Does racing to the top include no opinion left behind when teaching climate science?
In his State of the Union speech this week, President Obama did not have a whole lot to say about climate change. But he did emphasize education, and specifically the need for education to prepare Americans for high-tech jobs. Well, climate science is pretty technical, so let's take a look at how climate science fares in our nation's schools and among our nation's teachers.
Does climate change science get a passing grade in America's classrooms?
Two Sides?
Part of the controversy surrounding climate science education is how to teach it. For example, is it a settled topic on which most scientists agree, or are we so unsure about the causes of global warming that competing theories need to be taught as equally valid explanations? Should teachers be required to teach climate science skepticism and denial along with scientific evidence pointing to human activities as the cause of global warming trends?
Two states -- Texas and Louisiana -- have taken a definitive stand on those questions, requiring that teachers teach climate science denial as a valid scientific position. Two other states -- Tennessee and Oklahoma -- have introduced legislation that would bring climate science skepticism into the classroom.
Such requirements would find little support from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, arguably the nation's premier scientific organization, an organization of scientists, governed by scientists and created by Congress when Lincoln was president to advise the nation on scientific and technical issues.
A recent report by the academy concluded that "the preponderance of scientific evidence points to human activities -- especially the release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere -- as the most likely cause for most of the global warming that has occurred over the last several decades" and that there is a "pressing need for substantial action to limit the magnitude of climate change and to prepare to adapt to its impacts." Period.
So there's a bit of disagreement between some state legislatures and the scientific community. What do our nation's teachers perceive about their duties when it comes to climate change instruction?
A survey (survey pdf) of 555 K-12 U.S. science teachers conducted by the National Earth Science Teachers Association (NESTA) indicates that while 5 percent are required to teach both sides (12 percent of which reside in the South) 47 percent report that they do so simply because they believe "both sides" have validity. Another 36 percent report that they have been influenced, either directly or indirectly, to teach "both sides."
Skepticism in the Classroom
Another survey, this one conducted by the National Science Teachers Association, showed that:
On the other hand, it appears that teachers are for the most part "OK" with the state of climate education: 60 percent report that they were not concerned with how climate change is taught in their schools. This would seem to imply that teachers are not concerned that some 80 percent of their students take issue with the conclusions of the National Academy of Sciences on a scientific issue, and begs the question of how educators themselves view climate change science. Do they see themselves sufficiently qualified to disagree with the academy?
Teachers' Climate Science Beliefs
As it turns out, a small but not negligible percentage of the teachers surveyed by NESTA see climate science differently from how the National Academy views it. Of the survey's (pdf) 555 respondents, 6 percent reported that they don't believe global warming is happening at all while 13 percent attribute it to natural causes.
Teaching Climate Change on Par with Evolution?
In part as a reaction to these statistics, the National Center for Science Education, known for its advocacy of teaching evolution, recently announced a new initiative "to defend and support the teaching of climate science" in the classroom. The effort will put resources in the hands of teachers who teach climate science as well as provide pushback against increasing attacks on teachers who engage students on the
topic.
In making this announcement, Eugenie Scott, the organization's executive director, averred that, "Climate change in the classroom is where evolution was 25 years ago." Twenty-five years ago? I'd have to say that Dr. Scott's got some powerful rose-colored glasses. Consider this: only about 28 percent of 926 public high school biology teachers surveyed in a study reported in the journal Science last year are strong advocates for and consistently teach the evidence of evolution.
Strange way to race to the top.
Crossposted with TheGreenGrok.
Follow Bill Chameides on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheGreenGrok
Mark Tercek: Smart Resource Management: Good for Nature, People and Business
A. Siegel: Climate Change Consensus: A Simple Table for Comprehension
Mason Inman: The Climate Post: Obama Calls for "All of the Above" Energy Strategy for America
Stefanie Penn Spear: American-Made Energy -- the Good, the Bad and the Ugly
nsf.gov - Funding - Climate Change Education (CCE): Climate ...
Alliance for Climate Education - Free Multimedia Climate Change ...
But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.
The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.
The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere’s life cycle.
We have reached the point where propaganda rules, truth is whatever the left declares is true. It's Orwells 1984 but with the socialists in charge. The ministry of Truth is what our schools have become brainwashing our children to believe in whatever propaganda the left is pushing in our day.
Leading climate scientists have told the Daily Mail that the sun is moving into a "grand minimum" and that we may well be headed into the next "mini ice age".
It's starting to become clear that the climate models depicting carbon as the evil warmer of the planet are wrong. Every since NASA admitted is had fudged it's climate numbers and they are not reliable for showing carbon caused global warming and that they would never allow them to be released...it has been becoming increasingly clear that the man caused global warming game is ending. Progressive Liberal Warmists will still be true believers but the facts against man caused global warming are starting to stack up. And the planet is cooling down.
But every-time it rains, snows, or cools, or warms the warmists will say: "See, it's man caused climate change".
The temps are falling. It's going to get much colder. And progressive socialists are going to have to find some other science to twist to promote their socialist agenda.
This is going to be like the plastic diaper thing back in the 80's. Long after it's over you will still have hold-outs pretending that man caused global warming is real. You can still find true believers that think plastic diapers are filling up our landfills. When it face it's long been proven that it is paper, construction and demolition debris. Once the left takes on a new religion, it never lets it go.
Satellite measurements of incoming and outgoing radiation show that Earth is gaining energy at the rate of 0.58 W/m^2 (Hansen et al. 2011: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2011/2011_Hansen_etal.pdf). Since the Earth is gaining energy, global temperatures will rise (simple thermodynamics). There are two possible reasons for this imbalance. Either 1) the sun has warmed or 2) something in the atmosphere is trapping the outgoing infrared radiation and preventing it from escaping into space. The sun has cooled since 1979 (Lean and Rind 2008: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Lean_Rind.pdf), so option 1 is out. So we're looking for something in the atmosphere that absorbs infrared radiation, has increased enough to create a 0.58 W/m^2 energy imbalance, and can create a temperature trend independent of other factors.
Less than 0.5% of the gases in the atmosphere absorb infrared (aka "greenhouse gases"). Of those, water vapor and CO2 are the most abundant, combining to form ~99% of the greenhouse gases. Water vapor abundance, though, changes in response to temperature (Clausius-Clapeyron relation), reinforcing and amplifying a temperature trend started by another force. Water vapor alone cannot begin a temperature trend. That rules out water vapor as the cause of the current warming trend.
Read it. Then do the research. If you need help! Ask for it
The facts are not on your side. The scientific evidence is not on your side. The majority of scientific opinion is not on your side. When facts, evidence, and argument do not support your position - you don't get to claim your position is honorable. Just because you have a minority opinion does not mean you are wrong. Your lack of any creditable evidence or argument proves that for you.
Focus on the basics.
What was the % of profit and what did they sell?
How much did the states and fed make off these sales?
We're witnessing a massive segment of the population break away from reality/science. As this detached ice shelf of denial floats over the ocean it will be torn apart by the winds of ridicule and the waves of common sense. Eventually nothing will remain. What a prognosis to realize your entire world view is doomed to irrelevance.
Of course, carbon enthusiasts will prevent us from ending our emissions completely, so we'll probably see a further 2 degrees beyond that.
And these of course, are world averages. Oceans will warm less than this average, land more. Then the feedback loops kick in and things get even warmer as the methane melts from the arctic.
Your enthusiasm will be instrumental when the time comes to rebuild. Even in these early days I'm sure the people of Joplin would prefer to have a positive person like you digging through the rubble, then a pessimist. So don't give up, just be realistic about what battles can be won.
But even this is an incomplete picture since some types of egotism are healthy and productive.
Synthesis: Perhaps a new style of leadership is required that helps guide people's egos into sustainable directions. Instead of "ecological" the new concept will be "egological".
"Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2838876/posts
So I get that some 'scientist' writing an opinion in the WSJ said that 'a growing number of scientists do not agree [in AGW alarmism]', but where's the link to a study? Is it because its in the WSJ that you all take it on faith?
Because geology tells me so.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/28/the-sun-employees-arreste_n_1238980.html
Its headlined: "Rupert Murdoch's Staff Arrested as Tabloid Scandal Spreads to Second Newspaper". The guy is brain poison, and if you're reading the WSJ opinion pages you're taking straight-shots of the stuff.
http://www.iop.org/activity/groups/subject/env/prize/file_40771.pdf
There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html?mod=googlenews_wsj