From Wired Magazine, an example of how skeptical views on climate change have now become mainstream enough to earn a level of protection when educators want to explore both sides of the issue. It is unfortunate that Wired magazine chose to label the idea as “anti-science”.
They write:
House Bill 302, as it’s called, states that public school teachers who want to teach “scientific weaknesses” about “controversial scientific topics” including evolution, climate change, human cloning and — ambiguously — “other scientific topics” may do so without fear of reprimand. The legislation was introduced to the New Mexico House of Representatives on Feb. 1 by Republican Rep. Thomas A. Anderson.
Supporters of science education say this and other bills are designed to spook teachers who want to teach legitimate science and protect other teachers who may already be customizing their curricula with anti-science lesson plans.
“These bills say, ‘Oh we’re just protecting the rights of teachers,’ which on the face of it isn’t wrong. But they draw big red circles around topics like evolution and climate change as topics to be wary about,” said Joshua Rosenau, a policy and projects director at the National Center for Science Education. “It suggests this kind of science is controversial, and would protect teachers who want to teach anti-evolution and climate-change-denying lessons in classrooms.”
The bill is one of five already introduced to state legislatures this year. While more than 30 such bills have been introduced since 2004, only Louisiana adopted one as law in 2008.
full story here
Mailman says: “Im sorry but that is a load of bollocks…especially when the main driver for ID is the Discovery Institute, who in turn believe that it is God that is responsible for Intelligent Design…which in turn is reflected in their propaganda.”
Well, isn’t that the same as saying that CAGW skeptics are all funded by the evil oil companies?
If there is such a prejudice, then why not associate CAGW with Intelligent Design? That’s actually the basis of their argument.
Alan Cichanski says:
” While I believe in evolution, the truth is, whether a dinosaur (or any organism) was created by Biblical creation or natural selection evolution, the dinosaur will have zero impact on the daily life of any human. On the other hand, if the warmists like Gore, Hansen, and Obama ram the whole AGW down our throats and destroy modern society in the name of saving the planet with their stupid unscientific ideas, every human will have his life altered for the worse. ”
Good point. Darwinism is basically irrelevant to our lives in the here and now. Hansenism and Goreism are not.
Mailman says:
“In fact, I would go as far to say that climate science as practiced by “The Team” is pretty similar to the science that goes in to creationism…and the defenders of both will move heaven and earth to protect their religion from being examined in any detail that would expose it for what it is.”
I’d agree with you. However, I would add the Darwinists to the unholy duo. Their social behavior and their fanaticism is exactly as rigid and corrupt as the CAGW fanatics exposed by Climategate.
I value critical thinking skills and work hard to develop these in my two children, ages 5 and 8. Scepticism is an integral component of scientific thought. When it comes to scientific theory such as global warming, I don’t really care what is being taught in public school, as long as the children are being presented with all sides, thus protection of academics’ rights to present these views is very important. My own sceptical opinions on AGW would not cause me to deny my children to be presented with AGW lessons at school. A belief that we need to protect children from ideas that conflict with our own is decidedly anti-science.
Much ado ….
Wired has *always* been a magazine with a political edge, and it has always tilted left (I knew some its original editors and writers). So for Wired to call CAGW skepticism “anti-science” is no big surprise. Who knows… I let my subscription lapse because of its annoying “edgy” attitude.
As for the school curricula, I wish they’d just go back to reading, writing, and arithmetic, with a dollop of experimental (empirical) science, astronomy, computer tech, and history thrown in. Bring back Model Rocket Clubs!
I don’t recall that Darwin or “the environment” were ever a huge part of my junior high (middle) school education, although somehow I learned something about those topics.
One parallel between the Climategate-style abuses and Darwinist abuses is the case of one Martin Gaskell who was denied a major position at the University of Kentucky due to doubts about his Darwinian orthodoxy. Ironically, his job was to be in the field of astronomy, and had nothing to do with biology.
Gaskell seems to be the Darwinist equivalent of Judith Curry… a believer in the mainstream view, but willing to engage and listen to the opposition. He found out that that was enough to doom him, just out of “guilt by suspicion”.
There was a lawsuit. The university chose to settle his case for $125,000 rather than lose a lawsuit based upon discrimination against a protected class.
The parallels between the treatment of suspected Darwinian skeptics and suspected CAGW skeptics reflects the same degree of corruption and loss of scientific integrity. In fact, you might say that the CAGW team treats its “suspected heretics” better than the Darwinists do. Judith Curry still has her job, in spite of allowing Steve McIntyre speak at her university.
Anthony Hughes said “Well, isn’t that the same as saying that CAGW skeptics are all funded by the evil oil companies?”.
Except unfortunately the truth is that Big Oil doesnt fund climate skepticism anywhere near the scale of the Discovery Institutes bankrolling of creationism.
What is sad is your desperate grasp at legitimacy through association with skepticism related to Mann Made Global Warming ™. If Creationism was as robust as you believe it is then it wouldn’t need to be associated with climate skepticism.
Mailman
There’s a world of difference between evolution and “climate change”. I’m all for teaching some weaknesses, but if that means teaching creationism too, hell no. Evolution has firm scientific grounding, AGW does not.
Lumping in skepticism of CAGW theory with creationism is disturbing.
Another parallel between Darwinism and CAGW…
Warmists claim they need Greenhouse Gas warming to account for late 20th century temperature changes, and there is no credible alternative.
CAGW skeptics attribute this attitude to a lack of imagination, and a refusal to consider other climate forcings.
Darwinists claim they need random changes modified by natural selection to account for biological origins, and indeed all of contemporary biology, and there is no credible alternative.
Darwinist skeptics attribute this attitude to a lack of imagination, and a refusal to consider other biological forcings.
Are you starting to see a parallel in these social phenomena?
If you even want to compare CAGW theory with evolutionary theory, evolutionary theory would have to make future predictions about what organisms will look like in the far future. If a theory claimed that in the future whales will once again form legs and walk on land based on some computer models and hand waving, then rigorous skepticism would be well justified.
Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel in the 1970’s proposed a hypothesis which became known as “directed panspermia” which essentially states that complex biological molecules such as RNA and DNA arrived on the earth from outside the solar system and furthermore that it must have been directed at the earth by intent.
Their basis is that life appeared on the earth very soon after it lost enough heat of formation so that liquid water could exist on the surface. The genesis of RNA and DNA is the toughest nut to crack for abiogenisis and it appeared, in Crick and Orgel’s opinion, far too quickly on the earth for an random dance of atoms to have done the job. So they proposed that the universe, being billions of years older than the earth, had more time and opportunity elsewhere for this miracle to have taken place. So they then calculated the odds of a planet light years away exploding or otherwise shedding genetic material and that material surviving the trip and landing intact on the earth’s surface (panspermia). They concluded this too was so improbable as to border on the impossible. So they proposed that the arrival must have been intentional – someone or something intentionally seeded the earth with the rudimentary molecular machinery of organic life.
Roy Spencer and John Christy of UAH, both deeply involved in climate research and skeptical of the AGW hypothesis, are both Intelligent Design proponents. Not so well known is one of their colleagues at UAH, Rob Sheldon (an astrophysicist who specializes in instrumentation design for exploratory spacecraft) is also an Intelligent Design proponent who came to my attention when I saw an interesting paper he’d written on cometary origin of biological molecules. His thesis is that complex biological molecules and very simple forms of life arise in comets and that these propagate across the galaxy when two stars pass close enough to each other so their Oort clouds (comets that populate the most remote gravitational fringes of stars up to a half-light year away) mingle and perturb each other so that material is exchanged which then rains down upon the inner planets. He further proposes that large evolutionary leaps happen when these Oort cloud encounters occur. He cites as corroborating evidence amino acids which have been found in carbonaceous chondrites (a class of meteorite), organic molecules detected in comets by intercept and intercept/return missions, and also the (controversial) finding of what appear to be fossilized bacteria in a couple of carbonaceous chondrite meteorites found in IIRC Antarctica about 10 years ago.
My personal opinion is that universe is not only stranger than we imagine it’s stranger than we can imagine so I don’t tend to cling to much of anything as absolute truth but rather put them on a continuous spectrum ranging from nearly impossible to nearly certain. Mud-to-man evolution via random mutation & natural selection I consider to be somewhere between nearly impossible and barely plausible. But because it isn’t quite impossible it may indeed be the truth IMO.
Many well known climate skeptics are also skeptics of the big accident theory of origin for the universe and living things. There’s a reason for it. Both are bandwagon/consensus science. When scientific theories rely on consensus rather than demonstrable facts one can rest assured that science has left the building and been replaced by dogma. That should raise a red flag wherever and whenever you see it. Science isn’t a democracy where the truth is determined by popular vote. As Einstein said of his many early critics (paraphrased from memory) – “It doesn’t matter how many people believe my theory is wrong as it only requires only one person to prove it is wrong.”
slp,
your post is so full of fail. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theory is the highest level of scientific explanation. “Irreducible complexity” has never been shown to be a valid concept in biology.
Being taught to believe something is incorrect. Being taught how to figure out the answers for yourself is correct. Critical thinking skills is a prerequisite.
Juice says:
“your post is so full of fail. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theory is the highest level of scientific explanation. “Irreducible complexity” has never been shown to be a valid concept in biology.”
Just wondering who it is that determines which concepts are valid? Is there one supreme court for biology and another for climate science, or does the same court adjudicate both fields?
Someone mentioned A.C. Clarke. I currently like his theory that the need to seek out a higher power or being (the quest for God) is a product of our mammalian birth process. Having children nearly the same age as Elizabeth, I recall many interactions with our children while they were still in the womb. The music we played through a set of dismantled headphones still calms them to this day. So there is some cognitive ability even in the womb ( although it is likely on a subconscious level). The fetus can sense the presence of the mother, but in no way could it understand what is carrying it. Do we spend the rest of our lives needing/seeking the comfort of a being greater than ourselves? Makes sense to me, but I am still open to all ideas. Having the courage to admit that I may be wrong is very important. This frightens most people.
Mailman says:
“What is sad is your desperate grasp at legitimacy through association with skepticism related to Mann Made Global Warming ™. If Creationism was as robust as you believe it is then it wouldn’t need to be associated with climate skepticism.”
Mailman, we disagree on the definition of Intelligent Design. My concept of the term has nothing to do with creation of anything by a God or Gods.
Personally, I don’t believe in Creationism. I don’t think it is robust.
I have no problem with Darwinism/evolutionism – it probably colors a great deal of my thinking about the nature of the world. What I do object to is the tendency to regard current theory as some sort of ultimate TRUTH. Science is a method of knowing, not a body of immutable knowledge. An educated person should be familiar with both Darwinism and Intelligent Design and be able to discuss and evaluate their strengths and flaws and their contexts.
I am angered that people need to lump you into this category or that category. The fact that Richard Lindzen said something about tobacco once doesn’t automatically make everything else he says wrong. People who oppose Richard Lindzen would very much like this to be true, but it isn’t. It is the weakest of arguments. A strategy I’ve seen implemented against all who do not believe Co2 drives climate. The smear campaign.
The comments at the Wired article got into a truly substantive discussion, which is rare nowadays. Surprised me. The True Believers kept saying things like “How can you do biological work unless you believe in macro-evolution?” … and the real scientists kept replying, “Science doesn’t start with belief, science starts with observation. Macro-evolution has not been observed.”
The True Believers will never be persuaded, but the real science side, expressed with such clarity, may persuade some people who are arriving to these questions from outside.
No matter what you believe, everyone should read “Origin of Species” by Darwin. Most who are for or against have never bothered to read this book. You may very well be surprised.
@John Campbell says: February 7, 2011 at 6:34 am
As per Dr. Roy Spencer: “Natural climate variability is the null hypothesis. No one has ever ruled it out. They have only come up with a potential alternative explanation, which is fine. But it is being advertised as some sort of ‘proof’, which it is not.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/02/a-challenge-to-the-climate-research-community/#comment-10824
Robert E. Phelan says:
“I have no problem with Darwinism/evolutionism – it probably colors a great deal of my thinking about the nature of the world. What I do object to is the tendency to regard current theory as some sort of ultimate TRUTH. Science is a method of knowing, not a body of immutable knowledge. An educated person should be familiar with both Darwinism and Intelligent Design and be able to discuss and evaluate their strengths and flaws and their contexts.”
Excellent point. I completely agree.
The Intelligent Design paradigm says that there are three possibilities. A particular phenomenon may be (1) random in nature, (2) a consequence of a natural law, or (3) an effect of an intelligent designer. This results in a world that contains natural behavior, such as evolution by natural selection in some cases, and intelligently designed artifacts in other cases, such as highly developed strains of wheat.
For example, one Dr Steig published a study claiming that Antarctic warming was not confined to the Antarctic peninsula, but was happening all over West Antarctica. There was a subsequent paper that showed that Steig’s observations were not natural, but the product of Intelligent Design, i.e., an artifact of his use of statistics.
Distinguishing natural phenomena from artifacts is what the ID paradigm is all about.
John Marshall says:
February 7, 2011 at 1:46 am
Indeed, plate tectonics was rather ‘out there’ for quite a while until the research caught up with it and showed that the rocks on either side of various divides, etc, were the same through chemistry, etc. But as an initial theory it was a bloody good theory, which ‘at a stroke’ explained virtually all the geological and land mass forms of our planets surface, the volcanoes, subductions zones, rift valleys, etc, etc.
CAGW theory explains nothing and certainly does not fit many actual observations. the further difference is that every subsequent bit of (pro)AGW research constantly tries to support the theory with twists and turns, data manipulation(s) and statistical techniques, etc.
Plate Tectonics was relatively easily proved because it was theoretically very sound. AGW is neither theorectically sound nor easily proved – and hence is the preferred choice for some gigantic ‘control’ mechanism playing on the fears of the innocent masses.
As a geology student of the late 70’s – I remember Plate Tectonics was pretty well absolutely defined then, but there were still one or two dissenters. After 20 years of AGW we are nowhere (in comparable terms) further forward than when ‘it’ started!
Consequently, I find it hard to understand why anyone (teacher or otherwise) would want to DEFINE AGW as ‘certain’ and inflict such definition onto young minds. The essence is to teach ‘questioning’ not ‘acceptance’ when imparting scientific knowledge and far more importantly, to at least constantly reiterate the fact that any such ‘postulated’ theory is just that – postulated and NOT proven!
Milton Friedman had some good points on education;