The University of Arkansas at Fayetteville has an academic department in its College of Education & Health Professions that
is one of the strangest I have ever seen.
It is called the Department of Education Reform, and the strangeness starts right off on the department’s webpage: edre/uark.edu
There one sees that the department is the “newest department in the College of Education and Health Professions, established on
July 1, 2005. The creation of the Department of Education Reform was made possible through a $10 million private gift and an
additional $10 million from the University’s Matching Gift Program.” One is never told — anywhere — that the gift was from a foundation set up by the Walton family of Wal*Mart fame. Of course, the Walton family has sunk more than $330 million into one in every four start-up charter schools in the past 15 years. This is pretty dark money since few know how deep into education reform the Waltons are. And the University of Arkansas is not advertising on their web site that an entire department was created by one very ideologically dedicated donor.
This lack of acknowledgement of the ties between the department and the Waltons goes even further than the unwillingness to advertise who is paying the department’s bills. The January 2014 issue of the Educational Researcher — house organ of the American Educational Research Association — carried the report of a study that alleged to document a very impressive benefit to children’s critical thinking abilities as the result of a half-hour lecture in an art museum. Pretty impressive stuff, for sure, if it’s true. The article was written by Daniel H. Bowen, Jay P. Greene, & Brian Kisida. (Learning to Think Critically: A Visual Art Experiment) Now it is never disclosed in the article that the art museum in question is Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art in Bentonville, Arkansas, the creation of Alice Walton, grande dame of the Walton family, or that the authors are essentially paid by the very same Waltons. Now the authors should have disclosed such information in their research report, and the editors of the journal bear some responsibility themselves to keep things transparent.
One thing among several that is truly odd about the Department of Education Reform is that when you click on the link to the department (http://www.uark.edu/ua/der/) you are taken immediately to http://www.uaedreform.org/, which appears to be a website external to the University. Huh? What gives? The University doesn’t want to be associated with the department? Or the department doesn’t want to be associated with the University of Arkansas?
Once you are at the internal/external website (www.uaedreform.org) for the Department of Education Reform, you can’t get back to the University of Arkansas or its College of Education. Even clicking on the University’s logos at the top of the department’s homepage leaves you right there at http://www.uaedreform.org. So the department is really in the University of Arkansas, but it seems to act like it would rather not be associated with it.
Among the activities of the department supported by the Walton money is the endowment of six professorships. Well, there are only six professors in the entire department, and only one of those is not sitting in an endowed chair. I know of no other department in which 5 out of 6 faculty occupy an endowed chaor of some sort or other. Well and good. Professors work hard and they deserve support and many have labored for decades without such reward. However, the five endowed professors of the Department of Education Reform appear to be a tad different from most endowed professors. In fact, only one of them strikes me personally as having the kind of record that would deserve an endowed professorship at any of the top 100 colleges of education in the country.
Among those surprising recipients of endowed professorships are four others. Robert Maranto has a doctorate from the Univ. of Maryland in 1989 and had only risen to the rank of Associate Professor at Villanova when he was hired by the department in 2008 to fill the Chair in Leadership.
Gary Ritter earned a doctorate from Penn in 2000, and less than a decade later is awarded an endowed professorship by the department.
Likewise for Patrick Wolf who made it to Associate Professor at Georgetown before being named 21st Century Chair in School Choice in the department. And the department chair, Jay Greene, never made tenure at a university before logging five years at the notoriously right-wing Manhattan Institute and then jumping into the 21st Century Chair in Education Reform at the University of Arkansas.
Question: Who is making these decisions? How does this department relate to the College of Education & Health Professions? Does a university committee vet these appointments to endowed chairs? What role do outsiders play in hiring decisions? The department administers the University’s PhD in Education Policy. The department uses the University’s imprimatur in much of what it does. Does the University have any sayso in what the department does? And the bigger question: Is everything for sale today in American higher education?
Gene V Glass
Arizona State University
National Education Policy Center
University of Colorado Boulder
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Some of us reported this scandal when the University of Arkansas created this “Department of the Manhattan Institute” and then allowed it to push out its “studies” as academically sound, valid, etc. Of course, officials at the university denied that the Waltons’ privatization agenda would in any way interfere with the scientific soundness of the work of the “department.” But suddenly all those questionable “preliminary studies” poured out in press releases by a right wing outfit with a ponderous name (but based in Florida) became the products of a respectable (?) university.
By the second year of its existence, the infection has branched out. The “Ed Reform” department was sub-contracting some of the apologetics for privatization to other universities. One day, I stumbled upon a “Vanderbilt” series of “studies” that proved that teacher pensions were threatening education. Another time, a study from the State of Wisconsin (just as Scott Walker was taking over) demonstrated (again) that the Milwaukee voucher system was a failure. Within a week, a counter “study” was released by an adjunct “professor” at Wisconsin — through the Ed Reform “department” at Arkansas.
Just as these people have been funding the “science” to counter climate change, and as they funded the “scientists” to prove that smoking cigarettes wasn’t a health hazard, now they are polluting the academic environment with these propaganda departments. I have a hunch that these “endowed chairs” won’t be the last we’ll see, although doing an entire “department” may only be possible when a university has access to Wal-Mart money.
I’d like to propose a differentiation between the funding of studies to prove cigarettes were not a health hazard and funding of studies critical of climate change.
The former are to be condemned, but to assume that the latter—i.e. climate change—is scientifically valid is to diminish your credibility.
Right wing groups are not always wrong. The science of climate change is definitely NOT settled. That human action is creating disturbed weather at this very moment is unproven. It MAY be the case, or it may not. I know a lot of interesting people believe that the atmosphere can only hold just so much carbon dioxide before measurable changes will begin to happen, David Suzuki among them, but at the moment, factually, the links between increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide and global warming hasn’t been proven.
One problem is that there have been no rises in average surface temperature for 17 years. That’s a short span, of course, but the computer climate models being used to predict global warming DON’T predict the current flat temperatures.
Whatever you may wish to allege about the political influence of Walton money on an academic department at the University of Arkansas ought to be in a compartment separate from your opposition to other right wing causes.
To make accepting climate change science a touchstone of political probity is to practice a kind of scientific McCarthyism. Liberals have a tendency to ignore facts when they don’t fit into their political positions. Truth WILL eventually manifest itself, but to claim that you have it when you don’t makes your comments on every other aspect of politics suspect.
It’s a good principal to say “follow the money.” Those who are paid usually follow the party line of their paymasters. That is corruption, but it applies equally to the climate change advocates whose pay depends on their supporting an unproven proposition.
So, Richard Muller, the physicist, was probably the most well-respected “scientist” among the few who had doubts about anthropogenic climate change. He was hired by the Koch brothers to do a massive review of the science. Here’s his conclusion:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Read Bob Sheperd’s link, Harlan. It refutes every point you make. You may keep your head in the sand if you wish as that is your right.
Harlan,
You have it absolutely backwards. You’re a mere 180 degrees from reality.
97% of climate scientists, worldwide, agree that human activity is the main factor driving climate change.
If your average climate scientist was primarily motivated by money, certainly they know better than anyone that “THE BIG BUCKS” are to be garnered NOT by being part of a vastly overwhelming consensus, but by joining the other side, where you effectively trade your integrity and scholarly reputation for the quick hit. The Big Score, The.Wise Guy’s Take…
In fact, the polluters have made it so very easy for you; you don’t even have to agree with their insane and laughable “Global Warming is a Hoax” drivel to get them to release the money tap into your account.
All you are required to do is to express “skepticism” or some doubt, even qualifying your viewpoint just ever so slightly…and that’s usually enough to secure the headlines your benefactors so desperately want to see. (And if you’re subtle enough, and you hold a tenured position somewhere, you can still retain your position and income…As long as you don’t mind being disrespected by your peers and colleagues when and if you ever return to such low paying, “pedestrian work”.
Tell us, Harlan: What would constitute a bigger temptation: busting your rear end while competing with dozens or even hundreds of your fellow academics for some paltry scraps from the table, or letting a large corporation’s agent bribe you with—-eh, what I meant to say, of course, was “reward you for your groundbreaking work, courageously challenging shop worn, discredited ideas” that would help you accumulate “speaking fees” into the seven figures annually, in addition to a possible “newly endowed chair” somewhere?
Follow The Money indeed! What’s most amazing, however, is how few people took the bait of corruption that was extended before them, given that the difference could literally add up to equal multiple millions over the course of a mere decade, let alone a lifetime.
So, still wanna pursue this “They’re only saying those things for the money!” argument, Harlan?
Lots of scientists believed in the ether too and they were wrong. Michelson a Morely disproved its existence.
Before one can link use of fossil fuels to climate change, one has to have climate change. Your premise must be demonstrated first. I am challenging the assumption that there has in fact been warming, or are the last 17 years too short a time to have relevance in the data set.
I claim that there has been no measurable global warming recently. IF carbon dioxide were in fact producing a greenhouse effect, don’t you think the warming ought to be measurable?
John lays out the chemistry and thermodynamics very clearly, and plausibly, but he omits the results of contemporary measurements. No physical measurement is precise or exact, that’s why we have to take a lot of readings. Readings within the last 17 years are within the margin of error. If there’s no rise, it seems to me useless to speculate on why there is a rise.
Induction is fine, but as Hume showed, it is never final.
The number of people who believe something is no guarantee of its truth. I don’t know where you got your 97% figure anyway. Did you ask them? Provide a link.
The burden of proof is on the believer, not the denier.
Now you can believe and say what you believe without restriction under the first amendment. All I ask is that if you don’t REALLY know something you admit that you hold an opinion. The opinion MAY be right (or it might not be), but unless you have knowledge, real knowledge, you ought to admit that your position is only opinion.
Knowledge means knowledge of true causes and effects. With global warming theory, there is no observable effect, so finding a cause at the moment is going to be mere speculation.
The models for the last 100 years don’t predict the last 17 beyond error of measurement.
So, something is likely wrong with the model (I.e. The equations) or there isn’t any global warming, or the measurements are off.
If you say, as Bob does, I believe it but I can’t prove it, I have no quarrel with you.
The most frequent place we see unproven belief is in religion. I see belief in global warming as like a religious belief. Now if you choose, as Bob does, to take Pascal’s wager about it, who could blame you? Just don’t confuse a faith based bet with a concrete fact.
“I feel like the conservative community, the evangelical community, and many other Christian communities, I feel like we have been lied to… We have been given information about climate change that is not true. We have been told that it is incompatible with our values, whereas in fact it’s entirely compatible with conservative and with Christian values.”
“How to Convince Conservative Christians That Global Warming Is Real”
http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/03/how-to-convince-conservative-christians-that-global-warming-is-real/
I don’t come at global warming from an evangelical point of view. In any case the only graph in the linked article shows a declining temperature anomaly. But even if I did, the notion that “signs” show we are approaching end times strikes me as bad Biblical interpretation. Argument based on Revelations is futile, even taking it on its own terms, because it’s a symbolic dream vision. What interests me is how supposedly modern, supposedly educated persons have taken over an apocalyptic scenario. I don’t know whether they take it FROM evangelical Christians, and transmute it so to speak into a faith with the verbal trappings of science, but it would seem to be a similarity of human psychology. Even Evangelical Christians can be wrong about some things, and Miss Heyhoe is one of them.
Everything rests on the empirical record of measured global warming. Since that temperature series goes down in the last one and two thirds decades rather than up, debate over the causes of a non existent phenomenon strikes me as misguided as the Evengelicals waiting for the Rapture.
@Schmidt.. sounds like an NRA strategy “some moons ago” where the NRA supported legal scholars to “research” the 2nd Amendment and low and behold the scholar’s findings supported individual gun ownership as a virtual “god given right”….
I would like to see rankings of university education programs based on their support of privatization and private charter schools. I am a good student with international and US urban education experience and not that it means everything, got top scores on the exams many grad programs require for entrance. I just applied to graduate school and had to eliminate several top ranked programs because they supported privatization. It was really complicated knowing which ones to avoid. I looked for the information through Diane’s blogs but that was all I could find.
Specifically, I would like to see the top 10 ranked Education programs and their involvement in this. In my mind, this should significantly lower their ranking.
Todd, This is a great idea! Maybe the Network for Public Education could engage in creating a list like this?
In my experience, many scholars in higher education aim to teach students to become critical thinkers and educated consumers of information. Hopefully, that will empower them to discern bias and aid them in developing informed opinions.
Granted it might be a leap, but one would hope that, ultimately, college graduates will be advocates of humanity, rather than servants to the almighty dollar. I have a lot of faith that will result with education, liberal arts, human services and social science students, but for business, public policy and political science students, not so much.
Todd, I’d encourage you to look for departments in which various views are presented. There are a variety of studies and opinions. A strong department helps the public and profession by hosting faculty with different views.
Joe, Thanks! This is what I did in the end but it was very time consuming and only met with a few. I almost ended up going to Europe. Finally, I just guessed the the U of Wisconsin would be progressive. Since I have lived and worked on progressive educational/policy movements internationally, I often heard the progressive, highly educated, international community refer to U of WI for their research. When I met with U of WI advisers, they were very opposed to privatization. The situation in WI is still uncertain like any place in the US. I hope that Mary Burke wins and supports public education; I understand that she has not confirmed her position.
Todd, were they various points of view at Wisconsin, or were they “very opposed to privatization.” Did they encourage you to read, for example, the Harvard Ed Review article from 1968 written by Dr. Kenneth Clark in which he promoted “Alternative Public Schools” – as well as professors like Dr. Glass who strongly oppose what he suggests?
Clark is important in part because he produced the “doll test’ that the US Supreme Court used as part of the justification for Brown v. Board. By 1968 he was urging creation of independent public schools operating outside of school boards.
I’m not suggesting that grad students should read either Dr. Glass or Dr. Clark. It would be valuable to read both and make up your mind what you think.
The U of WI adviser from what I could tell was very consistent with the empirical research that I had read regarding problems in education. She emphasized a focus on collaboration, pluralism, social/emotional and community. She also mentioned a few corporate sponsored programs that she felt were beneficial.
Thanks. I was wondering if there were faculty who read research quite differently from eachother – and who encouraged to present different views of research.
Remember, Todd, despite all of his claims to being “independent” and a supporter of public education, Joe promotes privatization and charter schools –which are highly segregated.
Here’s a link to the weekly newspaper columns that I write, which appear in a number of Mn newspapers. This helps illustrate the range of what we praise and advocate, which includes outstanding programs in district & charter public schools.
In the last 6 weeks, I’ve written about an outstanding district high school’s graduation process, the expansion of enrollment in charter schools, the value of a legislators listening to high school students about a law in Minnesota that allows students to take free courses on college campuses, some outstanding district high schools that enable low income students to earn college credit via courses they offer in their high schools, and several high schools, mostly district & one charter, that received awards for outstanding drama programs.
http://hometownsource.com/tag/joe-nathan/?category=columns-opinion
Not to mention that Joe takes money from the Gates Foundation and the right-wing Bradley and Walton Foundations.
Slipping in the middle of your list “the expansion of enrollment in charters” is like asking your neighbor what he did today and somewhere in the middle of a long list of mundane activities, he says, “I stole candy from a baby.” No matter what else he did that day, he did EVIL to innocent children and to our nation.
Doesn’t sound like “hosting faculty with different views” is what is going on in the “ed-reform” departments and conservative organizations laid out here Joe. Your 2 cents, as usual, is not only to the right of the point, it is a bit more than two places to the right of the (dec.) point.
My experience is that there has been a lot of hostility/opposition in many colleges of ed to alternative schools over the years. At a number of national alternative school conferences, district educators voiced their concern and frustration that college faculty ignored or criticized their work, and/or were not willing to place student teachers with them. This is long before the charter discussion – but these frustrations among many alternative school leaders continue today.
Having spent about half my 42 year career in k-12 and about half in colleges and universities, I wish colleges and university ed departments would be more open to a variety of viewpoints.
People in Ed Schools value public education, including alternative options within public education. Charter schools involve privatization, which occurs outside the purview of public education and regulatory oversight in most cases. We have long seen how privatization has the potential to destroy public education and we have been witnessing exactly that across this country in recent years. Just because Joe ignores it doesn’t mean it’s not happening.
Do you think that faculty who work in education schools at private universities have a different view of allowing choice to replace some regulations than faculty who work in public universities? In economics I think the two types of institutions are interchangeable (Berkeley or Michigan are not very different than NYU or Duke), but each academic tribe has its own world views.
Prof W – I’ve been to 12 national alternative school conferences in the last 20 years, involving people from all over the country. The strong opposition/disinterest from colleges of ed has come up at every one. It continues to be a topic in alternative.
Are you a professor in a college of education? If so, does your department present various points of view? Or do you regard that as not appropriate?
True progressives honor and encourage various viewpoints.
I have taught at over a half dozen public and private colleges in the past three decades and my experiences were similar at all of them. There is strong support for alternatives WITHIN public education. We know very well what privatizing schools did to Chile and we don’t want public education to be forfeited to profiteers in this country.
What you call criticize, people like Rosa Parks and Kenneth Clark promoted.
While I have no direct knowledge of the institutions at which you taught, I can tell you that at national alternative school association meetings, people from Massachusetts to Hawaii talked about how there was only one university prof in the country who regularly attended those meetings, who encouraged people to learn from alternative schools, who wrote in supportive ways about alternative schools.
That was the late Professor Mary Anne Raywid from Hofstra. She herself often described intense opposition in colleges of ed throughout the country to public schools of choice.
Perhaps you could share some writing in which you praise the value of district public schools of choice.
Enough with the false claims. Rosa Parks and MLK would roll over in their graves if they knew that privatizers were promoting segregated schools under the guise of “civil rights.”
Whoever said to ignore the privatizers above was right. Goodbye.
“True progressives honor and encourage various viewpoints.”
Only to a point. At some point, wrong is wrong. Eugenics, segregation, dehumanization, theft of the Commons, etc. – all wrong, all unworthy of further “debate”.
Yes agreed, Dienne, some things are wrong. Slavery is wrong. Paying men more than women for the same job is wrong, etc. etc. etc.
But there is a vigorous difference of opinion about what some people who post here regard as “segregation” and other people regard as opportunity. Giving families options is for some of us not the same thing as assigning those people to inferior schools because of their race.
Here’s the Mn Senate Testimony on this pointe by an African American leader, long time civil rights advocae, who was the first to be elected to the St Paul City Council, later named Mn Commissioner of Human Rights:
http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/blog/joe-nathan/long-time-civil-rights-activist-challenges-charter-schoolsegregation-charges
Civil rights groups today have been bought off by corporations, but they don’t want their funders to be revealed: “NAN, NAACP & Other Hypocritical “Civil Rights” Organizations Assert “Constitutional Right” To Conceal Their Corporate Funding Before the FCC” http://blackagendareport.com/content/nan-naacp-other-hypocritical-civil-rights-organizations-assert-constitutional-right-conceal-
If I have gotten anything from the ridiculous arguments made by privatizers on this blog it’s a solidification of my suspicions that they will say and do virtually anything to promote their cause. I am now much more against charter schools than I ever was before.
For many years, some civil rights groups have resisted sharing sources of funding because they were concerned that individuals and organizations that gave them money (like national church groups) might be hurt by their opponents going after the church groups.
Some civil rights groups also have received funding from national teacher unions as well as from some companies. I think funding from a variety of groups is ok -whether it’s churches, teachers unions or corporations.
Balderdash. “Corporate Funding of Urban League, NAACP & Civil Rights Orgs Has Turned Into Corporate Leadership” –and, of course, a major funder is Bill Gates:
http://blackagendareport.com/corporate-funding-urban-league-naacp-civil-rights-orgs-has-turned-corporate-leadership
“True progressives honor and encourage various viewpoints.”
LOL! Is there a opposite statement that “True conservatives dis-honor and dis-courage various viewpoints”?
Some of the most closed minded people I’ve ever worked with are in colleges & universities. Some don’t have much respect for k-12 educators, and don’t think it’s important to include other views than their own.
For what it’s worth, I’m teaching a class at the Univ of Mn and have invited the Minnesota State Teacher of the Year who disagrees with me about charters. i think she is a thoughtful important voice and that it’s important for participants to hear different voices.
And then we have the example set by the leader of this nation, “On Education, Barack Obama is the President of Privatization. Can We Stop Him? Will We?”
http://blackagendareport.com/content/education-barack-obama-president-privatization-can-we-stop-him-will-we
“Worse Than Apartheid: Black in Obama’s America”
http://blackagendareport.com/content/worse-apartheid-black-obama%E2%80%99s-america
Notice how Joe Nathan reflexively attempts to divert the discussion away from the the topic at hand, the Walton-funded Department of Education Reform – which has about as much academic independence and integrity as McDonald’s University of Hamburgerology – to a discussion about how prejudiced teachers at schools of education are against the poor charter schools that his billionaire funders pay him to tout.
It’s typical of him, no?
Actually my comments point out, among other things that alternative (district) public school educators have felt for several decades that their work was ignored at best or misunderstood/misrepresented at worst by many colleges of education (this based on conversations and presentations at national alternative school conferences over the last 30 years.
Also I pointed out that many colleges of education have failed to use outstanding (district) public school educators to share ideas in their classes, or to teach their classes (this based on interviews with State Teachers of the Year)
Joe. I agree that differing views are to be encouraged with some reasonable filtering based on observation and evidence. Some views belong in a review of education history, but not necessarily as part of a study of future application in the classroom.
But I also find this argument troubling in that it is often used by fringe views with little rationale to elevate themselves on an equal footing with generally accepted principals. Creationism and climate deniers come to mind. Certainly, if a radically different view can establish itself through some objective process, we should consider it. Too many ideas of the past were excluded by “the establishment”. But that simply is not happening.
Unfortunately, the most important view – the teacher in the classroom – is completely ignored. Academics who have taught but left the classroom can quickly lose touch and adopt a position of superiority. Business is blindly applying failed market principals in a simple minded approach that with a hammer, every situation looks like a nail. I’d like to see more research in to what works – experiments, studies, peer review. Right now, the Reformers are just throwing out anything to see what happens. With a touch of “blame the teacher” for political gain.
Please do not equate creationists and climate change deniers. The former DO ignore evolution, but the latter point out that climate science has nowhere the same scientific foundations as evolution.
Evolution is almost undeniable whereas climate change is almost undependable.
That’s why ALL views should be permitted in debate, to see whether they can stand up under examination.
After all, education schools are not seminaries, but they act like they were.
The essence of the first amendment is that individual conscience must be respected. Most liberals do not respect the conscience of conservatives. I’m willing to acknowledge that President Obama and Arne Duncan, are sincere, though woefully misguided and in error. The unwillingness to actually think is so widespread these days, and no where else so prominently than in academia, that one finds it futile to debate about anything, but the criterion of debate, that a speaker MUST consider the opposing view, is still a good one, in my view.
To see so many here wanting to exclude from debate positions with which they disagree before there has even been any examination of the propositions, seems to me profoundly unphilosophical and a judgement on our time and the state of education in this country both pre-college, in-college, and post graduate.
Personally, I’m all in favor of a vigorous debate about climate change among scientists who specialize in that field. What I’ve never understood is why a layman like me would be expected either to participate in that debate or to listen to other laymen debate it.
Perhaps we should leave debate on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin to the trained theologians, but for myself, I take the democratic view of the New England pragmatists that if a thing is true, someone promoting it ought to be able to make it clear WHY it is true to the average college educated person. I don’t claim enough ignorance to be satisfied by believing something on authority alone. That involves a judgement on the intellect and character of the authority, but how can I accept that if I can’t evaluate his reasoning?
Granted MOST people are too ignorant to follow a rational scientific argument, but that doesn’t mean everyone is. Darwin wrote his book, and the general EDUCATED public found it persuasive, and in 20 years the entire world of natural science thinking was changed. Now the General Theory of Relativity is a bit more abstruse, but even if you are not able to work out the implications of E=mc^2, you DO know about the atom bomb. There are RESULTS that can be tested on the scale of the real world.
In the absence of RESULTS, it is only intellectually honest to say, “I don’t know.” If you say “I know” you MUST be able to explain your chain of reasoning to a peer. That’s ALWAYS been the criterion of “knowledge,” does it work in the real world.
Unfortunately for the climate scientists, there are no such results available. But for those who cast their political weight on the side of the cap and traders, if they are honest, and that means almost none of them, they need to say “I’m not absolutely sure.” But such humility among the politically passionate is rare.
It’s OK, of course to profess a faith in this country, but the global standard of truth is still reason, no matter whether only 100,000, or 100, or even 1, the world over can do the demonstration.
Even if I can’t CONTRIBUTE to climate science, I’m educated enough to evaluate arguments. Most anti-climate-deniers never offer an argument, which they MUST to be take seriously. If you can’t MAKE the case, you shouldn’t use belief in the theory of man made climate change as a criterion for evaluating anyone else. It is the first step to maturity to recognize one’s own ignorance, so I applaud your admission.
“Even if I can’t CONTRIBUTE to climate science, I’m educated enough to evaluate arguments.”
If so, then bully for you, although I truly doubt it.
(For starters, why would someone who actually understands climate science spend his time trying to debate people who don’t? I would think someone like that would prefer forum of similarly sophisticated laymen to debate, or even better, climate scientists.)
I invite you to follow my example and free yourself by recognizing your own ignorance.
How’s this…
Carbon Dioxide is a ‘greenhouse gas’. It is called that because it allows the visible spectrum to pass through, be absorbed by non-reflected surfaces, but absorbs infra-red (heat) radiation. This is exactly the same way the glass in a greenhouse works. It allows visible light in to be absorbed by, say, chlorophyll or dirt, warming the surface of the earth. Infrared produced by the warmer dirt or plant would be radiated back into space EXCEPT for the CO2 (or greenhouse pane of glass) which absorbs it (and warms up), then re-emits it, only to be absorbed by another molecule of glass/CO2, that subsequently warms, etc. The glass/CO2 thus slows down the transfer of energy back into space and, therefore, creates a much warmer surface temperature than would otherwise obtain.
That ain’t ‘junk science’, my friend. And, it’s pretty easy to understand. In fact, if you don’t believe it, stand in a greenhouse on a sunny day (without ventilating fans). I think you will find that the temperature inside is much warmer than the temperature outside. Furthermore, if you double the layer of glass (as in using ‘thermal’ windows, or increased CO2) you will be even hotter
The The ancient Greeks very much understood that DEDUCTIVE logic was fallible. Deduction is, after all, an invention of the human mind, and humans are less than perfect. The Greeks understood that all deductions needed to be tested against observable experience. Thus, they gave precedence to inductive logic (science) despite their genius at creating brilliant deductive structures.
97% of all climate scientists agree that the current increase in carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is at least partially the result of man’s activity (burning of previously stored carbon deposits). After all, that extra carbon dioxide (since the Industrial Revolution) had to go somewhere, and large oceanic carbonate deposits (coral reefs) are actually slowing down their growth and dying. Furthermore, there is an even more potent greenhouse gas, methane, that appears to be frozen under the Siberian tundra. As temperatures rise in the Northern Hemisphere, thanks to the extra CO2, there is a good chance that those methane stores will be released, as well. Since the size of the frozen methane deposits is unknown, their impact is usually left out of climate predictions, but the methane bubbling from some Siberian lakes might very well be the cause of the UNDERESTIMATES of the magnitude of the problem.
Another greenhouse gas is, of course, water vapor. Will the ‘reflectivity’ of clouds save us? Well, when we finally landed a probe on Venus (a planet shrouded in clouds), we discovered a surface temperature WAY hotter than expected in those days of ‘equilibrium’. Why? Greenhouse gasses (CO2 and SO2 had raised the surface temperature to the point that all water had boiled into the atmosphere and amplified the greenhouse effect. Water sure didn’t cool down Venus. Instead, it added to a surface heat that guaranteed that life (complex, carbon-based molecules) was impossible.
As I said, though, we (as ‘scientists’, like Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, say) are always willing to make room for additional observations. So, let me offer these experiments:
1: build two very thin-walled but fairly large enclosures over a dirt/plant filled substrate. fill one with a dry mix of 20% oxygen/80% nitrogen. Fill the other with CO2. Set them out in the sun and record the temperatures. Explain the results.
2. Sit in that greenhouse I suggested, and explain why you are SO MUCH HOTTER inside than outside.
3. The two major carbon repositories in the past have been ocean reefs (carbonate rocks) and coal forests (coal deposits, cyclothems, etc.). Can you cite ANY legitimate (peer-reviewed) paper indicating that these former methods of carbon sequestration are currently increasing?
Meanwhile, if you want to attack ‘junk science’, I would suggest that you start with examining ‘Economics’, and, then, consider the field of Psychology. Be prepared, however, to counter the mumbo-jumbo of ‘multivariant analyses’ (I’ve used it, BTW, inadvertently as I tried to get the ‘best fit’ for a protein [enzyme] hydrolysis pattern. I know it’s strengths and its uncertainties) . Do you know what science is?
As I previously indicated, however, the Greeks understood that deductive methods (multivariant analysis, for example) were subservient to observable reality. Sadly, we seem to have mentally devolved from that ‘bronze-age’ state.
This LONG response indicates that I still think that you are not a political hack paid to promote the Fox talking points. If you were, you wouldn’t be worth the time or effort. I hope I’m right (though many on this site are sure I’m wrong).
Sorry, flerp.. this was meant as a response to Harlan. Now I’m PO’d that he might not even get the email…. What a waste of time and energy.
1
John, thank you. Not a waste of time and energy at all. What you have said here, so clearly, needs to be much more widely understood.
Thank you, John. It’s always astonished me that this wasn’t quite obvious to people. Nothing particularly complicated about it. And, as you say, it’s a simple science fair project to demonstrate the mechanism.
We agree that the views of teachers in classrooms often are ignored in colleges & universities. We did a survey of state teachers of the year here in Minnesota over the last 20 years and found virtually none had been asked to teach a class at a college or university, or even to speak with a college class.
But I think there are a variety of people involved in reform, including some classroom educators. For example, There are some great examples of teachers who have created new options within districts, and as well as some who have created new outsides outside districts. There also are some educators who are making very creative improvements in existing schools.
For several years we’ve brought together university and high school faculty to learn from eachother – not just for the university faculty to teach the high school faculty. Evaluations have been extremely positive.
Any “diversity of views” down at The Department of Privatization at good.old “Walmart U” that you know of, Joe?
Fair question to which I don’t know the answer.
My suggestion about the importance of diversity of thought among faculty applies equally to any college of education including the one at Univ of Arkansas, University of Wisconsin (which also has been mentioned) and any other college of education.
Everything is for sale in our economy such as public highways (Indiana) and public parking meters (Chicago I believe). Why not education?
Re the mediocre credentials of the current holders of these endowed chairs: it’s somewhat heartening to know that the vast majority of education professors – especially senior faculty who would be the most appropriate choice for an endowed chair – must have been well aware of the real purposes at work in the formation of this new department.
The department is a joke. No doubt, the “Endowed Chair of School Choice” makes no mention to students of the downside of privatization, including profiteering and schools without democratically elected school boards. That position is like Science departments having an “Endowed Chair of Climate Change Denial”, an “Endowed Chair of Human-Dinosaur Cohabitation” and an “Endowed Chair of the 6000 Year Old Earth” –all paid to spread propaganda and tell lies to students.
Some college “education,” but no different from the TV commercials which erroneously lead people to believe that Walmart is just one big happy family that cares about everyone (including all their underpaid workers who are on Food Stamps.)
I’m guessing that what the University of Wal-Mart is paying for this “academic” drivel (and their PR campaigns) is not consistent with their “Every Day Low Prices.” I think they’re paying BIG time for shlock.
Your simile is invalid. With respect to human-dinosaur cohabitation and 6000 year earth, I agree with you, but Climate Change is junk science, whereas geology and paleontology are real sciences.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/13/science/earth/collapse-of-parts-of-west-antarctica-ice-sheet-has-begun-scientists-say.html?hp
For your reading pleasure, the results of a metastudy of that “junk science” conducted by Richard Muller, the physicist who wrote Physics for Future Presidents: The Science Behind the Headlines.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all
Harlan, climate change denial and young Earth creationism and ancient astronauts who built the pyramids are tales from the same comic book.
I don’t think so, Bob. I find the same astonishing credulity in global warming advocates as in those who believe in ancient astronauts building the pyramids and those who believe in a 6000 year old earth. The actual age of the earth is demonstrable, but global warming and the astronauts are not. Besides global warming I wonder what other fictions you have accepted as reality. To opine that there CAN’T be debate on global warming, as you do, when clearly there IS debate, strikes me as a little odd. Methinks he doth protest too much. There is a real difference, I think, between knowledge and opinion. Your opinion may be right or it may be wrong. One can hold a right opinion without being able to explain well how one came to it, but to assert as knowledge what is in truth opinion violates the fundamental definition of truth.
Harlan, what distinguishes science from superstition is that it is inductive. It doesn’t start with absolute truths and derive conclusions from those. It starts with observations and makes hypotheses based on these and then it seeks confirmation.
Ah, this swan is white.
Therefore, swans are white.
Oh, hey, look at that, a black swan.
Therefore, most swans are white, but there are a few black ones.
Now, it is in the nature of propositions that depend upon inductive evidence for it generally not to be the case that ALL the relevant evidence is in. The person who advances the proposition that “swans are white” or the refined proposition “most swans are white, but there are a few black ones” cannot state either proposition as an absolute truth.
Perhaps there is a hidden valley, somewhere, with more than half the swans of the Earth in it, and all those swans are black. This is highly unlikely, but it is possible.
Now, unscrupulous people exploit the nonabsolutist nature of science—the fact that it is inductive rather than deductive—to argue against scientific propositions, pointing out that there is no ABSOLUTE PROOF and that there is SOME DISAGREEMENT because ignorant people don’t understand that that is almost always going to be the case with inductive propositions. In doing so, they obscure the fact that some propositions are so repeatedly confirmed by supporting evidence so overwhelming that it becomes absurd to suggest that they are wrong.
Case in point: The evolution of species. This proposition, once controversial, has been so repeatedly confirmed, by many kinds of evidence—geological evidence, morphological evidence, genetic evidence, experimental evidence, etc.—that no rational or reasonable person familiar with that evidence has doubts about it anymore
. Does that make the theory of evolution an absolute truth? No. It is possible, though highly unlikely, that you are a brain in a vat in a universe in which evolution does not occur and that all that evidence was fed to you by your keepers. It’s HIGHLY UNLIKELY. There’s no evidence whatsoever for that. But it’s possible.
So, science deals with matters that are more or less probable, and unscrupulous people who have large stakes in denying certain scientific propositions COMMONLY exploit people’s ignorance of the probabilistic nature of science and of probability generally to attack solid science that flies in the face of their agendas. So, for decades, tobacco companies made the argument that there was no absolute proof that lung cancer is caused by smoking tobacco, and creationists are still making the argument that the Earth is a few thousand years old, and oil and natural gas tycoons are pouring millions into PR suggesting that the Greenhouse Effect is a hoax because it suits their ends to confuse people.
No, it is not absolutely proven that fossil fuels cause global warming. And it is not absolutely proven that force equals mass times acceleration. You could be a brain in a vat in a universe with completely different physical laws. But neither alternative is at all likely, and the evidence for both is enormous, so great that there is no learned debate about either anymore. There is only learned discussion of the nuances of these propositions and, on the others side, some unscrupulous PR that exploits this loophole (the inductive, not absolutist nature of science) to fool the ignorant and the gullible.
And that’s why the analogy between young Earth creationism and climate change denial is such a good one—because both work in this way.
And Harlan, I am not a physicist with decades of study of climate sciences behind me. So, I depend upon those who are. And those who are, overwhelmingly, based on evidence and arguments that seem very, very convincing (some of which I can readily observe for myself–see John’s note), agree that anthropogenic climate change is a reality and very, very serious. And the arguments to the contrary just happen to funded by fossil fuel companies. And, at any rate, a little logic (revisit my argument, above, which covers the four possible scenarios using a matrix approach) suggests that we need to take this all very seriously, whatever that great physicist Sean Hannity happens to be saying on Faux News this week.
The Muller article to which you provide the link is quite lovely. He writes like a real scientist, and considers the alternative explanations. He is honest and direct and at least half way transparent. I WOULD have to check his statistics FROM WHICH he derives his data. Notice, not the other way around. I am pleased that he does not make the absolutist claims that so many make and and on the basis of which generate alarmist conclusions. He himself totally rejects climate change alarmism.
He says: “It’s a scientist’s duty to be properly skeptical. I still find that much, if not most, of what is attributed to climate change is speculative, exaggerated or just plain wrong. I’ve analyzed some of the most alarmist claims, and my skepticism about them hasn’t changed. Hurricane Katrina cannot be attributed to global warming. The number of hurricanes hitting the United States has been going down, not up; likewise for intense tornadoes. Polar bears aren’t dying from receding ice, and the Himalayan glaciers aren’t going to melt by 2035. And it’s possible that we are currently no warmer than we were a thousand years ago, during the “Medieval Warm Period” or “Medieval Optimum,” an interval of warm conditions known from historical records and indirect evidence like tree rings. And the recent warm spell in the United States happens to be more than offset by cooling elsewhere in the world, so its link to “global” warming is weaker than tenuous.”
This is very honest and open of him to admit that our current earth temperature may be the same as 1000 years ago long before fossil fuels began adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. That would imply current world temperatures COULD be just normal fluctuations in weather. His tone and stance is calm and rational.
Moving on to the human contribution to the presumed global warming, he says, quite responsibly, in my view: “These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does.”
This of course assumes that there is something NEEDING explanation. If temperatures are not, in truth, abnormal, then there goes the whole business down the drain. Here’s what I will be looking for then, when I read the papers: HOW does he arrive at his “data”? Is it all direct measurement or was it somehow estimated using statistics? What. The data for his claim of a rise in land temperatures of 2 and 1/2 degrees over the last 250 years and 1 and 1/2 degree F over the last 50 (does that include the flatness of the last 17 years? I’ll be looking.)
Everything, then, depends on the claim that the ‘measured’ rise is statistically significant. If it isn’t, there is nothing to explain. Thus we are back to the procedure for measuring temperature, just like we learned in high school chemistry and physics to read a thermometer..
So then, who is the statistician on his and his daughter’s project? “Our Berkeley Earth approach used sophisticated statistical methods developed largely by our lead scientist, Robert Rohde, which allowed us to determine earth land temperature much further back in time.” So, the temperatures much further back in time were arrived at NOT by direct measurement, but by some statistical manipulation. I shall have to read the papers to see specifically what statistical methods are used to arrive at the “data,” but just from his report, it looks to me as if he is actually estimating the upward trend he finds over 250 years rather than measuring it. I can’t be sure his statistical methods are invalid, just from his report of them. They may be perfectly respectable. We shall see.
He acknowledges that if one uses global mean temperature, which includes the oceans, that the temperature rise is much less. “I expect the rate of warming to proceed at a steady pace, about one and a half degrees over land in the next 50 years, less if the oceans are included.” We are reminded here that his own studies are limited to LAND temperatures. “Global” isn’t really in his vocabulary. So, this give me lots of questions to answer as I go to the papers themselves. At another point he alludes to those who say that the curve is not rising. He says “because of such [temporary] oscillations, the “flattening” of the recent temperature rise that some people claim is not, in our view, statistically significant.” “In our view,” and “not statistically significant.? Well, I’ll have to see what statistical significance means to him. Does a correlation of .6 seem ‘strong’ to him? Oh my, that sounds a bit like a subjective judgement, but I won’t know until I look at his articles.
That’s my only point: I don’t know yet, and until anyone knows they shouldn’t claim they do.
In any case, Bob, you have provided me with a link to 5 scientific papers which I can consult, whose authors, at least as so far represented in Professor Muller himself (is he a climate scientist?) appear to be rational and moderate, completely unlike the absolutist climate fanatics posting to this blog who assure me that they BELIEVE and that belief is equivalent to KNOWING. Professor Muller does the exact opposite. He lays out the opposing arguments pretty completely, and goes on to state merely that he thinks he has a graph of temperature rise, and that that line “matches” a graph of carbon dioxide increase.
If there should be some flaw in his estimate of temperature rise over the last 250 years, his ENTIRE case falls apart. I have my work cut out for me.
If anyone here has read those 5 papers in Bob’s link, perhaps he would give me a short course in statistics so I’ll be better equipped to evaluate the 250 year purported rise in land temperatures of two and one half degrees F.
NO? Then at least don’t abuse me with evangelical fervor that I’m of the party of the devil and thus anathema. First you have to show the devil exists.
Is two and one half degrees over 250 years a steady rise or trend, or is it possible a normal fluctuation???? We’ll see. Perhaps I’ll be converted and become one of the thundering preachers against those nasty old coal burning people, like the Chinese and the Indians. If I use “clean” power, solar and wind (nuclear?) does that make my soul clean again and thus make me better than those wicked greedy, selfish, persons who want to burn coal, oil, and gas for manufacturing and comfort?
http://www.kurzweilai.net/west-antarctic-ice-sheet-collapse-is-underway?utm_source=KurzweilAI+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=7db3387820-UA-946742-1&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6de721fb33-7db3387820-281937545
I suspect that when geology and paleoentology were first emerging as scientific disciplines, they had their fair share of detractors as well.
And I have no doubt that if Harman was alive back then, he would have stood proudly with those screaming the equivalent of “Junk Science!”, which in those days would have been expressed as “Sacrilege!” or “Blaspheme!”
However, back then, the basis for outrage and absolute denial of emerging facts was at least grounded in some moral or ethical imperarive, however misguided and antiquated.
Back then, the reactionary response and the outrage might have best been expressed by the words, “How dare you challenge what we all know to be the absolute truth of the age of the earth, the contents of the earth, and our very existence in the cosmos! You speak the words of the devil!”
In today’s ultra-sophisticated world, the reactionary response and the outrage of guys like Harlan is best expressed by the words, “How dare you challenge my entitlement to the cheapest form of energy available and the comfort and convenience I now feel is a birthright! And what’s even.worse, if what you’re saying is true then it means rhe liberals and the enviromentalists were right all along and guys like me were wrong—-and THAT is absolutely scientifically IMPOSSIBLE!!!”
“Why I’d rather have a Sandy type storm EVERY DAY then have to admit they were right, ever! You speak the words of the hippies!”
Your quite amusing, Pus Parent. I prefer Wund’s approach.
Puget: My Aunt Eva, years ago, when she found that I was a believer in the theory of “Evil-ution,” said to me, “The devil put those fossils in the ground to fool people just like you.”
And that’s a perfect illustration of superstitious as opposed to scientific thinking. Yes, one can ALWAYS advance a totally crazy proposition for which there is no supporting evidence whatsoever that, if true, would invalidate some proposition for which there is overwhelming evidence, but it makes no sense whatsoever to take such notions–the young earth, climate change denial–at all seriously.
It’s astonishing how just a little bit of disinformation every now and then on Faux News is sufficient to convince large numbers of people that there is actually a “debate” about whether anthropogenic global warming is occurring.
But let’s imagine, for a moment, that there were a question about this, which there isn’t.
Global warming is either happening as a result of our use of fossil fuels, or it isn’t. So, there are four possibilities. Let’s look at those, in turn:
1. It is happening, and we do not reduce our use of fossil fuels.
Consequence: global catastrophe; Effect level: very significantly negative
2. It is not happening, and we do not reduce our use of fossil fuels.
Consequence: We continue to be at the mercy, geopolitically, of our foreign sources of fossil fuels (Russia, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Norway, Canada, etc) and to acerbate the other environmental degradation that occurs as a result of that dependence (e.g., destruction of aquifers from fracking; destruction of natural environments from mountaintop removal mining; increase in air pollution and concomitant disease, etc); Effect level: significantly negative
3. It is happening, and we reduce our use of fossil fuels.
Consequence: We avoid catastrophe.
Effect level: very significantly positive
4. It is not happening, and we reduce our use of fossil fuels.
Consequence: Some short-term economic cost, but in the long term we find ourselves no longer at the mercy of our foreign sources of fossil fuels and and no longer acerbating the other environmental degradation that occurs as a result of that dependence (e.g., destruction of aquifers from fracking; destruction of natural environments as in mountaintop removal mining; increase in air pollution and concomitant disease, etc); Effect level: significantly positive
So, is there any question what we should do? Only in the minds of our politicians, who, like some academics, it seems, are owned by corporate interests.
BTW, the money that we spend on phoney wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would have been enough to put solar panels on the roof of every home and building in the United States.
Think about that.
cx: spent, not spend, of course
Eminently clear exposition of four cases all with erroneous premises. Thank you for debating, at least, rather than descending into shaming scurrilousness.
Harlan, I covered the bases
It’s happening, or it isn’t happening
We do something about it, or we don’t.
So, how could ALL of the premises be wrong?
Harlan.
Global warming due to use of fossil fuels is occurring.
Global warming due to use of fossil fuels is not occurring.
One of these premises HAS to be true. They cannot both be false. That’s precisely why I framed the argument as I did–looking at all the possibilities, because I wanted to make the case, and I think that I did so, that in each of these cases, it make sense to take action to reduce, dramatically, our use of fossil fuels, so even if one happens to be a wacko like, say, Sean Hannity, who denies a scientific consensus with overwhelming support, just a tiny bit of deductive logic makes clear what the possibilities are in various scenarios of action or inaction on the use of fossil fuels.
Seems to me this blog is being hijacked in order to distract us with interminable posts that have little to do with the problem at hand. How about not responding to the “Underhills” posts.
Point well taken, Michael.
Sounds sort of like the “Chicago Boys” – when the University of Chicago started training foreign students to create economics departments in their home countries, especially in the Southern Cone, specifically to promote their own ideology.
…”the editors of the journal bear some responsibility themselves to keep things transparent.” I agree. That is part of the problem. Unfortunately requests for disclosure may be answered, but masked by the cushy language of Endowed Professor at….
Another problem is media hype. You know you are in trouble when the Institute of Education Science (a federal agency) reviews a “study” for its “What Works Clearing House” (the GoodHouseKeeping operation) ONLY because the study has received media attention.
Another problem is sludge. Why did it take the American Statistical Association so long to say don’t use VAM to rank and judge individual teachers? Perhaps because this huge and consequential fiasco was created by key members with connections to Gates funding or USDE funding. They may have felt obliged to push phony baloney “growth” measures. Same for sludge in the American Educational Research Association.
Take a look at the federal role in pushing for reforms known to be based on thin air, with the help of a web of regional research centers and long terms funding of academic units at schools like Vanderbilt and the University of Wisconsin.
I suspect we will reach a tipping point where the number of members in these organizations and in academic posts who have a financial interest in doing the reform gig, and being parrots for it, will be so large that all the credibility once enjoyed by academic scholarship will be lost. Of course, some within the academic community have also disparaged professional expertise–while depending on their expert credentials for a living.
Another problem is the flood of well-marketed think tank reports that are not peer reviewed but recycled as if authoritative. There are too few whistleblowers. However, the good news is that National Education Policy Center (NEPC) exists and it is doing the work that Diane Ravitch does, a bit differently.
For the young scholar looking for a great place to study, I would suggest that you seek a a scholarship or assistantship at Arizona State University, specifically the
National Education Policy Center where Gene Glass and his able troops have the integrity and guts to take on the blowhards who parade as experts. And they are not afraid of giving annual Bunkum awards to the most gloriously misleading and pontificating reports concocted to parade as research or informed policy.
Would you say that there are faculty at Arizona State who represent different points of view? Or is it a mirror of what is alleged at Univ of Arkansas?
Ladies and Gentlemen: Introducing Joe Nathan, “King Of The False Equivalence”, soon to be offered a gig at Fox “News”, the very place where the “False Equivalence” first gained a foothold on the modern age!”
Shame on you, Joe Nathan. Shame on you.
And go tell “Alice Walmart” that she owes you some more money…
Looking around the National Education Policy Center’s website I see a number of think tank reports that are not obviously published in peer review journals. Does that mean we should dismiss pieces like the policy memo “Wait, Wait. Don’t Mislead Me! Nine Reasons to Be Skeptical About Charter Waitlist Numbers” until it comes out in a journal?
Would you like to have to pay more than triple the cost of public parking ever since that was privatized in YOUR city? Privatizers don’t discuss the negative ramifications, but others are supposed to point out the bright side. OK then, times are good for profiteers!
Just ignore the ongoing rants from privatization promoters here.
If parking is that scarce in your city, I would try to find some way to reduce the number of cars that are being parked. If you continue to charge little to park, you end up paying in gas and time by circling block after block trying to find a nonexistent parking place.
You might find this article interesting:
Click to access CruisingForParkingAccess.pdf
Time for a brain transplant for TE!
No, parking is not scarce. It is very expensive since public parking was privatized.
For economists scarcity needs to be connected to prices. Parking may not be scarce at these high prices but would be at low prices. Do you think the high prices do not force some folks to find an alternative to driving their cars?
Economists know money; they do not know people very well. I do not drive less now than before privatization. We try to shop near to where there are parking lots that are free, like at grocery and big box stores. instead of parking on the street or in “public” parking lots. For me, it has meant that mom and pop stores that are far from free parking have gotten less of my business. I regret that, but I cannot afford the high parking rates.
Economics has little to do with money (actually the branch of economics that I typically teach and to which the parking problem belongs, microeconomics, does not have anything to do with money at all), it is mostly concerned with the choices people make. Your change in parking practices means that someone else will not have to circle a block looking for parking, waisting their time, gasoline, and polluting your air. This is a good thing.
The latest most accurate research in Economics have to do with the psychology of the populations.
It is certainly true that behavioral economists are doing interesting work.
Parking is only “scarce” because private companies control all the parking and they all charge similar obscene rates.
Dienne,
High rates does not make parking spots hard to find, it makes them easy to find. Artificially low prices cause people to circle, waisting time, polluting the air your breath and causing you to be late because of increased congestion.
You might want to read the book The High Cost of Free Parking. Here is a link to some reviews: http://books.google.com.sg/books/about/The_High_Cost_of_Free_Parking.html?id=WBe3AAAAIAAJ&redir_esc=y
TE translated: only the rich should be able to drive/park. The rest of us plebe can walk.
Something about eating cake?
Dienne,
If you are concerned with income distribution, lets take all the extra revenue from parking and give low income workers a reduction in income tax. Economists don’t really care what happens to the revenue, the important point is that cars should not circle blocks creating congestion, polluting the air, and waisting everyones time.
TE, when your water supply becomes a privatized source, should you dig your own well? Or say, erect multiple rain catchers on your terrace or in your backyard (lucky you, then, having a backyard)? How about recyling your sweat, though passing it through a desalination device first would be recommended (most likely extremely expensive, given the circumstances). Another possibiliy would be to adapt to a state of chronic dehydration, though risky for the elderly and otherwise compromised individuals; especially those that have walked a mile or so for free parking…It is all about the money and the largess of CEOs, upper management, etc., at the expense and economic exploitation of others.
I do pay for my water and the local city runs the system. I pay a private company to provide natural gas and electricity to my house. Trash collection is done through my taxes and paid for by the city, but I pay a private company to pick up my recycling. I purchase communication technology, phone and internet, from private companies. I purchase food from private companies.
Who provides the utilities to your home? Who feeds you?
Talk about promoting lies and self-importance. If we removed moolah from the equation and returned to personal bartering, most economists would be out of jobs.
I think you have the wrong notion about what economics is and how it is taught. When I teach microeconomics classes there is no money, the cost of everything is given in terms of opportunity costs, that is the thing that must be given up. Prices are allways given in relative terms, that is as barter price ratios.
“Talk about promoting lies and self-importance. If we removed moolah from the equation and returned to personal bartering, most economists would be out of jobs.”
This is one of the strangest comments I’ve seen in a while.
And I think you have no clue how people bartered before money.
Why would you think that?
How about TE’s contributions here regarding the economy and how to correct a system that is highly skewed to the benefit of the 1%? Not. He doesn’t address that. That’s a truly critical matter and central to education, since there is so much evidence that money truly does make the world go ’round. Leads some of us to conclude that such economists are not even as evolved as hunter-gatherers.
At the moment I am talking about parking. I try to stay on topic.
Gene Glass needs to learn how to read. He says, “Now it is never disclosed in the article that the art museum in question is Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art in Bentonville, Arkansas.”
If you go the article, however, this is mentioned right in the second sentence:
edr.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/11/12/0013189X13512675.abstract
“We conduct a randomized controlled trial involving 3,811 students who were assigned by lottery to participate in a School Visit Program at the newly opened Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art.”
That is selective reading on YOUR part, WT. The next part of the sentence by Glass says “the creation of Alice Walton, grande dame of the Walton family” –which was not included in the Abstract. Many people would never have known that museum was created by the Waltons if this had not been stated by Glass.
WT, you need to learn to think. It is obvious that Gene Glass will not have overlooked that simple fact. So he must have made a plain mistake.
Probably he meant to state something else.
I’d guess he meant to say that nowhere in the article it is disclosed that both the authors and the museum have close ties to the same founders.
As this is not his only mistake (the mistyped URLs come to mind), Gene Glass should certainly be more conscientious in writing up his rants, so as not to offer too many opportunities for such arguments ad hominem as yours.
You not only need to learn how to read, you need to learn critical thinking. Gene Glass claimed that the article did not say which museum it was. He was lying. Your defense (that Gene Glass was correct about something else) is irrelevant to the fact that he lied about the article not saying which museum it was.
That’s not critical thinking. It’s a bungled attempt to slander Glass. By editing out that same key portion of the sentence, you continue to commit the sin of omission -and that does not CYA.
Dumb, dumb, dumb. When I point out Gene Glass’s lie, I do not need to point out that he told the truth about something else. Moreover, there is no conceivable way that the rest of that sentence would excuse the lie in the first part.
Why is the museum even an issue?
I’ve been to this museum. It is state of the art, and adds much culture to the Northwest Arkansas area. I challenge anyone here to say differently – there is absolutely no reason to criticize an achievement like this!!!
I would be very interested in Knowing what Gene Glass thinks about the efforts of his former institution Arizona State University. The orthodox posters on this blog condemned those changes and I wonder if he would agree.
The Jay Greenes and Patrick Wolfs of the education world have no shame whatsoever. They let their ideology determine their “research.” And invariably, their conservative ideology almost always finds favor with charter schools, vouchers, and other “free market” policies and practices.
The Greenes and Wolfs have no love for public education. They’d dearly love to privatize it.
That’s why they work for the Waltons.
Thanks. Gene. Glass, BTW, is the co-author with David Berliner of AZ State U, of the excellent 2014 book, 50 Myths and Lies That Threaten America’s Public Schools (Teachers College Press), a must read. — Edd Doerr (arlinc.org)
And you know about Harvard’s Ed.L.D. program offering free tuition. Here is a list of supporters: Ed.L.D. partners include:
Achieve, Inc.
Achievement First
Aspire Public Schools
Atlanta Public Schools
Charlotte-Mecklenburg (N.C.) Public Schools
Chicago Public Schools
Denver Public Schools
The Education Trust
Jobs for the Future
KIPP
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
National Center on Education and the Economy
New Leaders for New Schools
New Schools Venture Fund
The New Teacher Project
New Visions for Public Schools
New York City Department of Education
Oregon Department of Education
Philadelphia Public Schools
Portland (Ore.) Public Schools
Public Education Network
Teach For America
Read more: http://www.gse.harvard.edu/news-impact/2009/09/harvard-university-to-offer-groundbreaking-doctoral-program-for-education-leaders/#ixzz31VyKRsfV
Is the Journal of Irreproducible Results still in existence. If so, this would be an ideal place for the professors in the Department of Education Deform to publish their work.
I haven’t heard of anything this hilarious since the Monty Python Ministry of Silly Walks.
From the Rheeformish Lexicon:
data-driven decision making. Rheeformish numerology. Motto: “If it’s expressed as a number, then it has to be correct.”
research. Process by which one selectively gathers and manipulates numerical information to yield the outcomes that the plutocrats who funded one’s research were looking for. See data-driven decision making or any report by Achieve; the Common Core Curriculum Commissariat and Ministry of Truth, or CCSSO; the Chiefs for Change; Students First [sic]; PARCC (spell that backward); any Rheeformish Groupthink Tank like the Thomas B. Fordham Institute; or the Department for the Regimentation, Narrowing, Dehumanization, and Privatization of U.S. Education, formerly the USDE.
rigor. Meaningless general-purpose descriptive used to lend an air of value, necessity, and inevitability to any product of the Rheeformish propaganda mills and curriculum mines–a term derived, oddly enough, from logic and mathematics, where it denotes susceptibility to algorithmic truth-checking.
oops, correction:
Meaningless general-purpose descriptive used to lend an air of value and necessity, or inevitability, to . . .
Thank you, Bob Shepherd, for teaching us how to speak and understand real English no matter how the Rheeformies spin data and policy. You, the long-time honorable scholar Gene Glass and his renowned associate David Berliner have published work of great use to educators who still believe in the public sector. The bogus ed reform dept at UArk is another attempt by the billionaires to nullify and silence what they can’t outrightly control, like Ed Schools and liberal arts programs, not yet completely in the grasp of big money and their privatizing cronies.
here is the link to Glass’ blog, which should have been included here
http://ed2worlds.blogspot.ca/2014/05/the-strangest-academic-department-in.html
Wondering about strange, there is Harvard Graduate School of Education’s new “Doctor of Education Leadership (Ed.L.D.)” program (estd. 2010). Originally the “Harvard Urban Superintendents Program” (estd. 1990), might the new program be a substitute for, or a supplement to, Eli Broad’s Broad Superintendents Academy (estd. 2002)?
Meria Carstarphen, a 9th cohort graduate of Harvard’s USP (so, 1999), was this year hired away from her Austin Independent School District superintendent job to become superintendent of Atlanta Public Schools. Having stepped down as AISD superintendent in April, Carstarphen currently is making the transition into APS from AISD aided by between $500,000 and $1 million Atlanta Board of Education members saw fit to solicit only from private sources. Public money is nowhere to be seen.
Just as Broad “trains” superintendents to disrupt school districts with the aim to “transform” them from public to privatized, Carstarphen says Harvard has “trained” and given her the “skills” to transform APS. Consequently, on the whole, Atlanta folk have all but put down the red carpet upon which to welcome and worship the new “superstar” (AJC) superintendent. But back in AISD, self-actualized (A. Maslow) counselors, teachers, and others say she is of a “Skinner-Nazi Management” way of being. Might that also tend to aptly describe Broad’s Broad Superintendents Academy graduates?
http://www.gse.harvard.edu/academics/doctorate/edd/usp/
http://www.broadcenter.org/academy/
Now, this hit piece was written by Gene Glass with the National Education Policy Center at the University of Colorado Boulder.
Somehow I don’t see it mentioned anywhere here (or on NEPC web) that the National Educational Policy Center is a union-funded propaganda organ of the socialist left in education, whose main task is to spread misinformation and to find and magnify flaws in anti-union education research. NEPC makes no effort to point out similar — and typically much worse — flaws in pro-unionized education research. I guess that’s what goes by the name of “balance” among labor unions and Gene Glasses of the world.
But until now NEPC at least pretended it does not do ad homini attacks. No more. This is not about picking some nit to throw a broad-brush doubt on research it doesn’t like as in the past. Now NEPC preemptively attempts to discredit fellow academics. Not their words. Not their research. The people themselves: through innuendos, ominous-sounding associations, and selective information.
Good job, Mr. Glass! I suggest to add “Union-Paid Character Assassin” to your signature in the spirit of truth in advertising.
And I thought John Arnold’s scheduled TWO YEAR propaganda campaign against pensions for public employees being passed off as “news” on PBS NewsHour was really horrendous. The University of Walmart operating out of a state college is like a planned LIFETIME campaign for privatization.
I have long thought that Senators and Congressmen should have to wear uniforms like those worn by Nascar drivers, with the logos of their corporate sponsors printed all over them.
Guess that applies to professors too, now, in some universities.
Welcome to the Department of Healthy Tobacco Studies. LOL.
Dept. of Healthy Tobacco Studies… That’s hilarious!
As a Lucky Strikes ad once, put it, “9 out of 10 doctors agree, there’s not a cough in a carload.”
Yeah, and summative standardized tests validly test reading and writing ability.
Best and funniest remark I’ve read lately on our Senators and Congress reps.
To this comment I wholeheartedly agree! Although it is important to realize how large gifts like this are donated. In this case, it was given in a lump sum. The Walton foundation cannot take it back even if they wanted to, and they did not have any influence in choosing faculty.
This gives them much less influence than a foundation would that gives annual gifts, right?
Thanks for this post. I had noticed this “Dept of Ed. Reform” in an AERA Journal several months ago as part of an authors’ bio. It struck me as odd too, but I just shook my head while wondering how this could be.
Now, this hit piece was written by Gene Glass with the National Education Policy Center at the University of Colorado Boulder.
Somehow I don’t see it mentioned anywhere here (or on NEPC web) that the National Educational Policy Center is a union-funded propaganda organ of the socialist left in education, whose main task is to spread misinformation and to find and magnify flaws in anti-union education research. NEPC makes no effort to point out similar — and typically much worse — flaws in pro-unionized education research. I guess that’s what goes by the name of “balance” among labor unions and Gene Glasses of the world.
But until now NEPC at least pretended it does not do ad hominem attacks. No more. This is not about picking some nit to throw a broad-brush doubt on research it doesn’t like as in the past. Now NEPC preemptively attempts to discredit fellow academics. Not their words. Not their research. The people themselves: through innuendos, ominous-sounding associations, and selective information.
Good job, Mr. Glass! I suggest to add “Union-Paid Character Assassin” to your signature in the spirit of truth in advertising.
People living in glass houses, etc. …
(Already posted a few hours back … perhaps this will skip moderation)
Of course, it is important to recognize that the NEPC is funded by the NEA. Which sheds some light on the motives of Dr. Glass. Please note that I only point that out because, interestingly, he did not identify that funding himself.
Also for your information, I work in the College of Education and Health Professions mentioned by Dr. Glass, and have interacted cordially with all of the scholars mentioned. They produce high quality, peer-reviewed research. Compared to the entire College of Education and Health Professions faculty, the ed reform faculty are moderate politically. They try to collaborate with every faculty member who approaches them, but are often rebuffed because of this image of being some hyper conservative think tank.
The only difference is where their funding comes from. Should we judge them based on where their funding came from, or on their current work? The last I checked, AERA doesn’t exactly accept any manuscript without a rigorous peer-reviewed process. So why not check with them? There seems to be a lot of unanswered questions here, and I have the feeling that Dr. Glass is using an ad hominem argument to win the day… at least on this blog.
Let’s imagine, absurdly, for a moment, that you are correct, that Dr. Glass is a paid shill for the NEA. That is your assertion, right?
If so, he’s not doing a very good job of that, is he? For the NEA has turned itself into a propaganda ministry of the Common Core Curriculum Commissariat and Ministry of Truth, otherwise known as the CCSSO, and Glass has just co-authored a book attacking what his supposed puppet masters are trying to foist on the country.
Sorry, denbeck, but your hypothesis doesn’t stand up, given this reductio ad absurdum.
I have often been accused of being a paid shill, largely I suspect because it is easier than actually thinking about the arguments that I have presented. Good to see that you think little of that approach to discourse here. I look forward to your challenging it when ever it is made.
I have never leveled that accusation at you, TE. 🙂
Indeed you have not. You have just sat quietly by your keyboard.
Ah, point well taken, TE.
And not always, TE. There have been times when I have been skewered for daring to engage your questions. I generally find those questions to be interesting and engaging. I suspect that you are a fine teacher, for you delight in Socratic parrying. Sometimes I get annoyed with the questions when they seem to me to be of the “So, you no longer beat your children?” variety–that is, when they make what I believe to be inaccurate assumptions. But I am always willing to engage honest thinkers, and I believe you to be one such.
Good morning :).
First, I did not say that Dr. Glass was a paid shill for the NEA. My only purpose in bringing up the funding by the NEA was that he did not reveal it while simultaneously criticizing the Department of Educational Reform at the University of Arkansas for their lack of clarity. I take your defense of Dr. Glass as good evidence that he is not a paid shill. I just thought that he should offer full disclosure when making such a statement.
Have a good day!
I can see why you thought that, denbeck.
I’ll go on record as saying that my only issue with a department of ed. reform is that I think having a department dedicated to such is quite ridiculous. Frankly, it seems rather faddish and gratuitous. Although I respect AERA, I’m not under the impression that accepted manuscripts are automatically fantastic (not that you’re suggesting that either); statistical inaccuracies seem to get past the peer review process rather easily (at least in AERJ and Ed. Researcher). Regardless of one’s views, the possibility of a funding bias is always important to keep in mind.
AERA is generally seen as producing high impact, high quality journals, and that is what I am mainly referring to.
Funding should be listed in any peer-reviewed journal article if the funding is given to a specific project. The problem is when a large gift is given to found a department or organization. That funding isn’t usually listed in journal articles’ acknowledgement sections because it isn’t seen as directly funding that research.
Funding biases are important to note… I just haven’t figured out a way to determine whether one exists or not, beyond a careful reading and evaluation of each manuscript for its own merits. It is important to remember, though, that pretty much every educational research study can be rightly criticized, due to the difficulty of doing gold-standard experimental research in authentic educational environments. As a result, a careful reading and evaluation must involve separating normal research limitations from an ulterior motive. This is usually best accomplished when looking at the discussion and implication sections to see if they “reach” beyond what the data says to make conclusions that aren’t founded on the data. That is where you can see ideology. And its true in everyone’s manuscripts, mine included ;). That is why I try to have outside readers look over my work to make sure that they catch those things before going to peer review.
Thanks for the conversation!
Good discussion indeed denbeck! I also have high regard for AERA and its journals. My experience outside of my “Joe Nashville” persona is that researchers who are worth their salt tend to be open about the limitations and delimitations of their studies. However, there seems to be a tendency for overgeneralization in education (perhaps an overgeneralization on my part).
At least two things in AERA journals that often seem to be missing (although not always) include (but are not limited to) accounting for how one’s data met the required assumptions for a particular statistical test, as well as reporting effect sizes. I’m particularly concerned about research where nothing is mentioned with regard to the required assumptions of statistical tests (parametric tests such as various types of ANOVA for example), and I fear there may be many peer reviewed publications that are laden with Type I and Type II errors. Many articles seem not to mention these assumptions (particularly homoscedasticity). I read something a few months ago about an inverse relationship between sample sizes and effect sizes a few months ago (something by Slavin if I remember correctly), but the reporting of effect sizes should be done nonetheless.
I think it is vitally important to note that data and evidence are not always one and the same. Furthermore, data are only as good as the means by which they were collected. Recently, I dealt with an instrument where the Cronbach’s Alpha of one of the subscales was shamefully low, and the mean inter-item correlation was no better; we had to throw that out.
With regard to experiments, the random assignment issue concerns me. Sure, we can set up an experiment with random assignment, but this is most likely not practical in a K-12 setting. Quasi-experimental research can be conducted too, but the lack of random assignment is a concern. What to do…
I happen to know one of the authors, in fact I had a conversation with him about the study last summer at a local bar. The result was a foregone conclusion before the study was begun. That’s the way it’s done when you are on the Walton payroll.
Go ahead, Joe Nathan, Harlan Underhill, tell me that ain’t so.
Sorry, michaellangford 2012 I’m not which study you are referring to.
Because you got so involved in your argument, you lost track of what Diane’s original post was about. It was about Gene Glass’s criticism of a study done by the U of A Department of Education Reform.
But, really, you of all people should understand what it is like to take money from a gigantic corporate foundation, and then be expected to produce results that serve your corporate masters.
For what it’s worth, we have publicly disagreed with some of our funders. For example, I have written and testified against vouchers which some of the groups that have funded us support.
I too, would be interested in knowing which study you are referring to.
ibid.
I honestly haven’t followed every nuance of the argument (why should I?), but the original post from Diane Ravitch was about a study performed at the U of A Department of Education Reform, and a critique of said study written by Gene Glass. So, yes, that is the study I referred to. And, yes, I had a first-hand conversation with one of the authors, while you merely have an opinion…
It’s really great that you had a conversation with one of the authors, but I actually work with them, day in and day out (I work in a different department in the same college). So my opinion is a bit more informed than someone who is citing a single conversation on which to base their entire opinion.
And to make it clear, my opinion is this – like most educational researchers, they are subject to the same limitations that authentic educational research requires. And they are subject to the same potential biases that all humans (including you and me) have. And despite this, they have produced some quality research. Is it all high quality? No. But what department at ANY college of education can boast that all of their research is high quality? The answer is none, as in no one, anywhere, can make that boast.
That is why I read NEPC work and Dept of Ed Reform work and anyone elses’ work with the same critical eye. Yet I read it with more than just a critical disposition, I also seek to be inspired by it. Which, by the way, should be our goal in all things. To critique and to be inspired (see the recent NY Times editorial on this topic).
Are the faculty in the Dept of Ed Reform perfect and always produce completely unbiased research? Of course not! Do they attempt to do so, yet sometimes allow their own personal beliefs and biases to get in the way of how they phrase their discussion and implications? Yes. Does that make them any worse than researchers at any other College of Education? Of course not.
I’ll have to admit that I went back to the original article in my copy of Educational Researcher (43), 37-44. I even noticed that I had previously highlighted certain parts of the article. Coincidentally, this issue even has a special section regarding quality educational research. I have at least two biases of my own that I’d like to note: (1) I want to like the article since I’m a fan of the arts and Eisner, and (2) I don’t want to like the article based on my views of the Walton Foundation and Ed. Reform (or at least its connotation).
In reviewing the article, it seems pretty solid (assuming the data were not manipulated to reach a foregone conclusion, which would be unethical). When I read the author bios and saw the “dept. of ed. reform,” I thought, “Yikes…” However, it would be interesting to replicate their study (minus the same funding source) in another state, and with a different museum, while using the same instrument (from Luke et al., 2007) and analytical methods.
I looked a bit deeper into the actual study, and it would be difficult to prove that data were manipulated to arrive at the conclusion. Instead, the children were manipulated, call it coaching or neuro-linguistic programming or teaching-to-the test, whatever.
Obviously, the museum is pretty damned impressive, especially for a bunch of provincial kids from backwater Arkansas. So, no, there’s little chance that the study was truly objective. It was designed to justify Crystal Bridges, and the largesse of grants which bring school groups for museum visits.
I’m impressed by the art, who wouldn’t be. It still doesn’t hide the backstory: Alice Walton was DWI, and committed manslaughter, then was essentially asked to leave Arkansas. She moved to Texas for several years, and literally bought her way back into Arkansas by building a museum for her private art collection.
Seems to me like you already have your mind made up about things. They are evil and not to be trusted. Any other evidence to the contrary, thus should be dismissed. Thus, although you readily admit that there most likely was no data manipulation, you move on in your “argument” to attack their character, the character of the Waltons, and the character of the state of Arkansas.
Your attitude about the state of Arkansas, in particular, is reprehensible (and mystifying considering you are an Arkansas native). It has its flaws, of course, but is better off than many states. Northwest Arkansas now has an art museum that ranks in the top 20 in the U.S. and is better for it. It is far from being considered “backwater.” Why not be happy for the state and what it has gained, rather than do nothing but tear it down? What has Arkansas ever done to you?
Basically, there are two political power bases in Arkansas, old money central, new money northwest. (Or, Stephens and Walton, if you prefer names.) The remainder of the state continues to decline economically as resources are sold off by the powers. We are, practically, a third-world economy.
The remainder of the traditional south looks much the same, economically challenged and racially divided.
I have watched the business districts of too many small towns dry up in the wake of Wal*Mart moving in, followed by school consolidation.
Education reform, laissez faire, will re-segregate our schools, and take the low-hanging fruit of public money for private investors. (Farewell the noble effort at Central High, and the equity established by Lake View vs. Ark.) The department of education reform is merely a vehicle for giving away our public schools, and I find it outrageous that the University of Arkansas is willing to sponsor such calumny.
btw, Alice Walton really did run down and kill a man who was innocently checking his mail, as she was driving home drunk from a party. She did a wee bit of community service, and then moved to Texas. Her return to Arkansas was co-incident with the Crystal Bridges development, for which she received a special waiver of sales taxes from the legislature. That’s history, and is as an attack on privilege, not character.
I consider myself fortunate to live in Arkansas, but certainly don’t owe the Waltons any thanks for that.
Well, michaellangford2012 and denbeck, I’d be interested in seeing if the results could be replicated in another study by using the methods outlined in their article. It could make for interesting research.
The institutional issue is that replication will not generally result in publication. Unfortunately there are few incentives to replicate work.
Agreed. Although with the current bias in journals toward novel research, I doubt it would get published. Replication in research is desirable, but not by journal editors
Maybe or maybe not denbeck and teachingeconomist. The study referenced (Bowen et al., 2014) made use of an instrument developed specifically for assessing critical thinking in an art museum (Luke et al., 2007).
I share your concern with regard to publishing biases. If not a replication, then perhaps a similar experiment (it was a published experiment) could be conducted. Replications aside, if studies regarding a similar topic were not conducted, there would probably be fewer meta analyses.
While I don’t like to spend my time on research that I doubt will have a chance of being published by a targeted journal, that’s not necessarily a reason not to do the research (unless your in a strictly publish or perish situation…). It could make for a good paper presentation or even a poster. At the very least, I wouldn’t mind seeing somebody replicate it in a dissertation (although that’s not nearly the same…).
When I have seen published replications (admittedly few), there is usually something uniquely different from the original (e.g., a different population) while replicating the research methods used.
yikes! I mean “…unless *you’re* in a strictly publish or perish situation…”
“Take the heirs of Sam Walton, the founder of Wal-Mart. None of them have founded Wal-Mart… None of them were created equal either. The six of them have more than $140 billion of wealth. That makes those six people wealthier than the bottom 40 percent of Americans combined” “Wealth inequality…often comes from just being born with a silver spoon in your mouth.”
“How the Wal-Mart Heirs Got Their Wealth”
http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/11/how-the-wal-mart-heirs-got-their-wealth/
The saga of the Waltons (except the one who flew his PTSD plane straight down one day) is about a class — today’s capitalist class in the USA. In addition to this stuff, there are thousands of other examples of how they are going to buy and extend the apologetics to expand their wealth and power. How many engineers — in this era when STEM is supposedly the thing for children — were manipulated in Silicon Valley by four plutocrats in a game of thrones to maintain monopoly power there? While for the most part, the covers of celebrity “business” magazines were filled with their pictures and hagiographic biographies inside… Piketty’s Capital in the 21st Century is simply reminding us of what’s been true all along — once these guys (and gals) achieve monopoly power and wealth, they will buy the means — from armies to mayors to theologians posing as professors — to expand it.
Sam Walton grew up with a silver spoon in his mouth? You might want to check your history…
As for why edreform uses a different website, it is much more pragmatic than that. We are stuck with an old content management system for all of our university-authored pages. As you can see from looking at other pages on the colleges’ site, the results are less than spectacular. So they keep their own website in order to present a high quality website – nothing nefarious about that.
Just thought I’d add two quotes to the discussion of purported global warming taken from one of the summaries on the Berkeley Earth web site.
“While few expect the pause to persist much longer, it has raised some questions about the growing divergence between observed temperatures and those predicted by climate models.”
And: “As with many things in science, there is still significant uncertainty surrounding climate sensitivity, and different approaches can obtain fairly different results. However, the longer the pause continues the more people will begin to question whether GCMs are getting either multi-decadal variability or climate sensitivity wrong. What is clear is that there is still much we don’t understand about the many different factors impacting the Earth’s climate system, especially over periods as short as a decade.”
These statements seem honest to me, while the author still accepts the basic apparent significant rise in global temperature over the last 100 years or so.
Without giving up his BELIEF in the significance of the apparent rise in temperature, he is quite clear that there is still a debate about why there is a pause.
Such measured doubt does not characterize Bob’s statements nor those of many others. To pretend that global warming is a fact, first of all, and second that it is anthropogenic, is to go beyond what we actually KNOW. To use phrases such as “climate change deniers” thus becomes ideological and political dispute, rather than scientific debate.
It’s fine for anyone to BELIEVE that the earth is undergoing global warming, but to assert that that is the case as FACT goes well beyond what at least this scientist from the Berkeley Earth site does.
HONESTY requires that we here simply say “we don’t know for sure.”