Re: [asa] pursuing objectivity in the classroom (Global W.)

From: PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com>
Date: Thu May 17 2007 - 11:24:09 EDT

IPCC is a good start since it collects the hard work of hundreds if
not thousands of scientists and present it in a very accessible
format.

Since there are still a few detractors, it is helpful to check out
their claims, such as the impact of solar output, and compare them
against the facts. It becomes quickly self evident that there is
little evidentiary support for their claims.

In the end, it comes down to reading the information and double
checking. One quickly arrives at the conclusion that global warming
deniers have no case, and that they often represent scientific
findings in a very confusing manner.

I found that comparing their claims and statements with the facts can
be quite effective. For some excellent exposees, see
http://realclimate.org and Tim Lambert's deltoid blog at scienceblogs
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/

Lambert has a remarkable ability to see through the claims and focus
on the issues. Realclimate presents a more in depth overview of
science.

In the end however it all circles back to the science and there is
little doubt that the science is quite substantial.

On 5/16/07, Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com> wrote:
> There's no such thing as truly objective but the closest we can probably get
> is the technical summary of the IPCC. This differs from the summary for
> policy makers (SPM) in that the politicians didn't touch this report. But
> don't stop there. Inside the report are markers of confidence of how certain
> the scientists believe they are correct. This is not merely a "gut feel"
> kind of indication of confidence but rather an indication of the "error
> bars" in the measurements. Only take the high confidence and very high
> confidence statements for granted. Or alternatively you can take the medium
> confidence as areas where the case really isn't closed and more work needs
> to be done. A particular example that could be used as an exercise is the
> issue of determining sea level rise (Chapter 4). Your students can compare
> this against the "true believers" and the "skeptics" and see how well their
> respective positions can be supported. It's also a helpful exercise in
> decision making when there is large amounts of uncertainty. This report can
> be found here:
>
> http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
> The technical summary is here:
> http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_TS.pdf
>
> There's also a very good FAQ here:
> http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_FAQs.pdf
>
> Chapter 8-9 are especially helpful so that you can see how the climate
> models are evaluated and how the root causes of climate change are
> attributed. They can apply what's seen here and determine if for example you
> can attribute the recent climate change to solar irradiance or anthropogenic
> CO2.. Your students can also look to see if there are any methodological
> flaws here. They could also run down the thousands of footnotes, etc. etc.
>
>
>
> On 5/16/07, Merv <mrb22667@kansas.net> wrote:
> > I challenged a couple students yesterday to "see what they could find"
> > on the net regarding glacier loss and its connection to global
> > warming. It was an open ended challenge (and a dangerous one -- I gave
> > no direction or "guidance" whatsoever.) So they were free to migrate to
> > the sites that would most line up with their own opinions (or those of
> > mom and dad at home). In fact, I am blissfully naive of most high
> > profile political organizations on this and can peruse web sites myself
> > which would probably curl the hair of most policy savvy citizens who
> > have a major ax to grind here. But I let each site's contents speak for
> > itself. And I'm hoping that I can model a kind of open-ended
> > objectivity on this to my students. Very few today are actually
> > interested in truth, but instead have departed from any truth-questing
> > in favor of persuasion and marketing. And this may be appropriate --
> > what else are you supposed to do after all when you are already
> > convinced of the truth of something? But meanwhile, those of us who
> > haven't issued a personal verdict yet, find ourselves surrounded by
> > nothing but committed "defense lawyers" and "prosecuting attorneys".
> > The actual Jury seems to be almost non-existent as everyone has become a
> > lawyer/marketer who can be counted on to reveal only what is favorable
> > to his cause. So the jury has to do its homework listening to all
> > sides. Granted. But meanwhile, I am wondering how I can nudge my
> > class to at least set their sites on such objectivity as is humanly
> > possible. I know I can insist that they seek out sites that are
> > contrary to their present convictions. But that can still just be a
> > case-building exercise (you scout out enemy territory searching for
> > their weak points).
> >
> > Any tips any of you may have on this would be appreciated. I realize
> > most here are probably grinding axes of their own and will tell me
> > "there is no real scientific debate on this" (global warming) --- which
> > whether or not it is true, is decidedly unhelpful in any educational
> > sense. Everybody is happy to declare "case closed" exuding personal
> > candor and confidence such as only a professional marketer could
> > muster. And we are left still deciding who to trust.
> >
> > --Merv
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu May 17 11:24:45 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu May 17 2007 - 11:24:45 EDT