The Truth About Global Warming? Natural or Anthropogenic?

by frontpagemag.com

SOME of you might agree with me that global warming is mentioned so much on TV that it’s become a more sensational and controversial news than Paris Hilton’s pre-party flashings. And unfortunate for the REST of you, this post is not about the latter. So what is global warming? It is a repeated occurrence where the Earth warmed and cooled, due to the greenhouse gases and aerosols in the atmosphere. Since it’s a repeated occurrence, what’s the fuss about then? The controversy lies in the WHO, not the What. The public frequently asked, “Is global warming anthropogenic or natural?” Most scientists would answer anthropogenic. Most scientists would argue that humanity is the chief culprit of global warming. They would explain that records today show that there is an unusually rapid increase in the Earth’s average surface temperature over the past century that is caused primarily by the increased level of HUMAN-MADE greenhouse gases. *Pause and think*

I accept that global warming and climate change is happening and humanity has, without a doubt, played a PART in it, but I believe that humanity’s role in global warming and climate change is minute compared to that of NATURE. Could scientists have blown the seriousness of the situation out of proportion? Do their claims have a financial motive behind them? YOU be the judge.

CARBON DIOXIDE is one of the human-made greenhouse gases that makes Earth liveable and sustainable but scientists are now involved with the idea that humans have been artificially raising the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at an ever-increasing rate by mainly burning FOSSIL FUEL, and by cutting down carbon-absorbing forests. But is it a serious enough plight? This is doubtful because despite the United States’ and the rest of the developing world’s accelerated rise of staunch economic growth with little emphasis on energy efficiency in the past 20 years, the rate at which carbon dioxide increased was small. The concentration of carbon dioxide was so small that in actual fact the atmosphere contained very little carbon dioxide- only 39 out of every 100,000 molecules of air were CO2, and it will take mankind’s CO2 emissions 5 more years to increase that number by 1, to 40.

by www2.mcdaniel.edu

The other human-made greenhouse gas claimed by most scientists to be a contributor to global warming is METHANE. Methane is a greenhouse gas that is twenty times more potent than carbon dioxide. Though more potent, it has a shorter lifetime of about eight years and according to some scientists there is less of it in the atmosphere compared to carbon dioxide; we have established earlier that carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere is in fact very little. The impact methane has on the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas is not the issue. The issue here is that scientists often brush aside the fact that NATURALLY produced methane is as accountable, if not more, for global warming as human-made methane. A NATURALLY occurring source of methane that could cause a catastrophe if released into the atmosphere is thawing peat tundra. The peat tundra in Siberia covers about 1 million square miles, and as it thaws tons of methane could be released into the atmosphere. Similar occurrences can be found in the arctic tundra. THESE METHANE EMISSIONS ALONE WOULD OUTWEIGH THAT PRODUCED BY THE HUMAN INDUSTRY.

************************Interval***************************

That’s not too much to digest, is it? I’ve been told that my entries can be a bit overwhelming (long). Shall we continue?

by greenbristolblog.blogspot.com

Next. SULPHATE and BLACK CARBON AEROSOLS are asserted by NASA scientists to be one of the biggest human-made contributors to the increased average atmospheric temperature. Black carbon, which is a human-made aerosol, has an atmospheric lifetime between 4.6 to 7.3 days, meaning it does not stay in the atmosphere longer than 8 days. Compared to carbon dioxide, which has a long atmospheric lifetime, black carbon poses less threat to global warming in the long run. Although black carbon is known to absorb and therefore radiate more heat, it is not as significant as sulphate because the extent of black-carbon-induced warming is dependent on the concentration of sulphate (SO₂) and organic aerosols. Sulphate aerosol, however, is produced both naturally and by humankind, and close to three-quarters of all aerosols found in the Earth’s atmosphere come from natural sources. Yet most scientists asserted that to reduce the concentration of sulphate and black carbon aerosol from the atmosphere, an approach to cut down the burning of FOSSIL FUEL and BIOMASS should be taken. That theory is flawed and disagreeable. Most scientists tried to steer away from the fact that nature does play a larger part in this matter. Evidence that nature produces more aerosols than humankind is presented in a simple table drawn up by scientists Ramanathan, Crutzen, Kiehl and Rosenfeld. The table shows that the rate of aerosol produced naturally is higher than that produced by humankind. A recent scientific research also affirms that the natural environment is a major source of atmospheric aerosols and examples of the natural sources are sulphate from volcanic eruption, soil, desert dust, sea salt and marine sulphide emissions.

by thegeogblog.edublogs.org (2008)

by www.marinebuzz.com (2009)

by trivoxphoto.photoshelter.com (2010)

It seems that more scientists are blaming global warming on humanity than not. Those scientists presented similar “scenarios” and called for the same measure to be taken, and that is to reduce the burning of FOSSIL FUEL. Now, the million dollar question is, to maintain and power this advancing technology of ours, what are FOSSIL FUEL and BIOMASS going to be substituted with? Costly hydrogen-powered fuel cells, a technology funded and now used by NASA? Questionably reliable wind turbines that would cost millions of dollars and paid with tax payers’ money? Or nuclear power which waste disposal’s cost would be exuberant? It seems like certain parties have more to gain, financially, from this plight than others.

Financial gain or not, what is for certain is that the plight on global warming have been blown out of proportion, and scientists are persuading people that global warming and climate change is primarily driven by human-related activities. HUMAN-RELATED ACTIVITIES are NOT the main cause for global warming. In fact evidence shows that humanity’s part in this plight is miniscule compared to that of nature. NATURE plays a COLOSSAL role in global warming and climate change, but scientists, though they have acknowledged it, decline to accept it. Why? It could be due to poor judgements or miscalculations. Or simply because there is no financial gain in preaching to the wind.

In saying all this, I'm not implying that we shouldn't do anything about global warming. Regardless if we are the cause or not, it is still our responsibility to make this world a better place to live.

Just a Quick One

I’m still alive! Hmm.. It’s been awhile since my last entry. I have a lot on my plate lately- the final exams, house hunting, a work function, sorting out my upcoming holiday and Chrissie preparation. I’m a bit run down from all that running around (like a headless chook) but very much still alive. This entry will be a brief one as I’m in the midst of packing for my (badly needed) holiday to Fiji.

What issue of interest will I be looking at next? It will be about a very controversial global issue that is frequently the topic of many heated debates. “But that describes most global issues,” you’ll say. So here’s another clue: it involves the increasing average temperature of the Earth. Post what you think the topic could be. Till next time.

Curriculum

Southmont

I mentioned contents-based, methods-based and outcomes-based curriculum in a response to a comment last week. So what does all of that mean? How does curriculum tie in with the teachers’ role? What's curriculum? In search of a better understanding of the word 'curriculum', I found numerous definitions and theories. However, all of them referred to curriculum as courses offered at a school or university. To have a deeper grasp of what curriculum is, I’m going to be boring and look briefly at the history of the usage of this ambiguous word.

Curriculum, which was taken directly from Latin, can mean either 'a course', 'a running' or 'race-course'. A Roman philosopher Marcus Cicero's earlier usage of the word 'curriculum' was to refer to the period of study and later in his life used it to refer to the contents of the course. Based on that, at this stage, I’ve established that curriculum is specific course works studied for the period of the course. My next question was, "How is a curriculum structured?"

The traditional content-based curriculum can be traced back as far as the medieval time. Curricula planners were focused on the contents of the curriculum more than anything else, concentrating on what got taught and the structure of the contents. In the nineteenth century, the contents of the course became less relevant and the methods of teaching became the emphasis, sparking up debate on what was best- contents-based or methods-based curriculum?

As you can imagine, teachers back then were more concerned about HOW they were teaching and WHAT they were teaching the students, without realising (let’s give them the benefit of the doubt) that they have committed one of the greatest oversight in education. They didn't put the students' learning experience first! This is when outcomes-based curriculum comes into the picture. Outcome-based curriculum was implemented as a measure of curriculum reform, the primary focus no longer being "what to teach" and "how to teach". Outcomes-based are seen as the future of education, with its emphasis on the end product- what is learnt and to be achieved.

We know that the role of the teacher includes educating, encouraging involvement and interaction in class, supervising the students’ well-being, assessing students' learning capacity and building rapport with the students' parents, but how does the outcomes-focused education affect the role of the educator? The educator's role has evolved into being 'student-centred'. Teachers are expected to identify each of the student's distinctive potential, and develop learning and teaching techniques that ensure quality and effective learning. They're expected to use the framework to develop their teaching skills. Generally with those skills, teachers are to coach students through the learning process. Teachers are to inject ambition, self-confidence, and self-motivation into the morale of the students, to encourage them to do their best. In my opinion, though outcomes-based curriculum has created flexibility in the teaching techniques available to the educator, it's also increased the educator's responsibility, as we've seen above. Is the educator to be accountable to the outcomes achieved? Personally, I disagree. Although the common view is that the responsibility for learning should be shared between the educator and the learner, in actual fact students have to take charge of their own learning.  

DFID Global School Partnership

Outcomes-based education urges students to be proactive learners. The outcomes achieved by a school reflect how well the students are learning. So what's the role of the learner? Students are expected to get involved in discussions, to share their opinions and views, to listen to others' opinions and views, and to reflect upon them. It's sad to see that students generally in the younger age group regarded education as a chore- something Mum and Dad wanted them to do. Students have to realise that how they deal with the challenges, hurdles and prospects thrown at them in their adulthood will depend on how they allow themselves be educated.

You can now understand why there are so many definitions to the word 'curriculum'- just like the term education, the definition can vary slightly from individual to individual, generally influenced by their educational background and beliefs. My definition of curriculum is the learning experiences taught to students, whether through planned course works and activities or as a result of social experiences, with the aim of preparing them to be successful members of society. Personally, I've acquired specific skills through my schooling, skills that have enriched the quality of my relationships, my career and my life. I believe that quality education wouldn't be obtainable without curriculum, and curriculum would just mean "a course" without the educator.

A Tribute to Teachers

       

In conjunction with World’s Teachers’ Day 2010, I'm dedicating this post to one of the under-appreciated professions of our time, teaching. I look up to teachers. Most teachers are role models to their students. That, on its own, is a big enough responsibility. Teachers play a very important part in education, thus they're found accountable to not only the students but also the students’ parents, the teaching profession, their employer, their colleagues, the community and the society. The expectation of a teacher is, not only to give proper education, but also to represent the profession and their employer. Just with any profession, a scandal will shake the credibility of the individual, the profession and the educational institution. 

How's the teaching profession holding such high importance to the society? Teachers mould the society; no teachers mean no doctors, engineers, or other professions. Yet, when the Australian government introduced the “super teacher” scheme, there were many negative responses. My view on the “super teacher” scheme is divided; I agree and disagree to a certain extent. I agree with the performance pay idea, and that good and hardworking teachers in public schools should be awarded; their workload should be justified with a higher salary packaging. However, I disagree that it is offered to only “super teachers”. Wouldn’t that cause conflicts between teachers in public schools? In my opinion, performance pay scheme should be offered to all good teachers, as an incentive for their dedication. In saying that, I also believe that measures should be put in place to ensure that this scheme can't be taken advantage by cases that are not genuine.

Most people reckon that teachers' wage (read: under-paid) is justified by their workload because all they do is talk to a classroom of children and mark papers. ??. Would anyone say that about a medical practitioner who sits on his ass (excuse my language) the whole day and write scripts? I very doubt so. With outcomes based education, teachers are expected to take on alot of work- identifying each of the student’s unique learning styles and planning a learning experience for each of the eight learning areas, while ensuring quality and effective learning.

      

I'd like to think that teaching is for me, but as we've seen above, there's more to teaching than just imparting my learning on someone. Teaching is a commitment to educate. Sure, I do have some of the personality traits to become a teacher, but is being a good communicator, passionate, tolerant and caring, sufficient in becoming a good educator?

       

For now, I'm happy to be on the other end of education; the receiving end. I'll leave the educating to the experts.

A Reflection on Poverty Tourism

As we all know, there are numerous humanitarian organisations whose purpose is to bring awareness as well as relief to impoverished communities. There are also many channels, through which members of the public can get involved, but one in particular caught my attention; I was sceptical. “Poverty tourism”, “poorism” and “slum tourism” are only a few names used to describe this new brand of tourism. On these tours, travellers are taken to squalors of their choice. The popular ones are Dharavi in India, the favelas of Rio de Janeiro in Brazil, and some districts in Nairobi, Kenya. Good intention or exploitation? Though most critics accuse this method of being, not only profiteering from poverty, but also degrading and “voyeuristic”, I believe that it can be an honest and compassionate approach to poverty alleviation.

Dharavi Slum in Mumbai, India
 by Kounosu via Creative Commons

"Poverty tourism” can be seen as an education on how impoverished communities live, raising awareness of the issues surrounding poverty and a percentage of the proceeds go to the development of under-privileged communities. I have gathered that the hope is, besides monetary assistance, for travellers to experience poverty, even just for a day, and make a difference. But can they? Entertainment??!

   Dharavi Slum in Mumbai, India
 by depletedcranium.com

That confronting yet refreshing perspective, made me inquisitive about what these tours entail, so I emailed "slum tour" operators in Brazil and India. The tour operator in India asserted that they have a strict no camera policy while in the slums and in the "red light" district. The operator from Brazil informed me that although cameras are allowed on the tours there are restrictions on when and where pictures can be taken. She reasoned, “Community doesn’t mind if you take pictures, as long as you respect basic rules like not photographing faces directly.” They also assured me that the aim of the tours have been discussed with the communities. The communities are aware that the tours are not to degrade or undignify, but to break the stereotype that the “poor” are lazy, and to show a very positive side of the slum- its sense of community, their dynamics and hard work. 

Armstrong, the founder of Favela Tour, displayed openness when he explained the contributions they have made to the community. Favela Tour finances eighty percent of Para Ti community school. Poojari, the co-founder of Reality Tours, declared that they are transparent with their financial earnings by posting sales, loss and profits from the “slum tours” on their website. Reality Tours sets up a non-government organisation called Reality Gives that runs a kindergarten, and a community and education centre.

Favelas
 by anthony_goto via Flickr C

After my communication with the tour operators, I realised that as a traveller, it is imperative to research for credible tour operators and learn their ties to the community. We also have to be aware of social courtesy and be sensitive in our approach. Looking deeper, “poverty tourism” not only brings revenue to under-privileged communities, but also creates jobs for the locals; most of the tour guides came from an impoverished background. Some operators bring children off the street, educate and train them as guides, giving them a new lease on life. The life that SOCIETY has denied them.

Slum in Cambodia
by Oudam

As a response to Odede's and Ruge's perspective, I agree that "poverty tourism" will not solve the problem of poverty, but by raising the awareness of many people, it will hopefully alleviate the conditions of poverty stricken communities. Sure, you can do your part from the comfort of your own home by sponsoring a child, or donating to an organisation. But how can you understand the reality of poverty without having experienced it first hand? I am not inferring that spending one day with the community will be a life changing experience, but it will certainly open your eyes. 

In response to Giovagnoni’s criticism, who is to say that a “vision traveller” is any more compassionate than a “poverty traveller”? Individuals make it voyeuristic, not the industry. In my opinion, there is no difference between a “slum tour” organised by an operator and a “vision tour” organised by a humanitarian organisation. You can dress it up and give it a different name but it still involves travelling to a developing country to witness a community living in hardship. Hence, it is “poverty tourism”. 

“Poverty tourism” is only a tool and how ethical or how it contributes to the community relies heavily on the participants. By making a conscious effort to go through a credible organisation, I believe that “poverty tourism” can be an honest and compassionate approach to help alleviate poverty.

The Beginning

I've been putting this off for so long that it feels liberating to post the first entry. You know what else feels liberating? That it's almost the end of the second semester. That means only one thing to a uni student like me. An abundance of free time is just around the corner. What better time than now to start on my first blog, Pen with a Voice.



What is my blog about? In a nutshell, it's about my (roving) thoughts and perspective on controversial issues of interest, both local and international. Hence, the name Pen with a Voice. I won't say any more, the future posts will hopefully speak for themselves.

That's all for now. I have to try and get some sleep. Work awaits me later. I'll leave you with a clue on what the first issue of interest will be: when tourism meets poverty. Till next time.