Had to laugh, modern educaiotn. This is a Biology GSCE (exam for 16 year olds) from the UK
-
Yeah, its pathetic isnt it. Makes me wonder what the hell the country will be like in 20 years or so when all these ill educated fuckwits have had their hands on it.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Something that's always re-assuring in this situation, the ill educated fuckwits who wrote that test are already controlling the country. That said, it's been fairly rare in my experience for testing(particularly standardized testing) to reflect squat about education beyond basic math(I'd say science, but a lot of that is basic math with reference sheets). I'm saying this as someone who regularly did far better on tests than I probably had any right to. Can't really fathom how this qualifies as a test for 16 year olds though, I'd have probably started laughing and asked for the real test with that drawing on the first question. How does this match up to the same time I was sitting in class and learning about the various theories of evolution because my class and blown through all of the required material with a few weeks to spare? Most of us could have rattled off the first few questions without walking into the class. And I'm finding it really difficult to believe the screw ups I had class with in high school were that intelligent.
-
I recall when I did my Biology O level (the old name for GCSE) it was quite a bit more indepth than this so called exam: http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/gcse/qp-ms/AQA-BLY1BP-W-QP-MAR10.PDF[^] Apart from being ridden through with BS GW references (yesh, evene a picture of a Bristlecone pine, the tree which when heavilly weighted as a proxy gave rise to Manns Hoickey Stick graph (will these people stop at nothing in forcing propaganda down our shildrens throats?), its such opinionated, un-scientific politicised crap. Question two, which is about removing trees for farming, states that without trees, CO2 cant be removed fomr the atmosphere and thus causes GW. Quesiotn 8 B later on states "The Lua tribe has no effect on CO2 (whsn they slash and burn) besause the crops they plant absorb the CO2 released by burning" What, so its OK if your skin is black, and you live in a tribe to clear forsts for crops but not if you are white and do it with a truck? :) What utter cock!
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
This says a lot about Delek the Drunk with his several degrees that he no doubt paid tens of thousands for! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
and yet you have none! "those in glass houses shouldnt throw stones" is an expression that springs to mind here
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
-
This says a lot about Delek the Drunk with his several degrees that he no doubt paid tens of thousands for! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
First one was Free, BAck in the day one got a Grant for a degree in the UK. Second one was part paid by work, So only cost me about £1500. Current one is going to come to about £5000 or so.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link CCC Link[^]
-
At least there's no mention of Intelligent Design (at least that I saw, I didn't read it all)
-
I read through it: I'm going to take it since I can pass it without wasting a single moment on study. If the others are all that easy I could get several hundred GCSEs... :-)
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
At least there's no mention of Intelligent Design (at least that I saw, I didn't read it all)
ID pretty much doesn't wash in the UK thankfully, except for a very few specialised religously run (mostly by evangelical Christians) schools.
-
I recall when I did my Biology O level (the old name for GCSE) it was quite a bit more indepth than this so called exam: http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/gcse/qp-ms/AQA-BLY1BP-W-QP-MAR10.PDF[^] Apart from being ridden through with BS GW references (yesh, evene a picture of a Bristlecone pine, the tree which when heavilly weighted as a proxy gave rise to Manns Hoickey Stick graph (will these people stop at nothing in forcing propaganda down our shildrens throats?), its such opinionated, un-scientific politicised crap. Question two, which is about removing trees for farming, states that without trees, CO2 cant be removed fomr the atmosphere and thus causes GW. Quesiotn 8 B later on states "The Lua tribe has no effect on CO2 (whsn they slash and burn) besause the crops they plant absorb the CO2 released by burning" What, so its OK if your skin is black, and you live in a tribe to clear forsts for crops but not if you are white and do it with a truck? :) What utter cock!
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Someone may already have corrected you, but it doesn't say that
fat_boy wrote:
without trees, CO2 cant be removed fomr the atmosphere and thus causes GW.
it says that when the trees are removed, the trees can no longer remove CO2 from the air which results in increased GW. Two points: 1) it never says that CO2 can't be removed without trees. That would be an extremely false statement. However, what it says is correct...when the tree is cut down, it can no longer remove CO2 from the air. 2) it doesn't say it causes GW. It says it results in increased global warming. So, in order to take this test, you would have to understand that the assumption is that global warming happens. That assumption is, apparently in spite of your vast efforts, still the widely held assumption amongst the scientific community. But, I do have to say that the test itself looks like it was written for a 10 year old. Can't they put more than 50 words on a page or does that stress the kids out too much?
-
Someone may already have corrected you, but it doesn't say that
fat_boy wrote:
without trees, CO2 cant be removed fomr the atmosphere and thus causes GW.
it says that when the trees are removed, the trees can no longer remove CO2 from the air which results in increased GW. Two points: 1) it never says that CO2 can't be removed without trees. That would be an extremely false statement. However, what it says is correct...when the tree is cut down, it can no longer remove CO2 from the air. 2) it doesn't say it causes GW. It says it results in increased global warming. So, in order to take this test, you would have to understand that the assumption is that global warming happens. That assumption is, apparently in spite of your vast efforts, still the widely held assumption amongst the scientific community. But, I do have to say that the test itself looks like it was written for a 10 year old. Can't they put more than 50 words on a page or does that stress the kids out too much?
Here in the UK, GCSE certification is the result of more than the end of year examination. The coursework done by the student is heavily weighted. Thus, you could get "flying colours" with the coursework but could get low marks for the examination as sat, yet pass the entire subject with satisfactory grades.
-
Someone may already have corrected you, but it doesn't say that
fat_boy wrote:
without trees, CO2 cant be removed fomr the atmosphere and thus causes GW.
it says that when the trees are removed, the trees can no longer remove CO2 from the air which results in increased GW. Two points: 1) it never says that CO2 can't be removed without trees. That would be an extremely false statement. However, what it says is correct...when the tree is cut down, it can no longer remove CO2 from the air. 2) it doesn't say it causes GW. It says it results in increased global warming. So, in order to take this test, you would have to understand that the assumption is that global warming happens. That assumption is, apparently in spite of your vast efforts, still the widely held assumption amongst the scientific community. But, I do have to say that the test itself looks like it was written for a 10 year old. Can't they put more than 50 words on a page or does that stress the kids out too much?
Point 1) You are a pedant. Point 2) You are still a pedant! :) Oh come on, I abbreviated it to make the post shorter but its still sufficiently accurate for the point of the post which is that its OK for the Tuva tribe to slash and burn but not OK for westerners. Answer THAT point, since that is what my post was about. And for your later assertion that GW is assumed to be happening by the scientific community, can I ask you which warming you are refering to? Post 1975, post 1750, post 15,000 BC? ;) You see it is warming and cooling. It just depends where you pick your starting point. This is the view held by the scientific community. In any case, its the cause, and CO2 sensitivity thats the issue, not warming perse, because if the sensitivity is low, warming is a good thing. (and given that temps seems loosly tied to CO2 that would appear to be the case)
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription