Floods, Alberta and Climate Change

Between Wednesday and today, southern Alberta experienced over 250 mm of rain – equivalent to an entire year of rainfall. Needless to say, flooding is extensive with over 100,000 persons evacuated and the downtown of the City of Calgary is closed. The Calgary Stampede grounds – home of the biggest outdoor event on earth (due to be held just two weeks from now) is submerged. A state of emergency has been declared, three are known to be dead and the army is en route to help.

To the West the Town of Canmore, where I spend a month or so each year to write, is cut off, with all major roads to the Town unfit for use with one of the nations most major highways damaged and in need of radical repair. Many river side or creek side houses are damaged beyond repair.

It is a disaster. One of the most major disasters in Alberta history – ranking alongside the Tornado which hit Edmonton in 1987, though this had many more deaths (27).

Right now the focus is on seeking to ensure that there is no further loss of life, to provide shelter, food and clothing for those displaced and to care for the animals affected.

Next attention will turn to recovery, restoring some sense of normalcy and demonstrating how resilient communities can be. In particular, there will be a need to rebuild infrastructure - roads, bridges, power supplies.

Then we will start to understand what needs to be done to repair the damage and protect against the next severe weather event.

Sometime soon there will be an attempt made to explain these floods in terms of manmade climate change. But the science doesn’t support this explanation. In fact, the science focuses on cycles of natural occurring and competing phenomenon (including shifts in ocean circulation patterns, cloud formation and sun spots) and the building of property on flood plains, recovered wetlands and other “at risk” zones. The extent of damage to property and community is due more to planning decisions and building designs rather than man made climate change.

No doubt, links will be made between oil sands development, climate change and extreme weather events. But even Al Gore laments that the science does not enable him to claim that climate change and extreme weather events are linked. An IPCC report on this exact matter came to this conclusion. While there is a political interest in this link, it is not scientifically sound to make one.

Rather than engaging in fantasy science, it would be better for us to spend our energy and use our skills to care for those who need practical help right now.

A Sad Case of Opportunism

Anyone who watched television and saw the devastation in Oklahoma this past week-end cannot help but be moved, especially by the sad loss of children. For a region used to such extreme weather events over its history, it is still a shock each time it occurs.

Sadly, however, this tragic event has created a storm of ideologically driven statements about how the underlying cause of the devastation is climate change - something that couldn't be further from the truth.

All of those who have spent their careers studying extreme weather events agree with the IPCC assessment that there is not an established link between climate, CO2 and the frequency and severity of tornadoes. Anyone who says that there is such a link has not ready the science, seen the systematic reviews of the literature or understands the dynamics of climate.

Yet we have Senator Boxer declaring that "this is climate change" and that "CO2 could cost us the planet". She goes on to say "the scientists all agreed that what we’d start to see was extreme weather" - which is not true. The IPCC systematic review of this issue suggests something quite different. The IPCC SREX report concluded that there is no evidence that warming is increasing extreme weather, droughts, floods, hurricanes, etc. and no evidence of a human fingerprint on such extremes. In fact, the data shows such extremes have decreased over time, even though CO2 has been rising.

So, expect more of this. Rather than focusing on questions like "why wasnt there a shelter in the elementary school?" we will, if we are not careful, be distracted by spurious claims about science and climate which cannot be supported by evidence.

Science in the Dock: Experts, Climate Change and Evidence

Some facts that get in the way of climate change alarmist thinking:

Not Warming: The Hadley Centre/CRU records show no warming for 18 years (v.3) or 19 years (v.4), and the RSS satellite dataset shows no warming for 23 years (h/t to Werner Brozek for determining these values). This is accepted by the Chairman of the IPCC as reported here.

Not Warming as Much as Anticipated: “The earth may warm at a slightly slower rate in coming decades than scientists were predicting six years ago, according to a paper published on Sunday by researchers from Oxford university, Nasa and nearly a dozen other institutions.” See review here.

Rate of Warming Due to CO2: Many peer-reviewed scientific papers have been published lowering the so-called 'climate sensitivity' to CO2 to a mere 0.5-1.6C per doubling of CO2, less than half of what was previously believed.  Thus, at the current rate of CO2 increase, it would take 200 years for CO2 to double for a mere 0.5-1.6C warming, which is nothing to worry about and likely beneficial.

Good News About CO2: Many peer-reviewed scientific papers have also demonstrated that CO2 is greening the planet. One published recently noted an 11% increase in green cover over arid areas due to CO2 fertilization over the past 30 years.

Sea Levels Not Rising: According to the NOAA 2012 sea level budget, sea levels are rising at a mere 1.1-1.3 mm/yr, less than 5 inches per century, less than the average rate of rise over the past 18,000 years. According to a paper published in the Journal of Climate by JM Gregory et al (with 14 other top international sea level experts) in Dec 2012, there is no evidence of an anthropogenic (man-made) influence on sea levels, and no evidence of any acceleration of sea level rise over the 20th century.

Sea Levels Not Rising 2: There has been no acceleration the rate of sea level rise. Sea level has been rising for centuries. But the rate of the rise has not changed a whole lot. Both tidal stations and satellites show no increase in the historic rate of sea level rise, in either the short or long term.  Up until about the end of 2004, there was little change in the rate of sea level rise. Since then the rise has slowed down. The average (dark blue line) does not stray far from the trend (black line) up until 1994. Since then, it is well below the projected trend (gray line). We were supposed to be seeing some kind of big acceleration in the sea level rise caused by increased CO2. Instead, we are seeing a decrease in the rate of sea level rise. So the first claim, that increasing CO2 will cause increased rates of sea level rise, is not supported by the evidence.

Extreme Weather Not Linked to Climate Change: The UN IPCC SREX report concluded that there is no evidence that warming is increasing extreme weather, droughts, floods, hurricanes, etc. and no evidence of a human fingerprint on such extremes. In fact, the data shows such extremes have decreased.

Small Islands Growing Not Sinking: A recent study of small islands in the Pacific, which you can read a summary of here, the islands are growing not sinking with many increasing in size significantly. Of the 27 islands studied, only four had diminished in size. Some are expanding to the point at which new airports are being built.

Climate Scientists Challenge Climate Scientists: The following statement is made by a lead author for the IPCC, Hans Von Storch:

“Unfortunately in climate science there is a tendency to proclaim absolute truths and to link these immediately to instructions on actions to take,’ von Storch said. ‘The climate pope tells us what has to be done, and for the people it’s: keep your mouths shut. Scientists have been taking over the roles of medicine men and priests. That’s not the job of scientists. Science is supposed to help understand problems, show the possibilities that exist in dealing with them. The best is to show many possibilities. Then the political process has to decide the path to take.’

But some of his colleagues in science like to use ‘stories that point to a catastrophe,’ said the professor of meteorology. One example was the assumption that our region would see ‘murderous violent storms’. But there was no data showing this. ‘It all has a cultural, anthropological background’ . ‘If you sin, then you will be punished. And the punishment always takes on an environmental dimension which also included storms in the past. In former times it was God’s punishment. Today it’s punishment by Nature. Nature is to keep man in check. And for this we see idiotic films like ‘The Day After Tomorrow.’’

With ‘snappy’ and short statements like ‘snow will be a thing of the past’, the loud speakers among the scientists are putting the credibility of science at stake.’”

More info on Hans von Storch here. He also runs the climate blogklimazwiebel.de and is co-author of the recently released book: The Climate Trap: The Dangerous Proximity of Politics and Climate Science.

When we start to unpick all of this, we are back to my concerns about "experts" - see the blog post earlier this week about experts - and the nature of science.

Education in the US - Time for Mindful Action

Many years ago one of my University Professors, Stanley Bertram Chrimes (1907 – 1984), suggested that it was perfectly possible to get an excellent high school education in the US – it just took four years of University studies to do it. This was before the OECD’s international rankings of school system performance began to appear. Scores from the 2009 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) showed  15-year-old students in the U.S. performing about average in reading and science, and below average in math. Out of 34 countries, the U.S. ranked 14th in reading, 17th in science and 25th in math. In contrast, Canada ranked 6^th in reading, 8^th in science and 10^th in mathematics.

Why does the US do so poorly? There are several reasons, but these five strike me as critical:

•          The education system in the US is a market based economy focused on costs and management not learning and outcomes. There is little consistency of approach across the US States and districts. The key driver appears to be costs and control.
•         There is not a tight-loose system which enables professional teachers to excel. The clearest example of this relates to curriculum. Some districts have a very prescribed curriculum, in others teachers are free to create their own. This dimension of prescription to total freedom is unusual. In high performing systems there is a prescribed curriculum framework within which teachers are encouraged to create appropriate pedagogy. The US has yet to discover just how powerful this can be and, perhaps more tellingly, how it can implement this tight-loose system.
•          The range of ability and challenge of poverty is a serious impairment to high performance. When we look at the PISA data closely, we see that the US has a much high level of variance between schools in performance. Equity is a challenge.
•          Disparities between regions of the US and districts within States are substantial. For example, Catholic educators in many jurisdictions do not receive State support for their schools. Yet in Canada, Catholic students receive basically the same funding as all other students for their learning. The difference between wealthy states and poor states in terms of support for schooling is considerable.
•          There is a stronger focus on “shiny objects” – new approaches, technology, fads and trends – in the US than in many other systems. Schools have been seduced by “the next thing” too many times.

If the US is to catch up and perform well in its school system it needs to focus on equity, a curriculum framework and enhancing the ability of teachers and schools to make decisions. Its about  time.

Beware - Experts Abound. The Psychology of Experts and Their Work

When we think of “experts” we think of them as knowing, informed and more likely to be right than wrong about that in which they are expert. Macro economists who specialize in understanding the economic dynamics of nations must be better at understanding and predicting the economy of a nation (especially one they have studied in depth) than the man in the street. Climatologists must understand the dynamics of the climate and are able to predict the future climate.

It turns out that this assumption of “knowing” experts is problematic. Experts in the stock market are often no better than a dice thrower at predicting the future of a stock. In a systematic study of hundreds of trades it was found that the stocks that traders sold did significantly better than the stocks that traders bought.

The psychologist Daniel Kahneman  who won the Nobel Prize in Economics for his work on decision making, has looked at the issue of “experts” and why they often get things wrong. In his new book Thinking Fast and Slow he points to several aspects of their psychology as factors, but highlights two: the illusion of understanding and the illusion of validity. These are primary causes of experts getting it wrong.

The illusion of understanding refers to the idea that the world is more knowable than it actually is. In particular, experts believe that they have an in-depth and insightful understanding of the past and this enables them to better understand the future. They use what Kahneman refers to as the WYSIATI rule – “what you see is all that there is” and this provides the basis for their confidence. For example, it must be the case that high levels of government indebtedness (levels of debt:GDP above 90% is the most recent version of this) stifle the economy and reduce investor and entrepreneurial confidence. Or it is obvious that human generated C02 is the major cause of climate change. Both of these understandings are based on a particular view of historical data and “facts” and an extrapolation of these views into the future.

The views exist independent of the evidence to support them. Just as financial advisers are confident that they are successful in predicting the future behaviour of stocks, so macro-economists are confident that their views of austerity have the weight of history behind them. Those committed to the view that human produced CO2 is the primary cause of climate change are not deterred by evidence that it may not be or that climate change has stalled for the last eighteen years.

Experts are sustained in their beliefs by a professional culture that supports them. Austerians have their own network of support as do they Keynesian who oppose them. Anthroprocene climatologists have their own network of support among climate change researchers and politicians while the skeptical climate scientists also have their networks. All remain ignorant of their ignorance and are sustained in their belief systems by selected use of evidence and by the support of stalwarts. These supportive networks and environments help sustain the illusion of validity. It is an illusion because evidence which demonstrates contrary views to those of the “experts” are dismissed and denied – the expert position, whatever it may be, is valid because they are expert.

Indeed, using Isaiah Berlin’s 1953 work on Tolstoy (The Hedgehog and the Fox) , austerians and climate experts are “hedgehogs” – they know one big thing, they know what they know within a coherent framework, they bristle with impatience towards those who don’t see things their way and they are exceptionally focused on their forecasts. For these experts a “failed prediction” is an issue of timing, the kind of evidence being adduced and so on – it is never due to the fact that their prediction is wrong. The same is true for macro economists  Austerians who look at the failure of their policies in Europe, for example, suggest that the austerity did not go far enough; anthroprocene climatologists see the lack of warming as proof that they are right, it is just that the timing is a little out.

Phillip Tetlock, in his powerful 2005 book Expert Political Judgement – How Good is it? How Can We Know? (Princeton University Press), demonstrated these illusions in a powerful way. He interviewed some 284 of the leading political pundits in the United States and documented over 80,000 predictions they may with confidence during his interviews. He then tracked what actually happened against these predictions.  The results were devastating. As Kahneman observes “people who spend their time, and earn their living, studying a particular topic produce poorer predictions than dart throwing monkeys”.

Tetlock observes that “experts in demand were more overconfident that those who eked our existences far from the limelight”. We can see this in spades in both economics and climate change. James Hanson, recently retired from NASA and seen to be one of the worlds leading athropocene climatologists, makes predictions and claims that cannot be supported by the evidence he himself collected and was responsible for. For example, he suggested that “in the last decade it's warmed only about a tenth of a degree as compared to about two tenths of a degree in the preceding decade” – a claim not supported by the GISTEMP data set. This overconfidence and arrogance comes from being regarded as one of the leading climate scientists in the world – evidence is not as important as the claim or the person making it. Hanson suffers from the illusion of skill.

Kahneman recognizes people like Hansen. He suggests

“..overconfident professionals sincerely believe they have expertise, act as experts and look like experts. You will have to struggle to remind yourself that they may be in the grip of an illusion.”  

There are other psychological features of the expert which are worthy of reflection. For example, how “group think” starts to permeate a discipline such that those outside the group cannot be heard as rational or meaningful – they are referred to as “deniers” or “outsiders”, reflecting the power of group think. The power of a group (they will claim consensus as if this ends scientific debate) to close ranks and limit the scope of conversation or act as gatekeepers for the conversation. Irving Janis documented the characteristics of group think in his 1982 study of policy disasters and fiascoes[i]. He suggests these features:

1. Illusion of invulnerability –Creates excessive optimism that encourages taking extreme risks. We can see this in the relentless pursuit of austerity throughout Europe.
2. Collective rationalization – Members discount warnings and do not reconsider their assumptions. We see this in relation to both climate change and austerity economics.
3. Belief in inherent morality – Members believe in the rightness of their cause and therefore ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions. Austerians appear to willfully ignore the level of unemployment and the idea of a lost generation of youth workers, especially in Greece and Spain. Anthropecene climate researchers always present themselves as morally superior.
4. Stereotyped views of out-groups – Negative views of “enemy” make effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary. Climate “deniers” and suggestions that they be prosecuted are not uncommon.
5. Direct pressure on dissenters – Members are under pressure not to express arguments against any of the group’s views. This has occurred in climate change research community, since grants appear to favour those who adopt the view that man made CO2 is the primary cause of climate change.
6. Self-censorship – Doubts and deviations from the perceived group consensus are not expressed.
7. Illusion of unanimity – The majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous. This is especially the case in “consensus” (sic) climate change science and amongst austerians.
8. Self-appointed ‘mindguards’ – Members protect the group and the leader from information that is problematic or contradictory to the group’s cohesiveness, view, and/or decisions.

- all of these characteristics can be seen to be in play in the two examples used throughout this short note.

There is also the issue of the focusing illusion. Kahneman sums this up in a single statement: “nothing in life is as important as you think it is when you are thinking about it”. “Government debt is the most important economic challenge facing society today” says a well known economists, or “climate change is a life and death issue” says US Secretary of State, John Kerry.  Neither of these statements are true for anyone unless they are obsessive. Society faces a great many challenges, much will depend on our own preoccupations and what focus one take for the concerns you have. Some are more concerned about the future of Manchester United or Chelsea football clubs than they are about debt, deficits or climate change. The illusion is that one person’s focus is, by definition, better than another’s because they are expert in this field.

The bottom line here: beware of experts, especially those who behave as if their focused illusion is the “ultimate truth” and they threaten dire consequences of failing to follow their predictive prescriptions. There is good evidence that they are likely to be wrong.

---

[i] Janis, Irving L.  (1982).  Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes.  Second Edition.  New York: Houghton Mifflin.

The Disappearing Consensus on Climate Change - A Week is a Long Time in the Politics of Climate Change Reporting...

A paper published this week (or more accurately a press release that accompanied it) seemed to suggest that 97.5% of all climate scientists who have published papers over the last decade (some 11,944 papers) agree that humans are the primary cause of climate change. The implication was that the science is settled. Even President Obama tweeted his “blessing” of this conclusion.

But things are not as they seem. First, 66% of all of the papers reviewed took no position whatsoever with respect to anthropocentric explanations of climate change – only 32.6 of the papers supported the general idea that humans cause climate change. That is 3,893 papers. For 0.7% of the papers, the human explanation was rejected and for a further 0.3% the suggestion was that the climate system is so complex we do not yet fully understand it.

But if we apply the criteria, suggested by the authors of the paper,  that humans must be the dominant cause of climate change for the reported claim to be true, we have a real problem. This occurs in just 65 of the papers. Do the math. That is 0.5% of the papers support the contention that humans are the primary cause of climate change.  Put this another way, more of the papers reject this explanation (75 papers or 0.6%) than support the strong hypothesis of humans being the dominant factor in climate change. You can read a detailed analysis of the data base here.

The worrying issue here is about our understanding of the nature of the scientific endeavor. If science was about consensus, then we would all be in trouble. It is not, it is about evidence, understanding and confirmation through theory and verification. The kind of paper that needs to exaggerate (being generous) so as to make a point stands in the face of scientific inquiry and is unbecoming.

Now lets get back to the practice of normal science.

Save Arts and Creative Education in Alberta

Alberta is home to Canada's largest concentration of Oscar nominees, holds the worlds fifth largest fringe festival, has more theatre's per capita than any other city in North America, has a world class Ballet company with an innovative Artistic Director (Jean Grand-Matre), one of its professional symphony orchestras played at Carnegie Hall this last year and we have rich cultural traditions...

What is more, the creative industries - design, architecture, arts and craft, the performing arts, fine arts, literature, creative technologies, film and television - are growing and are key to our quality of life.

Why then are programs in schools which support them being cut? Why are after school programs so essential to build capacity and develop skills being cut? Why do we se mathematics as more important than dance or music? Why isnt everyone being taught design at every grade, K-12?

What is our fantasy about our economy? Do we not recognize that mindfulness and compassion, creativity and imagination, care and commitment are as important as engineering and science?

Watch this very short video to get my take.

Moving from Accountability to Assurance in Alberta Schools - The RIght Thing to Do

The public, through Government, invest in education at schools, colleges and universities. For colleges and universities we appear satisfied with generalized documents offering assurance – strategy documents, annual reports, reports to the community, some data on outcomes. But for schools, we have insisted on testing and test data reporting, league tables and various forms of intervention for “failing schools”.

Lets us take on part of the world – Alberta – and look at what we have been doing in terms of accountability.

For many years (since the early 1980’s) we have tested students at Grades 3, 6 and 9 on what are known as Provincial Achievement Tests (PAT’s) and reported these data school by school, district by district. This enables communities and parents to compare their schools against others and also to see whether a school is improving, failing or coasting. Since Alberta is amongst the leading jurisdictions in the English speaking world according to the OECD assessments, these PAT’s have been regarded by many as holding the schools accountable for pupil performance, even though these PAT’s provide a simple snapshot on a given day of what a student happens to be able to do.

Recently, Education Minister Jeff Johnson, following through on election commitments made by the Premier of Alberta, announced the phasing out of PAT’s and their replacement with beginning of year assessments which will provide a starting point for a students learning. The old PAT’s took months to analyze and the students had moved on before any data about their work became available. In fact, PAT’s were not for students or learning, there were for accountability. The new assessments are for students and learning.

Part of what is about to happen is due to significant changes in assessment thinking and the technology of assessment. Online assessments can now make extensive use of intelligent and adaptive systems to give instant feedback to learners and provide detailed feedback to teachers about the learning needs of those in their class. Pioneering work being done by researchers like Mark Gierl, Canada Research Chair in Educational Measurement at the University of Alberta,  and by the Alberta Assessment Consortium are enabling adaptive technologies to be used to foster meaningful and helpful learner assessment.

The phasing out of PAT’s is one of the very smart moves by Minister Johnson and is connected to a broader agenda for transforming Alberta schools. Yet to come, but in preparation, are major curriculum changes and changes to the underlying pedagogy of schooling. Not in the works, but needed, are reforms of teacher preparation and professional development, governance and resource allocation.

The shift away from PAT’s towards learner assessment as a more continuous activity focused on supporting the learning pathways for learners is a shift in accountability – away from simple measures and towards a model based more on assurance that audits.

Universities do have some outcome measures that are reported on annually – see the most recent version here – and each also is expected to offer an annual report, audited financial statements and mandate documents describing what they stand for, what their strategy for success is and what risks they face and how they intend to mitigate them. Colleges in Alberta are also following this same assurance process.

Its time for Alberta Education, the Ministry responsible for K-12 education, to follow this same path. Pasi Sahlberg and I suggested just this some years ago in a pamphlet Accountability, Learning and the Teacher – Edmonton: Alberta Teachers Association, 2010) – school development plans, with commitments to improvement and performance, provide a school by school basis for assurance. These plans, when coordinated at the district level, with an emphasis on realism and professional accountability for continuous improvement, will provide a stronger and more meaningful basis for public assurance than PAT’s ever did.

Not two schools are the same and each has different historiographies and levels of maturity and resources. School level development plans, each containing commitments to improvement, are the basis for 21^st century accountability.

Minister Johnson has taken a bold and important step towards this new form of public assurance. Lets all help him get to the next step.

A Radical Agenda for the Future of Post Secondary Education in Canada

[On Wednesday Janet Tully and I will present four scenarios for the future of post-secondary education in Canada (part of the work associated with our new book). What follows captures some of the ideas that are floating in the radical policy circles in which we circulate. They are definitely not mainstream. But all change starts from the periphery. These are my notes - Janet has nothing to do with them!]

Universities and colleges in Canada are facing three major challenges. First, the funding model on which they have operated for a considerable time is broken. They have depended on Provincial governments to fund base operating and capital and, even though capital projects continue, base funding for operational activity is declining in real terms.

Second, the demographics of the student body is changing. The strong political perception is that colleges and universities are predominantly “fed” by high school leavers. This is only partly the case. The majority of students in our post-secondary institutions are mature, part-time and in work. This means that they are seeking greater flexibility in their programming, are more demanding as “customers”, since they are paying a growing portion of the costs of their education, and they expect quality. They also expect transferability of courses, as they need to be increasingly mobile so as to sustain their earning capacity.

Third, technology is changing the nature of the learning process and the opportunities to learn. In Ontario, some 18,000 courses and 1,000 complete programs are available for post-secondary students fully online from Ontario institutions.  In a typical year, over 500,000 course registrations in these courses (app. 55,500 full time student equivalents) register in these courses. These numbers are growing. In the US demand for conventional, classroom based education is averaging between 1.5 and 2% each year; demand for online learning is growing at 12% on average. More critically, it is now the case that student satisfaction with online learning is the same or exceeds that for classroom based learning.  The arrival of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC’s), which some are able now to parlay for credit, is also seen as an example of technology changing the game.

But what to do?

What colleges and universities are doing, by and large, is trying to keep one foot in the past (the foot is anchored by funding models, faculty agreements and attitudes) and one toe in the future. They are pursuing blended learning – encouraging and enabling faculty to make more use of technology enhanced learning as part of their teaching activities. All well and good. But this is not likely to be an effective response to the three conditions that are changing.

Here is a really radical agenda for change. These ten items have all been in discussion in my circle of friends and colleagues during the last year (and some items for considerably longer). It is time for radicalism, before the system implodes under the weight of its taken for granted assumptions:

1. Abolish admission requirements and focus instead on outcomes and quality assessment of learning. This will create a more open, equitable system. The Open University (UK) and Athabasca University (Canada) have open admission,  why not all?

2. Abolish residency requirements (the requirement that a certain number of courses must be taken in the institution which offers a credential). These have been introduced in the name of “quality assurance” but are in fact attempts to secure guaranteed base of revenue from every student.

3. Massively expand prior learning assessment and work based learning agreements, so that knowledge, understanding and skills are recognized no matter where the learner acquired them.

4. Make the first two years of college or university free to residents of the Province in which they are offered – students pay a significant portion of the costs thereafter. College and university education is largely free in Finland, why not here.

5. Rather that the institution determining what and when students should learn, move to an “on demand” system for learning – students can register in any course from any institution at anytime. If the Kentucky College system can do this, why cant others?

6. Abolish tenure for university faculty and move instead to performance based contracts. Margaret Thatcher did this in the UK  many years ago, why not here?

7. Massively expand guidance and learning pathway advising – help learners find the route to fulfill their passion and secure the learning they need.

8. Fund universities and colleges on the basis of agreed outcomes rather than by the Carnegie unit (a measure of how many students are registered in courses over a particular time). A college or university would receive a block grant for achieving certain social and educational expectations.

9. Treat online courses as equal to in class courses for credit, funding and staffing.

10. Use tax incentives to encourage firms to invest in training and learning and individuals to learn. Canada has a deplorable record of investment in training. If we are to compete, we need to change this fast.

I don’t expect these to be implemented in any jurisdiction – the vested interests in the status quo are so great that they inhibit system innovation – but I do expect these ten items to trigger a conversation about what education and learning is critical for Canada’s future and how we need to change what we do to enable that future.

Our presentation is at the Delta South on 15th May at 0845 and is part of the  Analytics, Big Data and The Cloud II Conference. 

Reaching 400 ppm for CO2

As has been widely reported, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere from all sources reached 400 ppm this last week. A variety of people have suggested that passing this “milestone” signals our failure to deal with climate change. Actually, reaching this milestone does something quite different. Since there has been no significant warming for seventeen years[i] and none predicted by the UK Met Office until after 2017[ii]; since, according to the IPCC,  there is no connection between extreme weather events and climate change[iii]; and since the population has continued to grow as C02 increases, this milestone really signals that the simplistic theory that man-made greenhouse gas “causes” global warming is not as viable a theory as many once thought it was.

The planet has had much higher levels of CO2 before – twenty times higher than the current concentration[iv]. The difference this time is that humans are a dominant species and we have been encouraged to see CO2 as “problematic” rather than the life force that it really is.  CO2 at 400 ppm will accelerate plant growth, enabling faster absorption of CO2. It is likely that the average CO2 for 2013 will be not much different from that of 2012 – around 393 ppm.

The ice core samples and other evidence all suggest that, as the temperature rises, more CO2 is produced causing further warming. What we have here is something different. CO2 levels have risen significantly since 1900 but the temperature rise has not been linear.  Between 1900 and the present, warming is thought to be around 0.7C. A recent peer reviewed study suggests that if, as some now predict, CO2 reaches 560 ppm by 2100 total warming over two centuries would be around 1.1 degrees – 0.4C warmer than the present[v]. A doubling of CO2 will not produce a massive shift in climate.

There is also a view among some scientists that the sensitivity of the climate to CO2 is much less than previously thought.  Stephen Schwartz of Brookhaven National Lab concludes that the Earth’s climate is only about one-third as sensitive to carbon dioxide as the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) assumes, suggesting that the 400 ppm milestone is of very little significance.

Much of the science that sees 400 ppm as problematic is what we refer to as “virtual science” – science by model and machine.  Dr. Jim Renwick, formerly a top UN IPCC scientist, has suggested that climate models do not account for half the variability in nature and thus are not reliable. "Half of the variability in the climate system is not predictable, so we don’t expect to do terrifically well”, he has said[vi]. Others point to the last seventeen years of no significant warming and point out that none of the twenty one climate models predicted this or can explain this.

Now that, using observation and evidence, we can see that high levels of CO2 are not leading to “catastrophic warming” – observations we can connect to related observations in science (e.g. the medieval warm period was warmer than the present, extended from Europe as far as Antarctica when C02 was considerably less than at present[vii]) -  it is time to revisit the theory which is informing our understanding of the climate.

Keynes,  speaking to an opponent during Bretton Woods, said “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”  - seems like an appropriate quote here. We are at 400 ppm. There is only modest warming in over a century and none for almost twenty years and none forecast for another 4. CO2 is rising faster than anticipated. What do you do sir?

---

[i] See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/22/ipcc-railroad-engineer-pachauri-acknowledges-no-warming-for-17-years/

[ii] See  http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nothing-off-limits-in-climate-debate/story-e6frg6n6-1226583112134

[iii] http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.ca/2012/03/handy-bullshit-button-on-disasters-and.html

[iv] Nasif Nahle. 2007. Cycles of Global Climate Change. Biology Cabinet Journal Online. Article no. 295. http://www.biocab.org/Climate_Geologic_Timescale.html, and http://www.biocab.org/Carbon_Dioxide_Geological_Timescale.html.  (But also see Vandenbroucke, T.R.A., Armstrong, H.A., Williams, M., Paris, F., Zalasiewicz, J.A., Sabbe, K., Nolvak, J., Challands, T.J., Verniers, J. & Servais, T. 2010. Polar front shift and atmospheric CO2 during the glacial maximum of the Early Paleozoic Icehouse. PNAS doi/10.1073/pnas.1003220107).

[v] See http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

[vi] See http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=23&Itemid=32

[vii] See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

The Vested Self and Climate Change

In the book Think Fast and Slow by Nobel prize winning psychologist (now 79) Daniel Kahneman, he makes some astute observations about confidence of practitioners of specific arts, science and skill:

“We are prone to think that the world is more regular and predictable than it really is….The confidence we experience as we make a judgment is not a reasoned evaluation…Confidence is a feeling, one determined mostly by the coherence of the story and by the ease with which it comes to mind, even when the evidence for the story is sparse and unreliable”. (Emphasis added).

and

“..overconfident professionals sincerely believe they have expertise, act as experts and look like experts. You will have to struggle to remind yourself that they may be in the grip of an illusion.”

He gives many examples. For example, stock brokers who are very confident that they are “
better than average” are in fact no better at producing results than would occur by rolling a dice. This is what he says:

“Mutual funds are run by highly experienced and hard-working  professionals who buy and sell stocks to achieve the best possible results for their clients. Nevertheless, the evidence from more than 50 years of research is conclusive: for a large majority of fund managers, the selection of stocks is more like rolling dice…At least two out of every three mutual funds underperform the overall market in any given year…The funds that were successful in any given year were mostly lucky; they had a good roll of the dice.”.

We can see this in the work of economists with respect to austerity. When it is patently clear from detailed economic observations that austerity in Europe is not working, the austerians continue to claim that: (a) it will; (b) there is no alternative: and (c) that this is the consensus of economists. Paul Krugman, who has been right about the economics of austerity and is against the current policies of the European Union, points to the unwillingness of proponents of austerity to accept either the evidence that they are incorrect or to respond with reason to the skeptics.

We have seen this too in climate science. There is no disagreement that the climate is changing. The issue is why and what should be done about it. There are those who have the ear of policy makers who are committed to a view that the primary cause of climate change is the actions of humans which lead to the emission of greenhouse gasses. This is a factor. But the climate models have failed (within a 95% confidence level) to predict what has been happening for some time – CO2 continues to rise but the global surface temperature has changed hardly at all since 1998. Rather than accept that this means that a more complex understanding is needed and that there is a need to revisit the models and theory itself, warmist behave like austerians: (a) it will get warmer; (b) there is no alternative theory of climate we can accept; and (c) this is the consensus of climate scientists.

This is why this observation in Khaneman’s book is so interesting:

“Facts that challenge such basic assumptions – and thereby threaten people’s livelihood and self-esteem – are simply not absorbed. The mind does not digest them”.

Climate science and policy making is a multi-billion dollar industry with many vested interests. A lot depends on the “warmist” being right – lucrative contracts for wind and solar systems, the whole of the electric car industry, carbon capture and use/storage, the “clean coal” sector as well as the torrified wood pellet business, not to mention CO2 offsets and emissions trading. The multi-million dollar annual gathering of policy makers and environmental NGO’s (Conference of the Parties – COP) also depends on the warmist view and related predictions. There is just too much at stake for the warmists, from a psychological perspective, to consider alternatives. Too much of their “self” is vested in their commitment to the anthropogenic view of climate change for them to consider alternatives.

So it is not illusory – it’s a defence mechanism. “Denialism” is rife among the warmists as it is among the extreme skeptics – those who deny that any climate change is happening beyond natural climate cycles. 

What Next for Jeff Johnson, Alberta's Minister of Education?

Alberta’s Education Minister, Jeff Johnson, must be wondering what to do now. Having secured the agreement of the Alberta Teachers Association (ATA) to a deal which has some elements they were seeking – a focus on conditions of practice in response to a clear set of data that shows that teacher work-loads are “out of whack” with any reasonable expectation of work:life balance and unsuited to the kind of curriculum transformation needed – but not others, he now is facing a rebellion by school boards.

 Edmonton Public and Calgary Public, who are the actual employers of teachers (the Government are the partial paymasters), have rejected the deal. Other school boards are likely to follow. Alberta has sixty two school boards (in itself a strange thing for a population of 3.7 million) all of whom need to say “yes” to the deal for the deal to stick.

 It is also not clear what teachers will do. The ATA has recommended acceptance but the membership is now voting on the deal and many suspect that the vote will be close.

 But how did we get here?

 Some time ago a former Minister, Dave Hancock, had the basic deal in place that would have settled this over a year ago and before the election. There was a tentative deal in place with the ATA, Alberta School Boards Association (ASBA) and the Government. He took it to caucus and the majority party said no. Two education Ministers later, any prospect of a deal with teachers fell apart if it involved the ASBA. The ATA walked away from the tripartite talks.

  

The Minister, now Jeff Johnson, then, independently of the ASBA (which has no legal standing from a bargaining point of view), offered the teachers a deal which the ATA rejected.

  

The Minister then drafted a bill to require teachers to accept a deal and legislate a contract, thereby overriding the bargaining process and current employment contracts. Looking at this Ministerial dictatorship and leadership by fiat, the ATA’s leadership determined to fight another day with a playing field they understood and, with intelligent Ministerial leadership, could manage. They backed off, approached the Minister and struck a deal – you can read the details here.

Part of the deal seeks to resolve the workload issue through an “exceptions committee” to review teacher concerns about workload. The tentative contract determines that a teachers classroom time will be capped at 907 hours. In a variety of provisions, teachers concerned about their workload can file a concern and an exceptions committee will determine whether or not the teacher has a case. Workloads and conditions of practice, together with a need for investment in professional development aimed at making the transformation of Alberta schools as envisaged in Inspiring Education possible, were the key issues from the ATA’s point of view. To see why, look at the study by Linda Duxbury of teacher workloads published recently and available here.

  

The Calgary rejection seems to take offence at the idea that teachers should be professionally responsible for the management of their practice. Making extensive use of the term “visionary leaders”, by which they mean management, they suggest that visionary leaders “know best” and that teachers need to be led, both in terms of their practice and in terms of their professional development. They see substantial “hidden costs” in the operation of the exceptions process, suggesting that they assume they will have a great many of them – which in turn suggests that their visionary leaders care little about the conditions of practice. They also suggest that a great deal of professional development time will be spent by teachers seeking to work on workloads, when in fact that ATA and Calgary teachers in particular want to spend their time on pedagogy, curriculum and innovation.  The Board’s rejection suggests several disconnects between the profession and its management.

 The Edmonton rejection (the Catholic Board has said a tentative yes, it is the Public Board which has said no) is based on costs, process and the challenge to democracy. Their core argument is that the agreement erodes the power of the employer to determine how its employees work and that it undermines democracy – trustees are elected to make education “fit” with local conditions.

  

These two rejections open the Pandora’s box for legislated bargaining and the creation of a Provincial Super Board for education, with local matters managed by zone leaders. It happened in health care and could happen here. The key advantage of a single employer for teachers at the Provincial level is the reduction of the bargaining cycle and the standardization of the basis for employment. The key argument against it is that is destroys the idea that no two schools are the same and that the management of education is best done nearest to the student.

 Given the Stalinist instincts of the Redford Government, who believe that command and control is the “new black” of management, we should not be surprised if the rejection of the teachers contract by school boards has larger consequences. The Government is already giving them clear instructions on how to reduce their costs.

  

The Minister sees himself as CEO of a large, multi-billion dollar corporation (he is ex Xerox). If the “branches” of the corporation are not falling into line, the first instinct of such leaders is to reorganize the corporation. With a Premier seeking to show that she can be tough with Unions and determined to be right in both action and ideology, we should not be surprised to see the Government take on the Boards and change their mandates – the Boards owe their entire existence to the Provincial Government.

  

We can expect fireworks.