Sunday, August 15, 2010

Coalition vs NIWA

In today's news is a piece saying that the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (CSC) is challenging data that the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) has been collecting on temperatures in New Zealand. The CSC is taking NIWA to court over this issue. Which from the beginning, raises the question of why. Why is this issue not being dealt with through normal scientific channels?

The obvious and cynical reason would be to raise the profile of the issue and take it to the court of public opinion. Yes, having a high profile debate on the issue is useful. But this isn't a debate, it's an attempt at scandalizing and discrediting the issue. If the court rules in favour of NIWA, it's a complete non-story. If there's any sort of wiggle room in the ruling at all, that will become the only part publicized. Either way, this is still unlikely to have much of any impact on any scientific research or work.

The basis for the claim seems to be a thesis published by Jim Salinger in 1981. NIWA cites this thesis as being an important source for calculating the relative temperature changes throughout changes in the site of weather monitoring station. But they also say they don't use the methods described in the thesis at all. to compound this, the thesis that is publicly available is difficult to read because of the restricted access to the paper at the university where it's kept.

However, as the methods set out in the thesis aren't used by NIWA by their own assertion, discrediting the paper (as seems quite possible at this stage), wouldn't call into question the temperature data NIWA is basing the warming trend they're reporting.

As per a Parliamentary Question and Answer session on the topic, NIWA was reviewing the data in March. Since some of this data goes back to 1853, it's used internationally. So a review of the information using current methods ensures it's integrity and accuracy.

Research for this was done through Google, looking for information on Salinger's thesis and the information that follows from there. So I'm sure there's plenty more relevant information out there and I'd be happy to have that included or discussed.

Sunday, August 1, 2010

Religious Instruction in NZ Public Schools

A topic that is coming up on a lot of blogs today (including Pharyngula) is Religious Instruction classes in QLD teaching children nonsense. If you read the posts and the comments on said posts you can see the outrage and disgust that you would expect by sceptical type people.

I too, share the outrage and disgust. But what was more shocking to me was the people from Australia and New Zealand commenting on this issue who had no idea that this has been going on for years.

Let me explain what Religious Instruction in New Zealand actually is. Australia has a pretty similar system but I'll let Australian bloggers talk about that. Religious Instruction is NOT the same thing as Religious Education. Learning about religion and its influence on art, history, society, whatever is perfectly fine and is part of a well-rounded education. Religious Instruction is not that. It's purpose is to INSTRUCT pupils. Normally some kind of programme involving ethics, moral guidance, why you're a sinner, that kind of thing.

Religious Instruction is technically not legal in public schools, so for half an hour a week schools are allowed to close down so RI can take place. The RI must not be taken by a teacher or school official, so an interested lay-person approved by the school board takes RI. In practicality this means that only Christian volunteers from the Churches Education Commission have the resources and influence to take RI in NZ schools. So it's not even Religious Instruction, it's Christian Instruction.

Now the school is not obliged to have RI but neither are they obliged to inform parents that they do. Many schools inform parents as a courtesy, but some do not. If you do not want your child to take part in RI you must write to the school Principal to request their withdrawal. That's right, they don't have to get your permission to indoctrinate your child, it's implied by you not withdrawing them from a programme you may not know exists.

Now what happens to those children who are withdrawn from the programme? They must be supervised during this time, so what usually happens is the kids withdrawn sit in the library until they can return to class. In my own son's case, they sit in another part of the classroom and just "don't participate in the bible songs and stories". Now do the kids withdrawn suffer any kind of discrimination from the overwhelming majority of participants? Perhaps. I know I thought the kids who weren't allowed to participate in things to do with 'God and stuff' (like the NZ National Anthem) were weird.

As New Zealand becomes more and more multi-cultural and with more and more people identifying as non-religious (statisticsnz ) RI in public schools is outdated and ridiculous. Christianity is being given privilege by being the only religion taught in schools. Why not Islam? Judaism? Wicca? Everything else? The only fair way to resolve the issue is to get rid of Religious Instruction altogether. Replace that half an hour a week with a secular ethics programme. (Note: they are trialing this in Australia much to certain interest groups' horror).

If you are a parent with kids in a NZ public primary school, ask about RI. Ask what the withdrawn kids do in that time. Ask if only Christianity is taught, or if there's a fair representation of all religious beliefs (including areligious beliefs). Volunteer to teach a class about Secular Humanism, Satanism, or the worship of Zeus. You probably won't get far with the school board but who knows? Maybe you'll alert enough parents to the issue and something will change.

My sources for today's rant are: The Human Rights Commission report on Religion in NZ Schools and the NZARH pamphlet on RI in NZ State Primary Schools.
Advocatus Diaboli