Alternate title: Science education gets Gleicked
From AAAS:
“Is climate change education the new evolution, threatened in U.S. school districts and state education standards by well-organized interest groups? A growing number of education advocates believe so, and yesterday, the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, California, which fights the teaching of creationism, announced that it’s going to take on climate change denial as well.”

“It’s not like we’re bored,” says NCSE Director Eugenie Scott: Five state bills that would allow teaching intelligent design in schools have already surfaced in 2012. But after hearing an increasing number of anecdotes about K-12 teachers being challenged about how they taught climate science to their students, she says she began to see “parallels” between the two debates –namely, an ideological drive from pressure groups to “teach the controversy” where no scientific controversy exists. To get expertise in this area, NCSE hired climate and environmental education expert Mark McCaffrey as its new climate coordinator and appointed Pacific Institute hydroclimatologist Peter Gleick to its board of directors.
“There’s a climate of confusion in this country around climate science,” says McCaffrey, and NCSE’s goal will be to ensure that “teachers have the tools they need if they get pushback and feel intimidated.” Recent surveys, such as one done among K-12 teachers in September by the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), suggest that attacks on climate education are far from rare. NSTA found that over half of the respondents reported having encountered global warming scepticism from parents, and 26% had encountered it from administrators. And a December survey from the National Earth Science Teachers’ Association found that 36% of its 555 K-12 teachers who currently teach climate science had been “influenced” to “teach the controversy.”
Full story here
========================================
Besides the obviously ridiculous attempts to link creationism to climate skepticsim (apparently the serial use of the word “denier” isn’t denigrating enough anymore) we have the unfortunate appointment of Dr. Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute. PI is another handout seeking non governmental organization that publishes its own science opinions.
While Dr. Gleick is presented as an expert in climate science, he’s mostly about water and water systems. Climate seems to be just an angry diversion for him. But don’t take my word for it, have a look at how he treats others on the topic when he thinks he’s among friends.
Here’s some of Gleick’s recent publicly viewable tweets. Does NCSE really want someone on their board of education who says things like this? Think of the children.
Vampires? Hmmm, next he’ll be calling us zombies. Oh, wait, see below.
I find the “whining about water” crack incredibly insensitive in light of what is going on in California’s central valley with artificially (and natural) induced water shortages related to the Delta Smelt.
Really? We all think like that? Who knew?
He really hates Donna LaFramboise’s book. Probably because he got caught reviewing it without actually reading it. Gleick denies not reading it, but the evidence and opinion suggests otherwise.
I invite WUWT readers to read the book for yourself, and see how much “made up crap” is in it.
This one is puzzling:
It seems Dr. Gleick, the world renowned water expert, doesn’t understand/appreciate the immediate need for easily transportable drinking water when water supplies are cut off in earthquakes, floods, etc. He doesn’t seem to get the idea that when disaster strikes, ordinary people respond to the call for help and go buy bottled water to be trucked or airlifted in because they know it is something the will get immediately used. He seems to have a hatred of bottled water so intense that he’d rather see people suffer in emergencies than use it. You can read the Forbes article here. His solution? The worlds largest zipper on a 200 meter long water bag towed by tugboats. Yeah, that’ll work. Try airlifting that.
Sigh…another book he’s reviewed but apparently not read. It’s easier just to call people names than read it I guess. WUWT readers can read it here.
If you can’t argue the facts, call people names and denigrate them with ugly labels that have nothing to do with the issue. Truly professional behavior for a scientist on an education board, right?
This one though, takes the cake:
Yes, Peter, get an axe to attack those you disagree with. Class act sir.
Then we have Gleick’s Climate B.S. of the year” awards, where he tries to downplay the obvious crudeness in the title. I’m a proud recipient at #5. Of course Gleick never bothered to ask me any questions, so he doesn’t apparently know the story of why I withdrew my support for BEST and Dr. Richard Mueller. For him, I suppose it doesn’t matter when your primary work product is public denigration of others.
James Taylor sums up Gleick on Forbes:
Reading Peter Gleick’s January 5 blog post here at Forbes.com, I experienced that empathy in full force. Gleick’s global warming beliefs are misguided and unsupported by sound science, but I nevertheless empathize with his pain and frustration that few people seem to agree with him. A person of thinner skin than me might be offended by Gleick’s frustration-induced rant, but I believe the best remedy is truth and understanding. Accordingly, I understand Gleick’s pain and I will present some truths that might ease Gleick’s anguish if he listens to them with an open heart and mind.
Now compare Gleick’s angry tweets to this video of him in his office espousing as an expert on climate change, where he knows people are watching that may not be part of his Twitter follower clique. I don’t trust my own deteriorating hearing anymore, so I’ll leave it to readers to pull out and transcribe items of interest to post in comments.
The video has 217 views since Dec 30th, 2011. I’m sure he’ll be pleased that WUWT creationists chain smokers flat earthers moon landing deniers readers will make up the majority of his viewers now.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.











The major issue is that it just isn’t happening. That and the entire “climate change” we are talking about here is 0.8 degrees over 150 years.
Ladies and gentlemen we are entering a whopping period of record jaw dropping LOW temperatures well below record low averages take a look http://icecap.us/images/uploads/gfs_t2m_anom_plan_16.png
-0.35C read whole article at Icecap please Mr Gleick
Here’s a personal message for Peter. I live right down the street here in Sacramento. Anytime you feel froggy.
We will have to very very wary of attempts by the AGW to try to hide some pretty massive declines in temps soon, because you see this would make it absolutely positively impossible to show any warming over the last 30 years. Also be wary of changes to NH ice extent data as they often try to manipulate the borders of each section to avoid showing any declines in melting
I did manage to persuade Peter that I’m not a climate change denier… When I queustioned him about his use of it on Twitter…
But then he blocked me 🙁
@Realclim8gate
The issue I have with activists like Peter Gleick is that they appropriate common ground (e.g. temperature records of *whatever* bracket you like, showing warming) as partisan evidence instead of admitting that it’s common ground and that it doesn’t support what they’re trying to prove. That’s dishonest and irritating. Not irritating enough to make me waste the energy on lifting an axe, though.
OK, I’ll state the obvious–Gleick should never bring an axe to a gunfight, but that would be wasting more mental energy on the guy than he’s worth.
[snip – personal appearance isn’t a valid issue. -A]
Sounds to me like it is part of the “Education_for_sustainable_development”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_for_sustainable_development.
E.M. Smith had a must read post including this.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/12/18/foia-agenda-21/
bazza norwood says:
January 19, 2012 at 12:36 am
[snip – personal appearance isn’t a valid issue. -A]
True. What about Facial Expressions? Compare this to the similarly-formatted Hansen video.
And where did the African continent vanish to on the map behind?
I agree, excellent Bastardi article. But you didn’t give the link, just the image. Here it is:
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate
Personal appearance is not a valid issue, but PI clearly needs additional funding so Peter can eat, and afford a barber!
The issues associated with CAGW – often wrongly called “global warming, climate change, climate disruption” and other stranger things – are complex. Many folks and many K-12 teachers do not understand the basics of Earth. Maybe they should concentrate on simple concepts. For example
http://msp.ehe.osu.edu/wiki/index.php/MSP:MiddleSchoolPortal/The_Reasons_for_the_Seasons
Just the person you would not want involved in education, absolute rock solid on the propaganda and no room for opening the wonderful world of science or purity of fact. I find this mindset weird and unpalatable in his dogmatic presentation of skewed science. And disturbing that he has been appointed to an educational board.
“How do I lie to thee –
Let me count the ways”.
Actually, I lost count at about the seven minute mark.
And there aren’t even any NEW ones. Just the same old, same old.
Climate change IS happening.
Most scientists agree climate change IS happening.
Climate change is man-made.
Climate change is unprecedented.
Denial = Big Oil.
Denial = like Big Tobacco.
Denial = well-funded, well organised.
Denial = politically motivated.
Denial = evolution versus creationism.
Climate change = hotter/drier.
Climate change = colder/wetter.
Climate change = more/less (insert whatever required).
Climate change = more extreme climate events and more of them.
Climate change = rising sea levels.
Climate change = increased spread of diseases.
Climate change = loss of agricultural production.
Yada yada yada yada.
Anthony, I want my fifteen minutes back.
… a December survey from the National Earth Science Teachers’ Association found that 36% of its 555 K-12 teachers who currently teach climate science had been “influenced” to “teach the controversy.”
In other words, the “controversy”, i.e., evidence that there is no global warming, is misinformation and should not be taught. Universities, reasearch institutions, funding agencies, journals, and media have employed this rationale for censorship for years, so why not in that last bastion of free exchange of ideas, K-12 schools?
Next, obstetric wards. Get ’em while they’re young.
Twitter has a wonderful tendency to bring out the inner idiot of warmists.
Ripper at 12.42 said;
‘Sounds to me like it is part of the “Education_for_sustainable_development”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_for_sustainable_development.
E.M. Smith had a must read post including this.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/12/18/foia-agenda-21/
—— —–
In response to your post I have just posted this to Chiefio
“Sorry to be coming so late to this from a link at wuwt today.
I wrote about agenda 21 several years ago within the context of The British governments developing policy on climate change, and the push to become the Worlds first country to legally enforce a reduction in carbon emissions.The article is still relevant and forms an interesting footnote to your own excellent piece
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/crossing-the-rubicon-an-advert-to-change-hearts-and-minds/
Like you I had originally thought the whole idea of an ‘agenda’ was crazy-but it’s not.”
I don’t know if someone like Donna , who wrote about the IPCC, has been looking into this but there is definitely a developing story here when you look at this article, together with Chiefio’s, my own, and no doubt lots of other pieces currently not linked together.
tonyb
It’s easier to indoctrinate children, especially when they are not allowed to question
“Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man”
There is a lot of similarity between global warming and creationism. Global warming is the belief that “mankind must have done it … and it is true unless or until someone proves they didn’t”. Creaiontism is the belief that “god must have done it … and it is true unless or until someone proves she didn’t”.
You can no more have a sensible argument with a global warmists than you can with a creationist. All you can do is stick to the facts and hope that most people are too sensible to go along with it. … or perhaps more practically, hope that it is essentially harmless and can be tolerated. Which unfortunately, isn’t yet the state of affairs with warmists.
Poor Peter Gleick
The man is sick
Screaming hate when facts don’t stick
Demanding those who disagree
Kowtow to his pomposity
Conflating Creationism
As if it relates to anything
Remotely resembling
Empirical facts
Currently missing
From Gleick’s mad ramblings…
Peter has nailed us ‘deniers’ I’m afraid when he says;
“(climate change denial) is incredibly well funded.’
He’s right, I dont know what to do with all the money that Big Oil passes to me for writing my articles on climate history, other than shovel it on the fire to keep warm. Willis is paid by the word and is currently building a large warehouse to house his collection of thirty expensive vintage cars, Monckton has just bought his third castle, whilst a myriad others who contribute here and elsewhere have got their snouts in the big oil trough. Just apply to Big oil and you too can be incredibly well funded and enjoy an Al Gore type lifestyle.
tonyb
In the UK, the Guardian online reported this last week – the article was focused on UK faith schools and the teaching of creationism
“The Department for Education has revised its model funding agreement, allowing the education secretary to withdraw cash from schools that fail to meet strict criteria relating to what they teach. Under the new agreement, funding will be withdrawn for any free school that teaches what it claims are “evidence-based views or theories” that run “contrary to established scientific and/or historical evidence and explanations”.
Our legislation is often hijacked for uses other than the original intent – creationism this week, next week – objectivity in science. The Climate Change Act 2008, passed through parliament almost without dissent by our elected sheep, represents the “established” science.
Do I believe in Climate? Yes. How asked me the “Real Question”. Do I believe that CO2 Drives the Climate? No. If it did, our planet would have burned up a long time ago.
Mike Bromley the Canucklehead January 19, 2012 at 12:44 am
May have something to do with the fact that Africa is not a part of Eurassia! (see large-letter heading to the map)