methodist University, specializing in bilingual and science education. He holds a B.S. degree in Agronomy from Zamorano University in Honduras and a M.S. degree in Curriculum and Instruction from the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater. He earned a M.S. degree in Biology, a M.A. in Linguistics, and a Ph.D. degree in Educational Linguistics, all from Stanford University.’
What the foregoing means is, when Dr. Roman goes home in the evening and returns to a kitchen faucet that barely produces a flaccid trickle of water when it’s turned on full, Dr. Roman won’t have a clue as to what to do. So, he’ll call up the local plumber (an individual Dr. Roman will likely look down on as being uneducated) for assistance. Immediately, having the problem described to him, the plumber will tell Dr. Roman that the aerator’s probably clogged. Dr. Roman will ask him what an aerator is. The plumber will uselessly attempt to describe it, and then tell Dr. Roman to simply replace it himself. Dr. Roman will ask, “How?” The plumber; “Just unscrew it.” Dr. Roman; “How?” Plumber; “Counterclockwise.” At this point, the individualistic, self reliant, newly confident, neoplumber Dr. Roman will grab the whole faucet with both hands, and, mustering all his strength, attempt to turn the entire faucet assembly in a direction he’s pretty certain is counterclockwise. Not a budge. Harder. Harder. The sweat’s dripping from his forehead. Not a budge. Another call to (who Dr. Roman is now cursing as stupid) the plumber, who says, “No, no, no; not the whole faucet; the nozzle at the bottom of the faucet.” An unapologetic Dr. Roman (the plumber is probably a deni..r, after all) now, finally, grabs the actual aerator itself. Again, not a budge. Another call to the, now damn plumber, who asks, “Did you use a pliers?” Dr. Roman grabs a pair of pliers (he never actually owned them, they were left there by the previous resident), and begins to tighten the aerator. Did I say ‘tighten?’ Yep. Dr. Roman forgets that counterclockwise is different if you’re above or below the aerator. Naturally, the aerator only turns a little, then won’t budge. Putting all his might into it, Dr. Roman heaves ho, and voila, the faucet cracks. Wondering if it’s actually fixed (NOT) Dr. Ramon turns the water on full blast. A jet of water shoots straight out horizontally from the crack in the faucet and onto one of Dr. Roman’s numerous diplomas hanging on the kitchen wall.
The plumber’s son and daughter, thinking they can learn much more at college than from their father, are attending one of Dr. Roman’s classes tomorrow at SMU.
Very good !! thanks
I once read a book by an academic Physicist at Bristol University in which he expressed commitment to the idea that a screwdriver with a long shaft could exert more torque on a screw head than a screwdriver with a short shaft. All other things being equal.
And Bristol is a top university. And this man not only wrote a book about “physics in the real-world” but taught students physics.
I abandoned the book shortly after this bizarre inability to grasp basic mechanics was revealed.
You mean I’ve been buying the wrong screwdrivers ????
Remove common sense and today’s “Higher Education” is what we’re left with.
Let today’s “Higher Education” get the upper hand and we’re all screwed.
(Somebody had to say it.8-)
Marcus, screwdrivers matter if you’re left or right handed. I learned that in the military. ☺
Sorry, indefat…..But it’s true. You get a better purchase (torque, if you like) with longer screwdrivers. I worked on aircraft refits when some screws would be really corroded in. And, when the long screwdrivers were useless – we had to use two-handed drivers. If you’ve never seen one (much less used one) they’re a piece of work!
Maybe, with the grip closer to your body you could potentially APPLY more torque. I do believe that I can certainly APPLY more forward force if the handle is closer to my body and I can “lean into the job”.
And as demonstrated by an impact driver, the force applied “towards” the screw head is just as critical as the torque.
This two handed driver sounds like a torque raising device.
It still remains that no increase in length of shaft can raise torque.
“we had to use two-handed drivers.”
They may be called “impact drivers” (hold with one hand & hit other with hammer). However, if it’s a special one off tool, like sometimes used on jet engines, it may cost a load since only a few will ever be made on special order. Anyway what is it someone said, “a degree in auto mechanics, these days, is worth a lot more than a philosophy degree” (unless you use it for a climate grant).
http://www.autobodytoolmart.com/images/Product/medium/impact-driver-bit-set.gif
Thanks BFL, I posted a note on “impact drivers” and when I refreshed the page – you had almost simultaneously produced a picture of one!! These things are essential. Brilliantly simple and effective.
very nice tom
thank goodness – there was a reason for reading this post – thanks TJ
(had to work today, happens sometimes …)
Silly me thinking Methodists would be Christians and not Druids.
Put all those deniers in a the CAGWicker Man !
from the wacky side of science………………….
There’s a sucker born every day !! …Company claims it can GROW diamonds in two weeks !!!
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4607781946001/?intcmp=hpff
Jeez this process has been around since 1953 so it would receive attention only from the highly sheltered. Below company from 2005/Brilliant Earth:
“Our lab grown diamonds are now readily available in colorless ranges up to 1 carat. Cultured diamonds are also available in fancy colors that are considered very rare in nature, including popular hues of vivid fancy yellow. Fancy colored lab created diamonds sell at comparatively reasonable prices compared to their natural colored diamond counterparts.”
When I was taking engineering back in the early ’60s, the education department was the school of last resort. It seemed to be standard practice if your were flunking out of any other major to transfer over to education. I’ll grant that maybe 10% or 15% were sharp and really wanted to be good teachers/educators, but the rest were what you would have to call the bottom 10% of graduates. From what I have gathered it was no different at other universities. (Note: this sounds like what is now happening in climate science as well.)
Writes Joe Crawford:
Something apocryphal I’d picked up many decades ago about the Education majors, and I’d be grateful as all hell if somebody – anybody – can either confirm or deny it.
The Army’s officer candidate school (OCS) program receives college graduates and puts them through a course of instruction to produce O-1 (Second Lieutenant) company-grade officers. The “90-day wonders” of song and story. In the process of receiving these candidates, the Army has long undertaken to survey the intake for qualities, capabilities, and other characteristics, and part of the testing process has been Stanford-Binet intelligence (IQ) assessments.
So the Army accumulated much data on recent college graduates, their areas of academic discipline, and their IQ test results. Correlating same was said to have demonstrated that the three lowest-performing cadres in these intelligence tests were:
1) Education majors
2) Home economics majors
3) Physical education majors
Now, if this unattributed premise is received as supportable – remember, I have no proof that it’s true – then the people charged with the responsibility for teaching America’s children are the plain bloody least intelligent critters capable of getting the lowest-quality degrees our colleges confer, and then only by undertaking a process of matriculation dumbed-down to prevent these students from vapor-locking.
Tucci78,
I haven’t been able to find any reference to IQ measurements of Army OCS graduates but I did find a reference to IQ Estimates by College Major at the Statistics Brain Research Institute (http://www.statisticbrain.com/iq-estimates-by-intended-college-major/).
I guess we were right. About the only group that rated lower than Education was Social Work!
Replies Joe Crawfore helpfully:
Thank you. Hm. Us “Health & Medical Sciences” people didn’t do so well (111).
But then, my major was Biology (the site sets the average Stanford-Binet numbers in the survey at 121).
I wonder if the Army had ever enrolled a statistically significant umber of Social Work majors as officer candidates.
Probably not.
Now, the Air Force….
“but the rest were what you would have to call the bottom 10% of graduates”
That was the 60’s…today it probably is around the 40% mark or more who are the bottom graduates, if you consider some of the junk degrees that people are getting that have no practical application other than maybe a government or NGO job. Nothing of value added to the advancement of humanity.
Anthony, give her a couple of days to respond. As someone who supplies information to a University publications office, I know they juggle a number of tasks at any one time and sometimes can’t get the information from others to supply to the requester right away. It’s not quite the same as commercial news media where rapid response is everything.
Gary, that may be, but the phone conversation suggested she had it in hand, most PR offices do, because they use them for reference to write the release.
For the proudly stupid old man, Luke, and Kent Pitman.
1) regarding your favorite Orwellian epithet:
2) Kent Pitman (November 11, 2015 at 10:23 am)
How come we never see an article written by Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt, or others from that “side” of the issue?
=================
Guest Essay by Dr. Gavin Schmidt, NASA GISS
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/25/gavin-on-why-the-arctic-methane-alarm-is-implausible/
=================
3) regarding pseudo-science by consensus, quote:
=================
“It appears to me that those who rely simply on the weight of authority to prove any assertion, without searching out the arguments to support it, act absurdly. I wish to question freely and to answer freely without any sort of adulation. That well becomes any who are sincere in the search for truth.”
– Vincenzo Galileo
=================
=================
The name “bandwagon fallacy” comes from the phrase “jump on the bandwagon” or “climb on the bandwagon”, a bandwagon being a wagon big enough to hold a band of musicians. In past political campaigns, candidates would ride a bandwagon through town, and people would show support for the candidate by climbing aboard the wagon. The phrase has come to refer to joining a cause because of its popularity.
Alias:
Appeal to Popularity
Argument by Consensus
Argumentum ad Populum
Authority of the Many
(fallacy files)
=================
[Note: “Kent Pitman” is a sockpuppet name used by a banned commenter. ~mod.]
Before getting the banhammer, dumboldguy had whimpered in Marcus‘ direction:
I had? Musta missed whatever chiding had been conferred upon me on Dr. Curry’s site.
Or is this merely dumboldguy‘s interpretation of my having “behaved badly”? I’d admonish him to cite exemplia, but that can’t happen here now.
One of the noteworthy consistencies about alarmists’ presentations (in the clinical sense, as a patient with Osgood-Schlatter’s disease commonly presents with a limp) in online fora such as this is their almost invariable commission of argumentum ad hominem, which is not a fancy Latinate synonym for “insulting language” but rather the failure of a participant to address the substance of a discussion in favor of pure “attack on the man.”
We’re not talking about incidental slagging (“You’re wrong, here’s why [citation], and you have the intelligence and demeanor of a male refugee from a Tijuana donkey act, cantharidin and all”) but rather evasion of points articulated in argument by voicing nothing but insult.
It’s not the insults themselves (though it’s expected that a reasonably educated man would at least show some friggin’ ingenuity in his invective) but rather the failure to discharge a disputant’s duty to make some kind of reasoned argument.
When such a Watermelon whack-off leaps whole-hog into the Alinsky playbook (emphasis: “‘Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.; Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.”) he seems with high reliability to think that the prototype poverty pimp meant either threatening the safety of his opponents (“I know where you live!”) or simply screaming invective and nothing but invective.
Tsk. Whatever else the odious Alinsky had been, “stupid” wasn’t one of his character traits.
Whereas to be a “climate catastrophe” klutz….
Probably identifies with the following:
(Deleted. Commenter banned. -mod)
Anthony Watts
Hi, It seems dumboldguy managed to side track the thread and the article of the thread. Is this individual affiliated with Southern Methodist University?
It seems odd that he/she homed in on this thread and never once touched on the topic of it.
michael duhancik
Sorry, Anthony Watts, I didn’t see your 2.19 pm comment, things moved a bit to fast for me.
michael
As an SMU grad and supporter…..This person will be hiring a job-search firm soon!