The Next Generation Science Standards: A Model of Mediocrity


I suggest that this is the crux of the matter! The matter of meaningful and effective education which surely is becoming more and more obviously destroyed, or at the very least, weakened. Even adulterated, by political influences and other agendas.

There are many reasons to question the path being followed by American culture and its global behaviour, but education lies at the foot of the future and that is the matter at hand.

Is this a problem for Australians to consider? As we historically follow American ways without independent consideration of our own issues and responsibilities, it seems likely! There may be logical reasons for such subservience, but the consequences should not be ignored.  Compromises are always an option.

In this case of science education, how should this trend be assessed? Is it natural evolution in education mistakenly considered to be a progressive improvement by inadequate people, or is it a deliberate ‘dumbing down’ of society? There has to be a logical reason for the retrograde trend.

From ‘Truth in American Education‘, this article by

The newest wave of national, top-down standards is the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), now adopted in 14 states.  While there are some outspoken critics of NGSS, the outcry has not been as loud as that against the math and English language arts common core standards, most likely because science standards do not cause angst at the dinner table in the evenings between parents and kids like the fuzzy math of common core.

The NGSS are performance rather than content standards.  This means that projects rule the day, allowing the teacher to be more of a “guide on the side” who oversees group projects.  Actual knowledge of content is not the goal of NGSS, which is a chief concern among critics of NGSS.  Furthermore, the NGSS are severely deficient in high school sciences that would support science, technology, math and engineering (STEM) fields.

Here are some of the glaring problems with the NGSS:

  • There are not enough chemistry standards for a stand-alone high school chemistry course.

  • High school physics is absent.

  • The high school engineering standards would require some high school physics and higher level mathematics than is expected in the aligned common core math standards; therefore, the engineering standards are low level.

  • The human body is missing.

  • Essential life science concepts are absent, such as “bacteria” and “virus”; cytology (design and function of cells) is woefully lacking with no mention of protein structure or functions, cellular feedback mechanisms, or cell and tissue types.

  • Practical everyday science, such as electrical circuits, is given only brief mention in the lower grade levels, while the more politically charged subject of climate change is very prominent.

  • More than 50% of the science standards have an “assessment boundary” which specifically state what will not or should not be tested, creating a teach-to-the-test mentality.

  • More than 90% of the standards have a “clarification statement” which reads like a Standards for Dummies explanation on how exactly to teach the standard, including what to say to students and which examples to provide (detailed prompting).

  • Evolution is given prominence in the standards, to the exclusion of other important content.

  • Many of the standards are based on junk science, too many scientific assumptions, and correlational studies.

  • The Thomas B. Fordham Institute conducted a review of the NGSS and 55 sets of other standards from around the country.  While Fordham would be expected to rate the NGSS highly because of their prior defense of common core, they rated NGSS as 26th in the total list of 56 standards.  Translation:  NGSS are just average.   Mediocre

The complete article is linked here.

A relevant reference:

Posted in AGENDA 21, Science, World Issues | Tagged , , | 5 Comments

130 German scientists skeptical of UN IPCC and the global warming agenda


A balancing of the ‘consensus ledger’.
The claim of 97% consensus on man-made warming being a danger is totally unsupportable scientifically.
There are hundreds of scientists qualified to make valid judgments who are highly critical of the ‘war’ on CO2.
Here are some of them.

budbromley

Open Letter – Climate Change (translated from German)

Bundeskanzleramt

Frau Bundeskanzerlin Dr. Angela Merkel

Willy-Brandt-Strabe 1

10557 Berlin

Vizerprasident
Dipl. Ing. Michael Limburg
14476 Grob Glienicke
Richard-Wagner-Str. 5a

E-mail: limburg@grafik-system.de

Grob Glienicke 26.07.09

To the attention of the Honorable Madam Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany

When one studies history, one learns that the development of societies is often determined by a zeitgeist, which at times had detrimental or even horrific results for humanity. History tells us time and again that political leaders often have made poor decisions because they followed the advice of advisors who were incompetent or ideologues and failed to recognize it in time. Moreover evolution also shows that natural development took a wide variety of paths with most of them leading to dead ends. No era is immune from repeating the mistakes of the past.

Politicians often launch their careers using a topic that allows them…

View original post 1,654 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | 8 Comments

Cannabis and our body


Plenty of health topics and posts on this blog, but nothing quite like this.

Comments from learned medical readers would be appreciated.

https://www.facebook.com/drbob.melamede

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

The vision of technocracy


An understanding of globalism. Easy to read and follow.
Simplified, but a good starting point for those not quite sure what is going on in this Orwellian world.
Knowing that this is reality is helpful for greater understanding.

Jon Rappoport's Blog

The vision of technocracy

by Jon Rappoport

May 24, 2017

“Well, boys, we’ve got this strange thing called THE INDIVIDUAL. Could somebody tell me what he is? He’s not conforming to our algorithms. He’s all over the place. And while we’re at it, what the hell is this IMAGINATION? It keeps slipping out of our grasp, it doesn’t fit the plan…”

PART ONE

—Technocrats say they want to wipe out poverty, war, and inequality. But in order to achieve these lofty goals (or pretend to), they need to re-program humans—

Technocracy is the basic agenda and plan for ruling global society from above, so we need to understand it from several angles.

Consider a group of enthusiastic forward-looking engineers in the early 20th century. They work for a company that has a contract to manufacture a locomotive.

This is a highly complex piece of equipment.

On one level, workers are…

View original post 1,328 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments

Study: Brainwash the Next Generation to Promote Climate Action


” We know humans are causing climate change. That is a fact that has been known for well over 100 years. ”
This says it all – a blatant lie!
Educate yourself.

Watts Up With That?

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Greens have finally worked out how to promote climate action: Create more greens, by “ingraining” children with their worldview.

Study: inspiring action on climate change is more complex than you might think

People have to grasp how climate change impacts them, and we need to value environmentally sound behavior

John Abraham
Friday 19 May 2017 20.00 AEST

We know humans are causing climate change. That is a fact that has been known for well over 100 years. We also know that there will be significant social and economic costs from the effects. In fact, the effects are already appearing in the form of more extreme weather, rising sea levels, ocean acidification, and so on.

So why haven’t humans done much about the problem? Answering that question may be more challenging than the basic science of a changing climate. Fortunately, a new review just out in…

View original post 506 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Two Competing Narratives on Carbon Dioxide


Worth reading, and thinking about!
“So is carbon dioxide our friend or our foe? As set out above, in some ways it is (or could be) the one and in some ways it is (or could be) the other. The vast majority of the public not only do not understand these scientific differences, they positively don’t want to have to understand these scientific differences. As Richard Lindzen has said, ‘Most arguments about global warming boil down to science versus authority. For much of the public authority will generally win since they do not wish to deal with the science.’ Instead they will form their view on the climate change debate almost exclusively on how they feel about it based primarily on the narrative spun in the media (a narrative that is utterly dominated by the propaganda of the climate change alarmists). As Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf, ‘The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.’ This is why endlessly repeated simplistic soundbites like ‘climate change is man-made and dangerous’ and ‘the science is settled’ and ‘97% of scientists agree’ have been so powerful. Is there any real truth in these statements? It doesn’t matter – just keep repeating them.”

Watts Up With That?

Is carbon dioxide our friend or our foe?

Guest essay by Iain Aitken

Here is a dossier of key facts about carbon dioxide (and its role in global warming):

· It is an incombustible, colourless, odourless, tasteless and non-toxic gas

· It is a plant nutrient and, as the ‘fuel’ of photosynthesis and the creation of oxygen, it is absolutely essential to the existence of life on Earth

· Its fertilisation effect has meant that, thanks to our anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions increasing concentrations in the atmosphere, crop yields have improved dramatically to date and will continue to improve in the future

· It is a weak greenhouse gas

· Global warming precedes, and then causes, increases in carbon dioxide emissions

· Most global warming experienced since 1950 can be attributed to natural climate variability, rather than enhanced greenhouse gas warming from anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. Furthermore the rate of…

View original post 1,485 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Politics Disguised as Science: When to Doubt a Scientific ‘Consensus’


Makes a lot of sense.

When we see public marches supporting some scientific issue, it suggests a degree of desperation. One wonders what could possibly be wrong with the “science” if it does not stand proudly on its own merits?

Too many people are able to see when science is being adulterated and used for a  political agenda and it is apparently hoped that public marches will counter their influence.

Science has its logical basis and departures from logic cannot be ignored.

From ‘The Stream

Anyone who has studied the history of science knows that scientists are not immune to the non-rational dynamics of the herd.

This week’s March for Science is odd. Marches are usually held to defend something that’s in peril. Does anyone really think big science is in danger? The mere fact that the March was scheduled for Earth Day betrays what the event is really about: politics. The organizers admitted as much early on, though they’re now busy trying to cover the event in sciencey camouflage.

If past is prologue, expect to hear a lot about the supposed “consensus” on catastrophic climate change this week. The purpose of this claim is to shut up skeptical non-scientists.

How should non-scientists respond when told about this consensus? We can’t all study climate science. But since politics often masquerades as science, we need a way to tell one from the other.

“Consensus,” according to Merriam-Webster, means both “general agreement” and “group solidarity in sentiment and belief.” That sums up the problem. Is this consensus based on solid evidence and sound logic, or social pressure and groupthink?

When can you doubt a consensus? Your best bet is to look at the process that produced, defends and transmits the supposed consensus.

Anyone who has studied the history of science knows that scientists are prone to herd instincts. Many false ideas once enjoyed consensus. Indeed, the “power of the paradigm” often blinds scientists to alternatives to their view. Question the paradigm, and some respond with anger.

We shouldn’t, of course, forget the other side of the coin. There are cranks and conspiracy theorists. No matter how well founded a scientific consensus, there’s someone who thinks it’s all hokum. Sometimes these folks turn out to be right. But often, they’re just cranks whose counsel is best ignored.

So how do we distinguish, as Andrew Coyne puts it, “between genuine authority and mere received wisdom? And how do we tell crankish imperviousness to evidence from legitimate skepticism?” Do we have to trust whatever we’re told is based on a scientific consensus unless we can study the science ourselves? When can you doubt a consensus? When should you doubt it?

Your best bet is to look at the process that produced, defends and transmits the supposed consensus. I don’t know of any complete list of signs of suspicion. But here’s a checklist to decide when you can, even should, doubt a scientific “consensus,” whatever the subject. One of these signs may be enough to give pause. If they start to pile up, then it’s wise to be leery.

Read the whole article here. It is most educational.

Posted in AGENDA 21, AGW, Conspiracies, ENVIRONMENT, Human Behaviour, Science | Tagged , , | 7 Comments

CO2 ≠ Pollutant


Some impressive facts for alarmists to think about.
Perhaps the eugenics enthusiasts have got it right, if humans are in fact the biggest CO2 sources of all?
But only if CO2 is in fact a pollutant, which it is scientifically proven not to be.
At last the facts are becoming clearer for the public to understand.
Soon the whole truth will be understood.

Science Matters

My university degree is a Bachelors in Organic Chemistry from Stanford. For that and other reasons, it always annoyed me that some lawyers decided CO2 can be called a “pollutant”, all the while exhaling the toxic gas themselves.

This nonsense forms the root of all the ridiculous regulations that POTUS ordered reviewed and rescinded yesterday. Thus I agree completely with this Wall Street Journal article by Paul Tice Trump’s Next Step on Climate Change. Full text below.

Reconsider the EPA’s labeling of carbon dioxide as a pollutant, based on now-outdated science.

By PAUL H. TICE
March 28, 2017 6:41 p.m. ET

The executive orders on climate change President Trump signed this week represent a step in the right direction for U.S. energy policy and, importantly, deliver on Mr. Trump’s campaign promise to roll back burdensome regulations affecting American companies. But it will take more than the stroke of a…

View original post 810 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Microwave Ovens – Safety Issues


From ‘Healthy Food House‘ information that should be available to all households.

You Know Microwaves Are Bad For You But This Is What You Didn’t Know

An extract from the article,

Dr. Hans Hertel, a Swiss biologist, and food scientist conducted a study to examine the effects of microwaved food. Participants lived in a controlled environment and intermittently ate raw foods, conventionally cooked foods, and microwaved foods for 8 weeks.

After meals, researchers tested the blood samples of participants, and tests showed that the blood chemistry has been drastically changed due to the microwaved food.

Hans Hertel states:

“There are no atoms, molecules or cells of any organic system able to withstand such a violent, destructive power for any extended period of time, not even in the low energy range of milliwatts…

This is how microwave cooking heat is generated – friction from this violence in water molecules. Structures of molecules are torn apart, molecules are forcefully deformed (called structural isomerism) and thus become impaired in quality.”

Microwaves work with all water molecules they can come across, and due to this, the food is often unevenly heated, as some foods contain higher water amounts.

Researchers at Stanford University examined the effects of microwaves on breast milk. According to one of the head scientist,

“Microwaving human milk, even at a low setting, can destroy some of its important disease-fighting capabilities.”

They state that microwaving causes numerous alter changes in the milk besides heating.

In 1991, the Oklahoma hospital was sued after the death of a patient after receiving blood that was heated in a microwave oven.

As a result of the negative effects of microwave ovens on the health, they have been banned in Russia since 1976.

These are the detrimental effects of these ovens:

Read the complete article here.

Here we have the potential food-related dangers, part of the total risk scenario.

Leakages from the equipment, claimed to be safely constrained and tested to be so on new equipment, could be a problem on any slightly damaged door sealing instance. There are no obvious requirements to have microwave ovens officially tested for leakages so this is surely a “grey area”.

Of course, the claims by the manufacturers and its supporters strongly counter what is in this post, so there is a need to research it all to reach some sensible conclusion. Not so easy as there is a great deal of available information, most of it technical.

One website revealed by internet searching seems to be comprehensive and unbiassed,

LessEMF.com” offers several related documents:

Microwave Oven Radiations Hazards & Standards

My personal, suspicious inclination, favours safety first and puts vested-interest viewpoints second.

The fact that Russia has investigated and has banned microwave ovens is significant, along with their opposition to GMO foods which may be partly political but only partly. Russia has a keen eye on its citizen’s well-being with promotion of organic products and awareness of potential vaccine dangers.

To accentuate the danger side of this issue, and to reveal one source of influence on my decision making, the above reference contains the following “cherry-picked” section in the form of a ‘TGR’ page.

The Proven Dangers of Microwaves  ( https://tgrule.com/nuclear-radiation/the-proven-dangers-of-microwaves/ )

Posted in HEALTH, radiation | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

New climate skeptic book will set the record straight


It is not easy to counter the blatant propaganda of the global warming alarmists and their willing promoters and followers. The power and presence of their marketing expertise has created something of a juggernaut. Why should it be accepted at face value?
This book is part of a substantial amount of valid scientific and related information establishing the “settled science” and “95% scientists agree” claims to be simply lies.
The ‘climate change’ movement, supported by so many people and organizations, believed by so many with religious fanaticism because they are unwilling to allow doubts into their thought processes.
Doubts that are in fact, essential to rational decision making. The warmists are concerned for the future of the planet because of their fears of global warming. Fears of pollution in general are well founded but including CO2 in that category is wrong.
People will one day realize that they actually needed to fear the administration processes promoting and implementing the ‘climate change’ program.
This post, the reviewed informative book and the WUWT blog, all provide convincing information and guidance.

Watts Up With That?

CLIMATE CHANGE: THE FACTS 2017 is to be published in June 2017. I’m happy to say that I’m an author of a chapter.

This work is dedicated to the late Professor Bob Carter, who dedicated his life to truth and openness in the climate debate. This is the second volume of this book, the first being published in 2015 and available here.

The Institute of Public Affairs in Australia is bringing together some of the leading experts in the field including:

Peter RIDD, Roy SPENCER, Nicola SCAFETTA, Ian PLIMER, Wilie SOON, Sallie BALIUNAS, Jo NOVA, Anthony WATTS, Matt RIDLEY and Bjørn LOMBORG.

Editor: Dr. Jennifer MAROHASY.

Advance notices will go out when it is available, to register your interest go to
http://thefacts2017.ipa.org.au and provide your email address, and you’ll be notified when available.

View original post

Posted in AGW, climate change, ENVIRONMENT, Science | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment