America's classroom climate war
A few years ago, Cheryl Manning assigned a research project on climate change to her high school environmental science class in Evergreen, Colorado. She presented the basic facts and data from peer-reviewed studies, then asked the students to look into the issue themselves and report back on what they learned.
Halfway through the unit, three students came to class up in arms. They questioned whether the data was made up and if government scientists were part of a plot – “like conspiracy theorists that say we never went to the moon,” Manning said. At a PTA meeting the students’ parents accused her of trying to undermine their children’s religious belief system.
“Peer-reviewed science is the Kool-Aid of the left-wing liberal conspiracy,” they said, adding a warning: “Be on your guard.”
Manning’s superintendent backed her up, and the parents eventually pulled their kids out of school. But she said her experience is common enough that many teachers shy away from the subject of climate change.
Manning’s experience in Colorado is just a microcosm of a larger fight being waged in classrooms across the country. Reminiscent of the evolution-vs-creationism clash, the overwhelming scientific evidence that says humans are causing the warming of the planet has emerged as the new battlefield in middle and high schools in the US.
“Lots of teachers I talk to just won’t teach it,” said Manning, a geologist before turning to teaching 16 years ago. “They’ll teach about the historical changes but not current trends. Science teachers already get so much pushback on evolution vs. creation that they’re reluctant to invite more controversy. And some teachers don’t know that much about climate change themselves. They’re not sure how firm the ground is they’re standing on.”
Manning is a member of the National Science Teachers Association. Last year an online poll of its 60,000 members found that 82 per cent had faced scepticism about climate change from students and 54 per cent had faced skepticism from parents. Some respondents added comments: Students believe whatever it is their parents believe. . . . Administrators roll over when parents object. In a recent survey of about 1,900 current and former teachers by the National Earth Science Teachers Association, 36 per cent reported they had been influenced directly or indirectly to teach “both sides” of the issue.
That concerns the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) in Oakland, California. For 25 years the Center has worked to keep creationism and “intelligent design” out of public schools. Now it has expanded its scope to defend and support the teaching of climate change science, against the efforts of skeptics or deniers to intimidate teachers.
“We have been hearing for several years now that teachers were getting pushback on teaching climate change, and some of the playbook used by those promoting teaching ‘both sides’ was very similar to the attempt to have evolution ‘balanced’ by creationism and intelligent design,” said Mark McCaffrey, who is spearheading the Center’s new initiative. “From my experience working with teachers, it is clear that the so-called ‘controversy’ about climate change science is a major impediment to teachers and the polarized political climate around teaching the topic is a big problem.”
McCaffrey is a pioneer in climate change education. He’s cofounder of the Climate Literacy Network and while at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) helped develop the Essential Principles of Climate Science, endorsed by the federal government’s U.S. Global Change Research Program.
As in Manning’s case, many times it’s individual parents who challenge individual teachers. Last year, in a Portola Valley, Calif., high school, a teacher who had shown her class Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth was challenged by a parent who demanded that the school provide “balance” with a debate between a climate change scientist and a global warming denier. The teacher’s union representative contacted NCSE, and the Center argued that while policy issues – energy consumption, cap-and-trade, global warming adaptation – were legitimate subjects to debate in a social studies class, a science class should deal only in consensus science. School officials agreed and the debate was cancelled.
But there are also well-organised campaigns to get school districts and state legislatures to mandate teaching “balance:”
– In 2010, in Grand Junction, Colo., a Tea Party activist gathered 700 signatures on a petition that teachers stop talking about climate change. The effort was supported by the Independent Women’s Forum, a conservative group that had targeted Grand Junction to kick off a national “Balanced Education for Everyone” campaign. When the petition failed, the campaign was scrapped.
– Last summer, the school board in Los Alamitos, California, voted unanimously to require the teaching of “multiple perspectives” on climate change in an environmental science class. The issue was pushed by a school board member who maintained there are “legitimate, mainstream, normative opinions that differ from the liberal dogma of belief in global warming.” After the action received national and international attention, the mandate was rescinded.
– State boards of education in Texas and Louisiana have introduced standards to require teachers to present climate change denial as a valid scientific position. Legislators in Tennessee, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Kentucky have introduced bills to require equal time for climate change skeptics.
Attacks on the teaching of climate change often go hand-in-hand with efforts to insert creationism or “intelligent design” into public schools. In 2009, the Texas Board of Education mandated that teachers present all sides of the debate on both evolution and climate change. Leslie Kaufman of The New York Times wrote that the linkage was a canny legal strategy:
Courts have found that singling out evolution for criticism in public schools is a violation of the separation of church and state. By insisting that global warming also be debated, deniers of evolution can argue that they are simply championing academic freedom in general.
Campaigns against climate science and evolution are part of a national crisis in science education, said NCSE’s McCaffrey.
“Teachers are overburdened and often teaching out of their area of expertise,” he said. “Environmental education tends to be heavy on ‘get the kids out in nature’ and light on science. By middle school, many students start to be turned off by science. Our efforts are geared toward re-invigorating science education for the 21st century in order to prepare our young people to become informed citizens and leaders of tomorrow.”
Bill Walker, a contributing writer for Climate Central, is a former newspaper correspondent and for more than 20 years a communications strategist for leading environmental organisations. He lives in Berkeley, California.
This article was originally published on Climate Central – www.climatecentral.org. Reproduced with permission.
Comments on this article
The hockey stick is alive & kicking...
Timothy Northcott: "even the IPCC doesn't refer to it any more."
Really?
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-6-10.html
Looks pretty 'hockey-stick-ish' to me.
I'm not aware of any more recent publications from the IPCC on the matter, perhaps you can point us to one?
Tim, After considerable
Tim,
After considerable discussion, I love your tactic of just baldly stating that the issue is resolved (hockey stick is dead) when all of the earlier discussion makes clear that the reverse is true.
When the facts don't work for you, just stay with dogmatic assertions.
Hockey Stick is dead and buried
even the IPCC doesn't refer to it any more. Don't forget Mann revised his first version of the stick after it was agreed that the MWP was not a local but a global event. Stick Mk II does not give the weight to the southern hemishpere proxies that it should thus giving us a stick rather than a bow !
If you really believe we are all doomed then you must agree that Nuclear energy should be seriously considered as an alternative.
hockey sticks and who is to blame
Tim,
As John Ransley has indicated, Richard Muller was unhappy with the data of the US & UK groups so, as scientists do, he setup a group to reanalyse all of the data. His conclusion was that both earlier studies produced reliable data & so now 3 major independent studies all reach the same conclusion. The hockey stick is alive and kicking.
As to who is to blame (classic denier tactics to obfuscate and go off tangent), the developed world has done its thing and that's why we have a problem. China and India are now developing rapidly. If they follow what we've done, then we are all doomed. Fortunately both countries are aggressively developing renewable energy pathways, so there is hope that CO2 emissions will be contained. China is heading towards providing new energy needs via solar and wind, which is a hopeful sign. Of course there is still a major problem with massive amounts of coal use.
It's like Iwo Jima
If 'science' is 'settled' it isn't science. A year ago I would have said the speed of light was the universal speed limit. Now I'm not so sure.
The continuing war in the US over science education looks like the fight for Iwo Jima. The defenders of 'intelligent design' and 'climate change scepticism' are well dug in and they'll fight to the last bullet. Their best hope is to fight their enemy to a standstill.
Broken Hockey Stick
John Ransley would have you believe that Professor Richard Muller has gone from skeptic to believer within the last twelve months. Here is a quote from Professor Muller in 2008:
Global warming. There is a consensus that global warming is real. There has not been much so far, but it’s going to get much, much worse. The thing I would tell the president is that the global warming, according to the global consensus — that’s the IPCC scientists, who won the Nobel Prize — the global warming of the future is going to come from the developing world. It’s the exploding economies of China and India and Asia that are going to be responsible for the CO2.
http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot.com/2008/11/q-with-richard-muller.html
Who do you believe ??
Hockey Stick Still Unbroken
Timothy Northcott references Richard Muller’s discussion of the ‘Hockey Stick’ reconstruction on YouTube.
Two points. First, the Hockey Stick has recently been vigorously defended by the original authors:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/12/responses-to-mcshane-and-wyner/.
Second, while Professor Richard Muller was skeptical of the Stick when the video was shot a year ago or more (can’t find date), he is now a famous ex-skeptic on global warming: two years ago he and his Berkeley Earth Project team set out on a study to ‘arrive at an independent assessment on global warming’. Muller cited ‘a list of shortcomings’ in published studies, including ‘filtering’ of temperature records:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/feb/27/can-these-scientists-end-climate-change-war
What did they find? "Our biggest surprise was that the new results agreed so closely with the warming values published previously by other teams in the U.S. and the U.K.," Muller said. "This confirms that these studies were done carefully and that potential biases identified by climate change skeptics did not seriously affect their conclusions."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111021144716.htm
John Ransley
Hockey Stick
Geoff March:
The stick is very broken see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk on how to "Hide the Decline"
The Laws of Junk Science...
"...the very same scientific principles created these realities and thousands of others..."
Rubbish. A field of specious strawmen.
But I had to laugh at your invocation of philosophy.
Never has there been a field of inquiry with less "consensus" than philosophy.
I'll leave you with this thought:
"...Philosophy, although a rational activity, is not a science because there is no consensus regarding how disagreements may be resolved, other than continued discussion and debate, which, as experience shows, frequently do not lead to a resolution of disagreement..."
Now what was it you were saying again?
The hockey stick remains unbroken
Tim et al,
Have a read of this analysis starting;
"Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920" at
http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm
Also have a read of the comments on the article that follow the article. It's an excellent site to read and get to understand the science behind climate change. What's nice about the site that it provides explanations either at a basic level or for those who have a greater technical knowledge.
Consensus science
Had it been legal in it's day then Isacc Newtons' practice of Alchemy would have been out in the open and I am sure there would have been Consensus on the subject.
It's YOUR theory Bud...YOU prove it.
"...Perhaps the climate deniers should proceed in a similar fashion and seek evidence that disproves their hypothesis that climate change is rubbish, if they kept an open mind I'm sure the hypothesis would soon fail, but no the deniers are too rapt up in their own dogma and pre-conceived ideas about how the world should be..."
This shows how little you know about the scientific method.
It's YOUR theory that the world is boiling due to AGW.
How about YOU prove it using evidence from non-modelled data.
Dogma ? Senor Toucan
Do you keep an open mind about the science when it starts your car in the morning ? What about when you turn the tap on? Or perhaps when you pull on a warm jumper.
Probably not, and yet the very same scientific principles created these realities and thousands of others. Consensus science is the foundation of much of that which exists in our life. Its never not unquestionbale, a first year philosophy student learns that nothing is completely certain, but that does not mean the scientific conclusion is not the most likely or rational explanation at this point.
Can you please show me a clasroom where questions are not able to be asked?
That Hockey Stick
David LeComte:
Please tell me you are not referencing Mann's now discredited Hockey Stick in your synopsis of the MWP - even the IPCC won't touch it these day's.
anthony w:
Maybe you would like to talk to Tim Flannery on when he expects his waterfront condo to flood !
Both of you seem to think that the earth hasn't been warmer than today whilst man has roamed the earth - maybe you could explain the scores of intact woolly mammoths that have been found over the years in the permafrost in Siberia ?
Sure, keep an open mind
Sure, keep an open mind that's what science is all about (or should be), the basic principles of science research is to propose a hypothesis and then try to disprove it. If someone finds legitimate evidence against 'man-made' climate change I'm sure the scientific establishment would take it seriously, and test it.
Perhaps the climate deniers should proceed in a similar fashion and seek evidence that disproves their hypothesis that climate change is rubbish, if they kept an open mind I'm sure the hypothesis would soon fail, but no the deniers are too rapt up in their own dogma and pre-conceived ideas about how the world should be.
If an idea threatens to cramp their lifestyle or hip packet they'll rant and rave to try and make it 'go away', but they will no doubt be the first to complain when the sea-level rises and floods their seaside condo.
Medieval Warm period
In response to Timothy Northcott:
The MWP was from 950 to 1250AD. It reached a peak of 0.2C above the norm.
We are already 0.5C above the norm and rising rapidly.
It really wouldn't have taken long to check this for yourself.
Whatever your mind is, "open", is not an accurate description.
Anything else is dogma
Nice choice of words, Galileo knew all about dogmatic principles.... in fact, didn't he say:
Who would dare assert that we know all there is to be known?
- Galileo Galilei, Letter to Father Benedetto Castelli, 21 Dec 1613.
Considering the planet has been warmer in our not so distant past (see: Medieval warm period) without mankinds influence then we need to keep an open mind as to the drivers of the current warming.
Tail wagging the dogma...
The continued use of the pejoratives "denier" and "denialist" do little to advance the credibility of the author's argument.
"...a science class should deal only in consensus science..."
What an absurd and anti-scientific proposition.
Those who push such nonsense should be ashamed of themselves.
Any "consensus" derived from 'scientists' reviewing modelled scenario data from their colleagues is neither evidentiary sound or beyond repute.
To forsake challenging such dogma is akin to the worst kind of religious orthodoxy and the message it sends to the children to accept unquestioningly any "consensus science" is appalling.
The truth *is* inconvenient...
Timothy Northcott, while the Gore film may not be the best teaching aid, it's nowhere near as inaccurate as some have implied, and the fundamental climate science is sound. This is what a UK judge said about it:
"It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme"
The fact that it has that political aspect is perhaps why it shouldn't be used to teach students about climate science.
As for science being 'settled'? Well, when the only alternative hypotheses being offered are rehashes of ones that were disproven years (or, in some cases, decades) ago, then I'd be inclined to call that 'settled'.
It's not enough to wave your hands in the air and say "It's all wrong" - you have to *show* why it's wrong, and why & how your alternative hypothesis explains reality better.
That's science.
Anything else is dogma.
Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth
Should not be used as a teaching aid given the number of overstatements and innacuracies it contains. The science isn't settled so the debate (and education thereof) should not be one sided.