"Climate Change - Doubts, Denials, Scepticism, and Politics"

[Fact-Man]

Given all the music and falderol that's going on in the thread

Music and falderol are important though. So are champagne and reefer.

That's a given, dude.

But there's something about a time and a place, too.

For example, I have music playing throughout any web session I may endure, my kinda music, which soothes me and keeps me awake and feeling good while boosting my various equations. So I'm not going to be playing any of your kind of music, even tho some of it is my kinda music.

I got my own stream of music happening. I like it. I'm always addin' to it and taking from it.

More to the point perhaps, the subject and tenor here is at least generally scientific, not cultural. Broken Banjo does not perform at IPCC meetings, let alone the Garibaldi String Quartet. If they occur at all, those things occur after hours or on long sodden weekends of R&R from the trenches.

Time and place translate to decorum, I remember when I was soldiering, not many guys stopped to play the jukebox when engaged in an op, albeit guitars, harmonicas, banjos, and spoons often came out when on R&R several clicks back of the line. But to suggest a musical interlude when on or near the firing line ... is just not a real good idea. Your colleagues will assume the obvious bet, you've gone off the cliff, and they'd probably be right.

A time and place. Decorum, the way of civilized life. We are on the firing line here. If you don't believe that just check out the way Luis is taking pot shots at yourself, sort of smugly suggesting he caught you impersonating Benjamin Franklin with your weather riff. Live fire, dude. You better take cover.

But no mind, you post all the music up here your little heart desires, my quick little Mustang cutting horse will do the juke and slide and we'll go right on past it without so much as a fare thee well, a-whoopin' and a-hollerin'.

Music and falderol create an overall context for the discussion. Consider the difference between sitting in redneck roadhouse somewhere and sitting at a folk festival. Or compare and contrast Woodstock with Altamont. You can be right and all frowny and serious, or you can pay for the round.

I've seen lots of "frowny and serious" guys pay for the round, it's real common among Bikers, Gangstas too.

But why imagine "frowny and serious" in the first place? Despite the fact that it's wrong there's no need of it anyway.

As with many of us I've attended my share of music festivals, often involving their own musical genre or idiom or musical vein, from Jimi Hendrix to Don Williams or Bobby Bare or Frank Zappa or Paul McCartny or [flip a coin and choose: Dixieland, Swing, Jazz, Blues, Zideco, Country, TexMex, Western, Bluegrass, band music, Alberta Country) or the LA Phil, and the truth is I enjoyed them all with a big fat smile on my brightly shining face, happy as a clam.

"Frowny and serious" are so cliche and so hackneyed I am disappointed, I have to say. This isn't 1954. Hunter S. Thompson is dead, so is his gruffer but more deeply brilliant partner in the caper, Charles Bukowski, who preceded Hunter's own demise. It happens to the best of us. Leonard Cohen is probably among the last of this dying breed.

New issues and social conditions give rise to new styles and languages, descendant tongues and chord progressions and melodies and harmonies and rhythms, they carry the banner forward, the cutting edge of the evolution of pop music, prose, and poetry.

I met a girl in this Hostel I put up in one night in Silverton, Colorado, left the Goldwing parked at the curb out front. She was a beauty, a tough mountain lady who had hiked inta town from her wildrness camp where she had a dozen juvenile delinquents from Illinois she was giving a litle mountain boot camp. She was on a supply run.

After dinner as we strolled, she asked, "You wanna check out the concert?"

At the end of the block there was a park and in the park was a big gleaming white circus tent, under which the National Association of American Bands would soon offer a concert of their kinda music, marching band music, John Philip Sousa sorta music.

It was so crowded we had to sit on the lawn outside for the first show, which turned out great 'cause relaxing next to me and mountain girl on the lawn I discovered a woman who had been a teacher of mine in High School, 40 years earlier and a thousand miles distant. She helped me out greatly in convincing little miss mountain honeydew that I was a cool guy, which quite amazed me and pleased me no end. She got me through the door! Mrs. Richardson, the staid English teacher, helping me with my date! "Sean was a real football star in High School, dear," and a fine young man. Go to the bar with him.

Go to the bar with him you say? You mean fuck his brains out? Oh I think you do!

Unfuckingbeliveable!

Then we went in and took a seat. And enjoyed the hell out of 45 minutes of the best band music this side of anywhere. Then, smokin' a J, we ambled to the saloon and had a Courvoisier, after which to the hostel, where we fucked like minks, with great shrieks and howls and head butting ... until we passed out, only to wake at four AM and do it again.

One of the better concerts I've ever had the pleaure of attending.

Short of perhaps the odd one-liner or throwaway. I am serious when in the thread. I consider it to be a serious subject, worthy of my considered attention. I never liked commercial breaks on television, either.

Onward!

[piscator]

"I need a rising sound"

[Luis Dias]

The point was merely to comment over this small quote:

No, your point, as always, is that you like your sheep on the edge of a cliff so they push back.

Ahhh, and appreciate your pushing back. Ohhhhh ahhhhh... push back some more!

[Reverend Blair]

I ain't no sheep, Luis.

But why imagine "frowny and serious" in the first place? Despite the fact that it's wrong there's no need of it anyway.

Because the facts and science don't win the argument. The denialists distort them, often with a few quick and easy sound-bites.

It isn't me imagining frowny and serious either. I've been in this thing for a while now, and most of those concerned about the subject seem to lack a propensity for fun. One of the results of that is the general public failing to become truly engaged.

[Fact-Man]

But why imagine "frowny and serious" in the first place? Despite the fact that it's wrong there's no need of it anyway.

Because the facts and science don't win the argument. The denialists distort them, often with a few quick and easy sound-bites.

It isn't me imagining frowny and serious either. I've been in this thing for a while now, and most of those concerned about the subject seem to lack a propensity for fun. One of the results of that is the general public failing to become truly engaged.

It struck me that you were accusing me of being all "frowny and serious" because I don't take too hot to your now incessant posting of music, which is tantamount to interrupting a good television show with commercial breaks.

But, whatever, it's not up to me to decide the character of the exchanges that go on here and as I noted your music is easily passed over, albeit in your new context of "most of those concerned the subject seem to lack a propensity for fun" I fail to see the relevance because "most of those" won't ever appear on this board or peruse this thread. Besides, I do think that many or most of the scientists who are engaged in this issue probably do enjoy their fun times. The cranks, well, they're too cranky for any of that I expect, so at least you're half right.

However, I'm not sure we can distract them from their crankiness ... because it is mission oriented and they are dead serious about killing the science, with literally $trillions at stake. Frivolity will quite naturally not have much of a place in their war. I mean, look at Inhof, investigating 17 of our leading climatologists with the idea in mind of charging them with crimes, convicting them, and sending them to prison for long durations, That's no laughing matter, especially if you happen to be one of the seventeen he has in his sights, who now have to lawyer up and be prepared to fight a strong defensive battle over what will likely prove to be an extended period.

I don't think we've seen anything yet on this front. It's always hard to quell an attack machine that's driven by $trillions and the fear of its loss or decline. Eventually, they will go down, but it won't be without a fight and probably a very big one at that. They've stepped over the criminal line with their attack on CRU's e:mail servers, which could prove to be just a beginning of criminal conduct, because once the criminal line has been breached, there's usually no going back.

Hence, I think we can expect even more blood to be spilled before this thing ever settles into a more positive vein in which we're actually doing something about curbing emissions and going after the very heart of the problem in constructive ways.

My advice is ... hang onto your hat!

[JimC]

One aspect of this whole thing concerns education. I teach an advanced science course for our Year 10 lads (secondary school ends at Year 12 here...). In the second half of the year, I teach a big unit on energy, first covering the basic physics, then moving onto human use of energy and its consequences. They will certainly be doing some project work, and I will be able to provide some good sites for them to visit thanks to macdoc and Fact Man...

Hopefully, teaching the science right will be a good start. I think it is very important to be positive about the practical things we can actually do - I want my lads to be future voters who will have a background in the science.

[piscator]

But why imagine "frowny and serious" in the first place? Despite the fact that it's wrong there's no need of it anyway.

Because the facts and science don't win the argument. The denialists distort them, often with a few quick and easy sound-bites.

It isn't me imagining frowny and serious either. I've been in this thing for a while now, and most of those concerned about the subject seem to lack a propensity for fun. One of the results of that is the general public failing to become truly engaged.

It struck me that you were accusing me of being all "frowny and serious" because I don't take too hot to your now incessant posting of music, which is tantamount to interrupting a good television show with commercial breaks.

But, whatever, it's not up to me to decide the character of the exchanges that go on here and as I noted your music is easily passed over, albeit in your new context of "most of those concerned the subject seem to lack a propensity for fun" I fail to see the relevance because "most of those" won't ever appear on this board or peruse this thread. Besides, I do think that many or most of the scientists who are engaged in this issue probably do enjoy their fun times. The cranks, well, they're too cranky for any of that I expect, so at least you're half right.

However, I'm not sure we can distract them from their crankiness ... because it is mission oriented and they are dead serious about killing the science, with literally $trillions at stake. Frivolity will quite naturally not have much of a place in their war. I mean, look at Inhof, investigating 17 of our leading climatologists with the idea in mind of charging them with crimes, convicting them, and sending them to prison for long durations, That's no laughing matter, especially if you happen to be one of the seventeen he has in his sights, who now have to lawyer up and be prepared to fight a strong defensive battle over what will likely prove to be an extended period.

I don't think we've seen anything yet on this front. It's always hard to quell an attack machine that's driven by $trillions and the fear of its loss or decline. Eventually, they will go down, but it won't be without a fight and probably a very big one at that. They've stepped over the criminal line with their attack on CRU's e:mail servers, which could prove to be just a beginning of criminal conduct, because once the criminal line has been breached, there's usually no going back.

Hence, I think we can expect even more blood to be spilled before this thing ever settles into a more positive vein in which we're actually doing something about curbing emissions and going after the very heart of the problem in constructive ways.

My advice is ... hang onto your hat!

heck, that's why i thought the Wagner piece was so metaphorically appropriate
its got it all - Bukowski's rising sound, Wagner's racism, horses, a nice warm mountaintop, a heroic mortal combat with the fate of the world at stake overseen by Masters Of The Universe who occasionally plot on each other for supremacy, and a big horn section - what's not to like?

[Fact-Man]

But why imagine "frowny and serious" in the first place? Despite the fact that it's wrong there's no need of it anyway.

Because the facts and science don't win the argument. The denialists distort them, often with a few quick and easy sound-bites.

It isn't me imagining frowny and serious either. I've been in this thing for a while now, and most of those concerned about the subject seem to lack a propensity for fun. One of the results of that is the general public failing to become truly engaged.

It struck me that you were accusing me of being all "frowny and serious" because I don't take too hot to your now incessant posting of music, which is tantamount to interrupting a good television show with commercial breaks.

But, whatever, it's not up to me to decide the character of the exchanges that go on here and as I noted your music is easily passed over, albeit in your new context of "most of those concerned the subject seem to lack a propensity for fun" I fail to see the relevance because "most of those" won't ever appear on this board or peruse this thread. Besides, I do think that many or most of the scientists who are engaged in this issue probably do enjoy their fun times. The cranks, well, they're too cranky for any of that I expect, so at least you're half right.

However, I'm not sure we can distract them from their crankiness ... because it is mission oriented and they are dead serious about killing the science, with literally $trillions at stake. Frivolity will quite naturally not have much of a place in their war. I mean, look at Inhof, investigating 17 of our leading climatologists with the idea in mind of charging them with crimes, convicting them, and sending them to prison for long durations, That's no laughing matter, especially if you happen to be one of the seventeen he has in his sights, who now have to lawyer up and be prepared to fight a strong defensive battle over what will likely prove to be an extended period.

I don't think we've seen anything yet on this front. It's always hard to quell an attack machine that's driven by $trillions and the fear of its loss or decline. Eventually, they will go down, but it won't be without a fight and probably a very big one at that. They've stepped over the criminal line with their attack on CRU's e:mail servers, which could prove to be just a beginning of criminal conduct, because once the criminal line has been breached, there's usually no going back.

Hence, I think we can expect even more blood to be spilled before this thing ever settles into a more positive vein in which we're actually doing something about curbing emissions and going after the very heart of the problem in constructive ways.

My advice is ... hang onto your hat!

heck, that's why i thought the Wagner piece was so metaphorically appropriate
its got it all - Bukowski's rising sound, Wagner's racism, horses, a nice warm mountaintop, a heroic mortal combat with the fate of the world at stake overseen by Masters Of The Universe who occasionally plot on each other for supremacy, and a big horn section - what's not to like?

Nothing's not to like and in fact my comment included the thought that some of Reverand Blair's kinda music happened to be my kinda of music too. Whatta ya know!

Nevertheless, artistic expression is one thing, linguistic commo quite another. Both can easily be appreciated, but each has its place in the panthenon. Should I post up my global warming screenplay because its fun and funny in the great tradition of show businesses sense of satirical entertainment? I don't think so. It wouldn't be strictly OT, but it would be OT. It would be distracting, despite how funny it is.

But as has already been noted, anyone can post any damn thing they please here, anything they can get past the Mod at any rate, so it isn't worth a sweat either way, assuming we stay on topic.

[Reverend Blair]

It struck me that you were accusing me of being all "frowny and serious" because I don't take too hot to your now incessant posting of music, which is tantamount to interrupting a good television show with commercial breaks.

Nah, I was talking about the environmental/global warming crowd in general, from the top scientists and politicians all the way down to the kid down the road from me. You have been pretty grumpy lately though. Here, try some music.

However, I'm not sure we can distract them from their crankiness ... because it is mission oriented and they are dead serious about killing the science, with literally $trillions at stake. Frivolity will quite naturally not have much of a place in their war. I mean, look at Inhof, investigating 17 of our leading climatologists with the idea in mind of charging them with crimes, convicting them, and sending them to prison for long durations, That's no laughing matter, especially if you happen to be one of the seventeen he has in his sights, who now have to lawyer up and be prepared to fight a strong defensive battle over what will likely prove to be an extended period.

Well, I'm not too worried about Inhofe actually winning anything in court, although I suspect he'll cost a lot of people a lot of money. I know from long experience that the easiest way to undermine the assholity of Inhofe and his ilk is to point out how ridiculous they are. You don't do that by being as serious as they are, you don't do it by reciting facts, and you don't do it in court. You do it by using the lighter side of culture...you know, music, literature, humour, things like that...to set a tone that they can't match with their attack-dog tactics. And yes, that does include putting up songs in threads about politics and global warming and no, it doesn't mean that every song has to be directly related to the subject. Part of what makes music so effective is that the context it is heard in can influence perceptions about the subject that creates that context.

Put another way, the denialists are scared shitless of the arts. Why do you think they have so vehemently attacked any musician who speaks out publicly about global warming? Why do you think Harper wouldn't let that government scientist go to launch of his own novel? Why do you think they attack fictional films with such vigor? Because they know they can't successfully counter it. You may be fighting a battle of facts, but they are fighting a battle for public opinion. In case you haven't noticed, they've been successful.

heck, that's why i thought the Wagner piece was so metaphorically appropriate
its got it all - Bukowski's rising sound, Wagner's racism, horses, a nice warm mountaintop, a heroic mortal combat with the fate of the world at stake overseen by Masters Of The Universe who occasionally plot on each other for supremacy, and a big horn section - what's not to like?

Well, it lacks death banjo, but I thought it was pretty cool anyway.

One aspect of this whole thing concerns education. I teach an advanced science course for our Year 10 lads (secondary school ends at Year 12 here...). In the second half of the year, I teach a big unit on energy, first covering the basic physics, then moving onto human use of energy and its consequences. They will certainly be doing some project work, and I will be able to provide some good sites for them to visit thanks to macdoc and Fact Man...

Hopefully, teaching the science right will be a good start. I think it is very important to be positive about the practical things we can actually do - I want my lads to be future voters who will have a background in the science.

Well, two things Jim:

1. Please tell me that high school science is more interesting now than when I took it. If it wasn't for beer and marijuana, I would have had to give up altogether...and I liked science.
2. If you want them to be future voters who take science into the voting booth with them, try getting somebody from the social studies (do they still call it that?) side of things in to kind of back up the link between science and what your students (at least some of them) consider real life. I have no doubt that you can make the link, but they expect you to because you're a science teacher. Having somebody from the non-science side of things do it will likely make more of an impression.

Oh, and make it fun. Maybe play some music.

[macdoc]

[JimC]

Reverend Blair wrote:

Well, two things Jim:

1. Please tell me that high school science is more interesting now than when I took it. If it wasn't for beer and marijuana, I would have had to give up altogether...and I liked science.
2. If you want them to be future voters who take science into the voting booth with them, try getting somebody from the social studies (do they still call it that?) side of things in to kind of back up the link between science and what your students (at least some of them) consider real life. I have no doubt that you can make the link, but they expect you to because you're a science teacher. Having somebody from the non-science side of things do it will likely make more of an impression.

Firstly, I am very fortunate in that is an elective unit, chosen by students intending to do lots of science in their senior year, bright kids with lots of motivation.

Secondly, I have always taught science in a rigorous way, but always with a social & environmental context; these lads are up for debate & discussion.

Thirdly, I do lots of prac work...

Fourtly, I tell jokes that make them groan aloud, which satisfies the fun part...

[Reverend Blair]

Firstly, I am very fortunate in that is an elective unit, chosen by students intending to do lots of science in their senior year, bright kids with lots of motivation.

Secondly, I have always taught science in a rigorous way, but always with a social & environmental context; these lads are up for debate & discussion.

Thirdly, I do lots of prac work...

Fourtly, I tell jokes that make them groan aloud, which satisfies the fun part...

Ah, good. All I could think of was Mr. Sellinger standing up at the front of the class and droning on and on and on and on. If you wanted to understand some shit that wasn't covered by his droning and dared to ask a question, he'd look at you like you were a moron and then return to his droning without even attempting to answer your question. His standard homework assignment was, "Read ahead in the text." No page numbers or guidance or clue what you were supposed to be reading about, just "read ahead." I spent an hour a day for three straight semesters with this idiot.

[Fact-Man]

Firstly, I am very fortunate in that is an elective unit, chosen by students intending to do lots of science in their senior year, bright kids with lots of motivation.

Secondly, I have always taught science in a rigorous way, but always with a social & environmental context; these lads are up for debate & discussion.

Thirdly, I do lots of prac work...

Fourtly, I tell jokes that make them groan aloud, which satisfies the fun part...

Ah, good. All I could think of was Mr. Sellinger standing up at the front of the class and droning on and on and on and on. If you wanted to understand some shit that wasn't covered by his droning and dared to ask a question, he'd look at you like you were a moron and then return to his droning without even attempting to answer your question. His standard homework assignment was, "Read ahead in the text." No page numbers or guidance or clue what you were supposed to be reading about, just "read ahead." I spent an hour a day for three straight semesters with this idiot.

I think it's pretty hard to compare the way science was taught 25 years ago and the way it's taught today, which JimC seems to epitomize in his approach. Many secondary school teachers like your Mr. Sellinger have long since bit the dust, whether through retirement or out right canning because of their incompetent ways.

Having been a teacher in my area at one time for many years my social circle includes lots of other teachers, including three who teach science in senior secondary schools. None of them strike me as being anywhere near where your Mr. Sellinger was on the subject. I think science teaching has developed way up over what it was 25 yers ago.

And at the community college level, at which I taught, all instructors are required to give students in each of their courses a form to fill out each semester or quarter in which they grade and comment on their instructor's performance. Those forms are collected in sealed enveopes and submitted to the campus Principal for their review. Any consistent signs of poor teaching methods become part of an instructor's annual evaluation and can lead to dismissal when instructors do not respond to directions to change up their style and get with better methods.

One thing I found was that students always busted instructors who read to them from the textbook in class, which was never a habit of mine but wasn't uncommon among our faculty according to comments I got from students about their other instructors. I also discovered that students would often advise their younger siblings about which instructors to avoid and which to seek out when signing up for courses. "I'm in your class, Mr. Rooney, because my older brother told me you were a good teacher."

I'd always tell my classes that I knew they could read and I expected them to read the textbook; homework assignments never involved reading the textbook, albeit I would offer kind remarks that "We should all be reading Chapter 8 by now" or some such. I'd point out to my students that my job was to elaborate upon and futher explain the information that was in the textbook, which often took the form of describing practical applications of that information in the real world jobs they would one day enjoy.

[Reverend Blair]

I think it's pretty hard to compare the way science was taught 25 years ago and the way it's taught today, which JimC seems to epitomize in his approach. Many secondary school teachers like your Mr. Sellinger have long since bit the dust, whether through retirement or out right canning because of their incompetent ways.

Well, Sellinger taught until about 7 or 8 years ago, then retired with a full pension. My nieces and nephews are voicing many of the same complaints I did. A thing I was involved in recently with some students from an inner-city school kind of points at things being worse there, not better. I'm not saying that there aren't good teachers out there, I know some of them, but it seems to me that some of the worst and dullest gravitate towards the more specialized subjects for some reason.

And at the community college level, at which I taught, all instructors are required to give students in each of their courses a form to fill out each semester or quarter in which they grade and comment on their instructor's performance. Those forms are collected in sealed enveopes and submitted to the campus Principal for their review. Any consistent signs of poor teaching methods become part of an instructor's annual evaluation and can lead to dismissal when instructors do not respond to directions to change up their style and get with better methods.

I filled one of those out earlier tonight, then we all went to the bar. It's a far different relationship with a community college level teacher though, especially in a continuing education setting. The class is made up of adults who have chosen to be there. We aren't being pushed by parents or siblings and have some experience under our belts.

[Reverend Blair]

Just stopped in to note that Jim Prentice is a moron. That's right, Canada's Environment Minister is flake.

[Fact-Man]

I filled one of those out earlier tonight, then we all went to the bar. It's a far different relationship with a community college level teacher though, especially in a continuing education setting. The class is made up of adults who have chosen to be there. We aren't being pushed by parents or siblings and have some experience under our belts.

This is true, although my setting was not continuing ed and my students were a broad mix of 1) older men and women who were upgrading their skills and knowledge and hence wanted to be there and wanted to learn; 2) foreign exchange students or students from Hong Kong and SE Asian countries; and 3) local high school grads who were either a) headed for university or b) just there for the girls and the social life.

It made for an eclectic mix, to say the least. The Asian kids would cheat at the drop of a hat, the local High Schoolers who were there for the social aspects and girls would settle for a "D" and not whine about it. The 20 and 30-somethings were quite serious and worked hard to learn and were the best students, although some of the High Schoolers were pretty good too. The Asians were from middle and lower middle class familes (the rich sent their kids to much more prestigious schools of course), didn't have English down very well and were hard to understand, and were world class cheaters, not a very impressive lot.

Part of the problem of teaching quality in public schools is the traditionally low pay those jobs offered, especially true in the USA, where teacher's wages remain low even today. So they end up getting slugs who can't make it in the private sector and end up teaching in public schools. I don't know if this is the case in Canada, though.

Onward!

[Reverend Blair]

Part of the problem of teaching quality in public schools is the traditionally low pay those jobs offered, especially true in the USA, where teacher's wages remain low even today. So they end up getting slugs who can't make it in the private sector and end up teaching in public schools. I don't know if this is the case in Canada, though.

Canada has to be taken province by province because the curriculum and quality vary so widely. It's part of the problem with education here. The private system is also a lot less prevalent in Canada, so the situation is different as well. I don't think you can really nail down why they became teachers though. For example:

Out of the teachers I know here in Manitoba (excluding university profs):
Three set out to be teachers as a career. (2 high school, 1 primary) One of the high school teachers does a fair bit of adult literacy work.
One kind of drifted into it because he didn't know what else to do. (high school)
One had degrees in physics and astronomy and found himself selling electronic components. He went back and got his teaching certificate. (High school)
One is writer who teaches nothing but writing. (community college)
Two are photographers who started teaching to make ends meet. (one community college, one high school)


Of the teachers I know in Saskatchewan:

Two set out to do it as a career. (Primary)
One became a teacher for cultural reasons (started out primary, switched to high school, does a lot of adult literacy).
Three teach trades and all worked in the trades before becoming teachers. All became teachers because it's less physical than the trade, two because they were injured on he job.

Now I could run through lists for Ontario and Alberta too, but you get the idea...they all had very different reasons for becoming teachers. Some of them are good, some average, and some likely shouldn't be in a classroom at all. All have gone through periods of burn-out and most have been in a situation where they were teaching subjects they knew little about.

One thing I can say is that the public school teachers are generally better than the Catholic school teachers (Catholic school is a parallel public system in Ontario and Saskatchewan and there are government funded private Catholic schools in Manitoba), and that the college-level teachers are the most uneven of the bunch.

Also, I know an awful lot of teachers and didn't really realize it until now.

This is true, although my setting was not continuing ed and my students were a broad mix of 1) older men and women who were upgrading their skills and knowledge and hence wanted to be there and wanted to learn; 2) foreign exchange students or students from Hong Kong and SE Asian countries; and 3) local high school grads who were either a) headed for university or b) just there for the girls and the social life.

Actually, that's pretty much what I mean by continuing ed and that's the name they give it here. It tends to be night and/or distance courses, but there are some day courses. Sometimes the classes are accredited and sometimes not. Sometimes they relate to a specific program and sometimes not. Sometimes they are industry-specific and sometimes not.

The reality is that there aren't very many facets of work that don't require skills upgrading now, and there seem to be a lot of us who just keep taking classes because we are interested.

[JimC]

Interesting twist this thread has taken... (education impinges on many issues involving public understanding of situations...)

When I retire in a few years, I'm thinking I may do some voluntary teaching in the continuing education field, to exercise whatever brain cells the gin has left me...

[Fact-Man]

This is true, although my setting was not continuing ed and my students were a broad mix of 1) older men and women who were upgrading their skills and knowledge and hence wanted to be there and wanted to learn; 2) foreign exchange students or students from Hong Kong and SE Asian countries; and 3) local high school grads who were either a) headed for university or b) just there for the girls and the social life.

Actually, that's pretty much what I mean by continuing ed and that's the name they give it here. It tends to be night and/or distance courses, but there are some day courses. Sometimes the classes are accredited and sometimes not. Sometimes they relate to a specific program and sometimes not. Sometimes they are industry-specific and sometimes not.

The reality is that there aren't very many facets of work that don't require skills upgrading now, and there seem to be a lot of us who just keep taking classes because we are interested.

I never taught a course that wasn't articulated by either some higher school like UBC or UVic or Simon Fraser or by a professional association such as those in accounting like the RIA.

The community college system in BC is operated on a three leg model:

University transfer
Associate degree programs
Continuing Ed

Continuing ed is operated as a completely independent function and may include courses in almost anything and will include courses suggested and develivered by members of the wider community. Teaching qualifications in courses offered by the College's continuing ed department vary depending on the course but usually involve the same as are required in the associate degree programs and sometimes the same as are required in the UT segment, depending on the course.

A member of the public may present the continuing ed department a proposition to deliver a course in basketweaving or rose gardening or bee keeping or weaving and as long as they can show they possess the experience and qualifications in the subject, the continuing ed department will offer the course.

Teaching qualifications for courses in the associate degree programs can either be a master's or a Phd or industry experience in the subject. The Community College Act of BC allows for up to one-third of instructors in associate degree programs to be those with industry experience in the subject (and no degree), which the college must assess and grade as being equivalent to a four year degree, a master's degree, or a Phd so that an appropriate pay scale can be assigned.

I was always assigned a master's degree equivalent.

Fortunately for British Columbians, the infection of Catholicism in education never took hold here and the church operates no schools in this province.

Most teachers I know here became teachers by choice, usually made as they entered university or somewhere during their lives while at university. Based on my experience teaching local high school grads over an extended period of time, I'd have to say that public education in BC is in pretty decent shape, which means its teacher cadre is probably made up of well qualified people. And the teachers I know here who work in the public system are indeed that.

Now, after this long detour it's probably time we got the thread back on its actual topic.

[Reverend Blair]

Interesting twist this thread has taken... (education impinges on many issues involving public understanding of situations...)

Yeah, education...and the questionable job we do of it...affects public perception of many, many things. Part of that is the lack of understanding of science, but a lot of it is the misunderstanding of what the government is supposed to do for citizens, and what the citizens responsibilities are in return.

Now, after this long detour it's probably time we got the thread back on its actual topic.

You mean this?



Oh wait, you likely mean the doubts, denials, skepticism and politics about global warming. Education, or the lack thereof, plays a huge roll in that. Look at it this way...if people were properly educated we wouldn't have Stephen Harper and his science-hating Conservatives in power. That isn't just science education, but education in general.

[JimC]

everend Blair wrote:

Oh wait, you likely mean the doubts, denials, skepticism and politics about global warming. Education, or the lack thereof, plays a huge roll in that. Look at it this way...if people were properly educated we wouldn't have Stephen Harper and his science-hating Conservatives in power. That isn't just science education, but education in general.

Very true...

If only there could be a rigorous education in critical thinking...

Unfortunately, the Secret Rulers of the Universe (AKA the advertising industry) would never permit it...

But quite seriously, I agree that the direction this thread took about education is not really a de-rail, but quite critical. I am going to sit down before the second half of the year, and go over my Energy Unit, to make it as solid and as well-constructed as I can. One thing I will not do, howeever, is to allow pessimism to creep into my presentation. We do not want a generation who gives up before they start fighting...

(I can at least point to the large array of solar panels the school erected a year ago, and I may get the class to lobby our Principal for more...)

[Reverend Blair]

I am going to sit down before the second half of the year, and go over my Energy Unit

Is that some kind of ?

But quite seriously, I agree that the direction this thread took about education is not really a de-rail, but quite critical. I am going to sit down before the second half of the year, and go over my Energy Unit, to make it as solid and as well-constructed as I can. One thing I will not do, howeever, is to allow pessimism to creep into my presentation. We do not want a generation who gives up before they start fighting...

I agree that you need to keep the pessimism out of it...the kids will be getting enough of that on their own, from both sides.

Something I hope...and I have no idea if you do or not...include is conservation. It saves a ton of money and most of leads to more, not less, comfort. Look at the campaigns run during the 1970's oil crisis...there are huge energy savings there. Turn the lights out when you leave the room, don't leave the TV on for the cat, dress for the weather, plan your car trips.

My other pet peeve is blue boxes. Yeah, recycling is important, and so is reducing (the conservation I just mentioned), but everybody seems to miss out on the re-use thing, and if I had the power, I'd add another "R"...re-purpose. My yard is full of things that used to be for something else...darkroom sinks for planters, used lumber for planting bed retainers, an old bed frame for a trellis and so on. My water barrels (one under each eavestrough) are old chemical mixing tanks. I really want to turn an old V-8 into a flower planter too, but my friends keep taking them for parts.

Anyway, I know you teach a science course, not one in redneck yardology, but you get the idea...everybody has old shit laying about that they or somebody else can use for something other than what it was intended for.

Anyway, I feel a song coming on...

[JimC]

Reverend Blair wrote:

Something I hope...and I have no idea if you do or not...include is conservation. It saves a ton of money and most of leads to more, not less, comfort. Look at the campaigns run during the 1970's oil crisis...there are huge energy savings there. Turn the lights out when you leave the room, don't leave the TV on for the cat, dress for the weather, plan your car trips.

Absolutely! It is a very good topic to bring up for class discussion, and a rather underated part of the whole story.

[JimC]

Article from today's Melbourne Age - some positive possibilities, anyway... this link

25% emissions cut at $4 a week 'possible' ADAM MORTON
March 16, 2010


THE most ambitious greenhouse gas target flagged by the government - a 25 per cent cut by 2020 - is achievable at a cost to households of less than $4 a week, a detailed study has found.

It challenges claims that tackling climate change would trigger an exponential rise in the cost to consumers.

ClimateWorks Australia, a partnership between Monash University and the philanthropic Myer Foundation, examined the size and cost of potential emissions cuts in 54 areas. It found nearly a third of the cuts would save the community money, largely through improved energy efficiency in commercial buildings, industry and transport. The savings could help offset the expensive transformation of the electricity sector from ''dirty'' coal to cleaner energy forms.

ClimateWorks executive director Anna Skarbek said the cut would require a carbon price, as proposed by the government, and targeted ''direct action'', championed by the opposition.

Ms Skarbek said it could be made using existing technology and without changing lifestyles or the mix of businesses that contribute to the economy. The cost would not be extraordinary - about the same as the cost of a cup of coffee a week for each home. ''The plan shows there are many opportunities for emission reductions to be made at low cost or with a net economic benefit to society. We hope [the report] is a pleasant surprise to business,'' she said.

The report, Low Carbon Growth Plan for Australia, builds on the ''cost curve'' modelling of consultant McKinsey & Company in 2008, but gives more detail about where cuts can be made.

The most profitable cuts would come through retrofitting commercial and industrial buildings with efficient equipment and appliances.

Other easy and cost-effective savings included lifting vehicle fuel efficiency by about a third to bring cars into line with European standards, and reducing tillage and improving fertiliser management to cut emissions from cropland soil.

The most expensive cuts were in the power sector: building gas and coal-fired power stations with carbon capture and storage technology - technically feasible, but not yet economically viable - and large-scale solar photovoltaic plants.

The largest cuts in emissions could come through planting forests on marginal and, in some cases, viable agricultural land.

Ms Skarbek said a carbon price - through an emissions trading scheme or a carbon tax - was essential to give businesses incentives to invest in clean alternatives. Starting with a carbon price of $43 in 2013, and increasing to $69 by 2020, it could triple the number of areas where it was profitable to cut emissions.

Targeted action was needed in areas where a carbon price would not be enough to cover, for example, information gaps or shortfalls in investment capital.

Climate Change Minister Penny Wong said the report made it clear that a carbon price was critical to achieving reductions. But Greens climate change spokeswoman Christine Milne said the McKinsey report had already demonstrated a 30 per cent cut by 2020 was achievable and affordable.

She accused the ''ALP influence'' on the ClimateWorks board - which is chaired by former Victorian deputy premier John Thwaites and includes federal MP Mark Dreyfus - of preventing it doing ''the kind of study Australia really needs''

[Reverend Blair]

Well, here's what our denialist Canadian government has been up to:

OTTAWA — A dramatic reduction in Canadian media coverage of climate change science issues is the result of the Harper government introducing new rules in 2007 to control interviews by Environment Canada scientists with journalists, says a newly released federal document.

"Scientists have noticed a major reduction in the number of requests, particularly from high profile media, who often have same-day deadlines," said the Environment Canada document. "Media coverage of climate change science, our most high-profile issue, has been reduced by over 80 per cent."

The analysis reviewed the impact of a new federal communications policy at Environment Canada, which required senior federal scientists to seek permission from the government prior to giving interviews.



Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Cli ... z0iOf8Knye