Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Teaching standards (Score 1) 661

In case someone doesn't understand why their chapter on "Climate Change" is so very bad, let me quote from the report itself (which, outside of the chapter on climate, is not bad at all):

From its inception, one of the principal goals of science education has been to cultivate students’ scientific habits of mind, develop their capability to engage in scientific inquiry, and teach them how to reason in a scientific context. There has always been a tension, however, between the emphasis that should be placed on developing knowledge of the content of science and the emphasis placed on scientific practices. A narrow focus on content alone has the unfortunate consequence of leaving students with naive conceptions of the nature of scientific inquiry and the impression that science is simply a body of isolated facts.

No matter what one's view is on Climate Change, everyone should object to this chapter's deliberate failure to encourage students to question, investigate, analyze and evaluate the actual data for themselves.

Comment: Teaching standards (Score 1) 661

The recommendations start well. They introduce their chapter on scientific and engineering practices by saying

From its inception, one of the principal goals of science education has been to cultivate students’ scientific habits of mind, develop their capability to engage in scientific inquiry, and teach them how to reason in a scientific context.

The idea, they say, is to stress "the importance of developing students’ knowledge of how science and engineering achieve their ends while also strengthening their competency with related practices."

Their "practices for K-12 science classrooms" include things like:
"Asing questions (for science) and defining problems (for engineering)"
"Planning and carrying out investigations"
"Analyzing and interpreting data."
"Engaging in argument from evidence"

But, when they get to the section on "Climate Change", all that goes out the window.

By the end of grade 12, they want students to "know" that

Global climate models are often used to understand the process of climate change because these changes are complex and can occur slowly over Earth’s history. Though the magnitudes of humans’ impacts are greater than they have ever been, so too are humans’ abilities to model, predict, and manage current and future impacts. Through computer simulations and other studies, important discoveries are still being made about how the ocean, the atmosphere, and the biosphere interact and are modified in response to human activities, as well as to changes in human activities. Thus science and engineering will be essential both to understanding the possible impacts of global climate change and to informing decisions about how to slow its rate and consequences—for humanity as well as for the rest of the planet.

How does that stack up with actually teaching science:
How are students supposed to question computer models?
How are students going to investigate computer models?
How are students going to analyze and interpret computer models?
How are students going to engage in argument from computer models?

This is not teaching science. This is teaching trust in authority and their mysterious "climate models". Trust us. Trust our "climate models".

Comment: Re:We've gone beyond bad science (Score 1) 703

by miltonw (#46622561) Attached to: IPCC's "Darkest Yet" Climate Report Warns of Food, Water Shortages
OK. I'm sorry. You will probably misinterpret what I said and continue this silly discussion. I'm sorry you took offense. All I wanted to do was help improve your response to the skeptic. I felt it was weak and, as I said, not responsive to the actual comment. It would have been more effective to have challenged them to prove their assertions or provided your own facts to disprove their assertions, or both. Your response was more like "Yeah? Well, well ... your mother wears army boots!" I was trying to help. Sorry I wasn't able to. Please disregard all my posts to you on this. Never mind.

Comment: Re:We've gone beyond bad science (Score 1) 703

by miltonw (#46604055) Attached to: IPCC's "Darkest Yet" Climate Report Warns of Food, Water Shortages
Interesting. The thread is about the IPCC and someone posted a comment about the IPCC and you went off topic to attack someone entirely unrelated to the IPCC. I understand why you did that, and I understand it was perfectly reasonable and justified in your opinion. I also understand why you falsely assumed I had expressed an opinion about global warming or was aligned with any earlier commenter. I get it. Fine. No problem.

Comment: Re:We've gone beyond bad science (Score 1) 703

by miltonw (#46593139) Attached to: IPCC's "Darkest Yet" Climate Report Warns of Food, Water Shortages
This has nothing to do with Chris Monkton or Anthony Watts.

There are people here who are posting opinions and facts here. You did not respond to the opinions and facts posted here. Instead, you avoided what was posted here and made personal attacks against people who are not here and who cannot respond.

That's pretty safe, isn't it? You don't have to provide facts, you don't have to express an opinion about what was said here and defend it.

As I said in the beginning - that isn't very responsive to the discussion here by people here is it?

Comment: Is there an echo in here? (Score 1) 674

by miltonw (#45888265) Attached to: The Internet's Network Efficiencies Are Destroying the Middle Class
"The new technology will destroy civilization as we know it!!!1!!!!"

Why is this stupid article even considered news? Someone will always predict the End of Civilization as We Know It when new technology disrupts the old, Right Way to Do Things, technology.

And they are always wrong. Things change. Deal with it.

(Protip: The destruction of the middle class has nothing to do with the Internet).

Comment: Re:unavailable information (Score 1) 511

by miltonw (#45799395) Attached to: US Federal Judge Rules NSA Data Collection Legal

Answer this question: Is there any data that you want to be **completely unavailable** to law enforcement with **proper warrant**?

Definitely! There are protections, or used to be, that made certain information totally off limits to law enforcement no matter what kind of "proper warrant" they might have. One example: conversations between husband and wife.

In your world, there would be no such protections.

Our military and law enforcement absolutely must be able to use all means to catch the bad guys.

So now everybody is a "bad guy" - and the military and law enforcement can do anything to us?

It is important, very, very important that we keep in mind that you can't "catch the bad guys" if you become the bad guys. If the military and law enforcement break the law to gather information, then they are the bad guys!

Comment: Re:Creating memories for my kids (Score 1) 199

by miltonw (#45767597) Attached to: I decorate my dwelling for the winter holidays ...
Yes! When my kids were young, we always had fun and Santa was real. We were never religious but, like you, I don't object to religion. I feel sorry for deeply religious Christians having to cope with all the crass commercialization of "their" holy day - but that's another subject.

Now that my kids are all grown, there really isn't any reason to continue that. I love the time and getting together, but the whole decoration and gift-giving is for children - to continue the "magic".

I tell everyone, "If I want something, I'll buy it. If I haven't bought it, I don't want it." This relieves everyone the agony of trying to figure out what to buy me. I opt out of the crass commercialization and save everyone some time and money.

That being said, I look forward to making the time magical for any grandkids.

Comment: Not a good conclusion from the studies. (Score 1) 554

In general, the mega-study found no significant benefits specifically for cardiovascular disease, cancer, and cognitive function. And "mortality".

From that, they claim there are absolutely zero health benefits from supplements.

That just doesn't follow. There is a huge area outside of "cardiovascular disease, cancer, cognitive function and 'mortality'" that could come under "better health".

Talk about drawing vast, generalized conclusions from narrowly defined studies.

Put not your trust in money, but put your money in trust.

Working...