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.
Yes, climate change indoctrination is like creationism, just like skeptical climate science is like evolution. One is religion (and like any religion an elaborate disguise for legalized terrorism and oppression), the other is freedom worthy of the human mind.
I’m not as worried as some of the other commenters. Early propaganda can be powerful in the short term, but the record on evolution shows it’s not nearly as powerful as the commies would like. In both America and Russia, only about 25% of the population is certain about evolution; the other 75% ranges from open-minded to pro-creation. So 70 years of absolute unalloyed pro-evolution propaganda in Russia and 100 years of absolute unadulterated hard-line pro-evolution propaganda in America didn’t succeed in converting the majority of the people.
I discussed this in more detail here: http://polistrasmill.blogspot.com/2009/05/ineffective-isnt-it.html
The climate question has an additional advantage because the evidence for cooling is obvious to most people in the Northern Hemisphere. The evidence for or against evolution is much less obvious and doesn’t hit you in the face when you walk out the door every day. You don’t have to shovel fossils to reach the street!
If theology (Creationism) does not belong in the science classroom, the climate change (aka global warming = junk science taken on faith) does not belong there either.
It is quite clear that Gleick’s science in general and logic specifically is sorely lacking. How do we revoke pHD’s?
I hope no one is undly surprised or astounded. This move has been telegraphed for several years already. We’ve seen its ponderous development and the apartchiks lining up behind it. No need for science in pushing this lazy, but very effective meme. Anyone have counter-measures? Thought so.
To me, AGW supporters sound a lot like evolution supporters.
They both take a simple and well acknowledged fact:
CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Environmental pressures cause changes in organisms.
And conflate that into a grand theory of everything.
Peter Gleick features in email 0838 were they are discussing Steve McIntyre’s request for code and data. His contribution is as follows (minor formatting edits):
The “should be what we do” he is referring to is the following (my bold):
Public education has been a brainwashing disaster since it was introduced by that inventor of totalitarian social mechanisms, Bismarck.
There is nothing surprising in the fact that public education institutions are supporting and making mandatory a myth serving the main purpose of those in power, that is to stay in power by all means possible, including blatant misinformation and lavish funding of those “scientists” who agree to lie for money.
How to fix the human nature? That is the question.
P.S. Look at that Gleick’s face. You say appearances don’t matter? I say they do. Everything about a man, the whole story of his life is written on his face. In this particular case, it’s truly pathetic.
Sam have to agree this is a very troubling development that should be hit hard before it takes hold and becomes the new benchmark to beat sceptics with ,Persons like Gleick are beyond any reasonable debate they are frothing green whacks the fact that he has dragged religion into it shows the utter invalidity of his mindset !
As an atheist I feel no threat from those who believe in a god [ ok one group but they are a bit hotheaded anyway !] I have even no problems with creationism as it has no effect on anyone with a inquiring mind that seeks out their own path! OK not in schools but neither should be any unprovable faith based idea’s very like the ones he likes !
So as I see it he is the only one calling for controls and bans he is the one abusing and name calling so he is the problem !
I find it slightly amusing the way these folks now hate so many groups, that they are finding themselves in a smaller and smaller band of believers. I am not a religious person but I welcome all the creationists to the sceptical side of the CAGW debate. It wont be long before the CAGW fanatics turn on each other, thats what usually happens in a dogmatic movement
Reminds me of the guy in England who was about to jump off tower bridge
A gorgeous blonde passer-by runs up and shouts ‘dont jump. you have plenty to live for. would you like to talk?’
‘It’s my girl back home in NY. She didnt want me to come to the CAGW conference in london. she left me’
‘You believe in CAGW ? me too. wow. All that CO2, something must be done’
The jumper looks interested ‘It’s the water vapour feedback thats the real problem’
‘Yes!, and it’s been proven that when the hydrates outgas it will be the end’
‘and the clathrates’
‘Yes. clathrates.The models prove it could happen by 2100’
‘And dont forget the back radiation , which was a brilliant discovery by the team’
‘Yes. back radiation’
The jumper relaxes, eyes the blonde up and down. ‘Possibly a bit of natural ENSO variation as well’
‘Natural variability ?? what?’
The blonde pushes him off the bridge into the icy thames
‘DENIER’
/joke
EO
Charles Gerard Nelson says:
January 19, 2012 at 2:46 am
Gleick does that rhyme wit Prick or Geek
I am guessing it rhymes with Geek.
If it was Prick there would be no “e” in Gleick.
He put in an “e” for eccentric or egotistical.
;-( Yes! pretty weak.
Does this guy drive a car? If so, he’s part of the AGW problem and should be ashamed of himself.
Sean O’Connor says:
January 19, 2012 at 1:39 am
I’ve learnt to never trust what people say if they have a beard. I know that’s a bit of an ad-beardinem argument but it always seems to work.
How about Galileo, Boltzmann, Mendeleev, Darwin, Koch, Pasteur, Perelman, Verdi, and Hugo, to name just a few who first come to mind? Not to mention that Hitler, Stalin and Mao the Dung were bloody shavers (beard deniers?). Think again!
afiziquist says:
January 19, 2012 at 12:20 am
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
_________________________________
No problem at all…record low temps would be proof positive of global warming, or at least global climate change. Heck, they even predictated that back in the early 1970’s (the coming ice age). They’ll never be wrong…they can’t be wrong. They shapeshift the theory to fit the data and connect the dots back to the need for world control.
Teachers should never dictate what a child thinks, just that they think, for themselves.
Why do some teachers find this freedom so hard to allow? Especially when they demand it so loudly for themselves.
Oh, and I am a science teacher and I have a beard!
“New so called climate change book from the heartland institute once again proves the earth is flat , humans never walked on the moon”
Really Mr Gleick ? Then perhaps You could explain that to these guys that they are “Climate denying , flat earther , moon landing conspirisy theorists ”
http://oi52.tinypic.com/35c4ojm.jpg
I have put my view of this on my blog:
“There are more things …”
Perhaps the most unfortunate aspect of people like Gleick and many other advocates of their AGW beliefs is their disgraceful attitude towards anyone who might genuinely believe in the opposing point of view. Their endless vilification, in the rudest and most personal terms, of the huge body of professional scientists and amateur enthusiasts across the world who produce sound scientific evidence for questioning the AGW dogma, supported by sound empirical evidence, is surely proof positive that the AGW dogma is loosing all credibility. It seems that their view is ‘if your cannot challenge the science supporting an opposing viewpoint then you must attack and ridicule the creater of that viewpoint.
For Gleick to be appointed to the board of governors of any teaching establishment in order to brainwash its pupils, as Gleick most surely will, is a traversty for that teaching establishment
if it wishes to associate itself with true, open and genuine scientific enquiry. And woebetide any free thinking pupil who might just be sceptical. I just hope the remainder of the board at the Center for Science Education, if they read about Gleick’s ridiculous and outragous outpourings catalogued above, will realise they have made a huge error in appointing him to their board, and in the interests of good teaching and open science, will decide to cancel his appointment forthwith.
In the Holocene Epoch we were promised justice for Gaia,
By robbing the poor of the 1st world to enrich the elites of the 3rd world;
But, though we spent plenty of money, there was nothing our money would do,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant.”
(with apologies to Kipling)
He has picked the wrong side with his analogy. It is the scientific sceptic that questions the truthfulness of the biblical story. Scientific sceptics now question the truthfulness of the IPCC bible.
Surely the creationists here are the cultists from the religion of Mann Made Global Warming?
Mailman
The Science Insider article contained this gem: “Scott says that one of NCSE’s tasks will be to analyze these materials and educate teachers on why they are scientifically unsound.”
Not “if” but “why”. This does not sound very objective.
37.Paul Marko says:
January 19, 2012 at 2:44 am
“…We may be at the beginnng of the best of times and the worst of times. If the quietness of solar cycle 24 is followed by and equally subdued cycle 25, CAGW proponents like Gleick will be silenced by the temperature realities of another LIA. But then what nation will be prepared for its effect on world agriculture. Not much of a victory…”
This brings up a point that the CAGW proponents don’t want to discuss: “Can you, with 95% certainty, state that the current recorded anomalies of X (pick a database) will NEVER drop to below “zero”?
We’ve seen a single volcano drop the temps globally by .5 degrees. We’ve seen the effect of a “dalton minimum” event on global temps. We’ve seen the effect of El Nino/La Nina on global temps.
What happens if (or when) they do drop?
I, for one want to be there when the curtain rises on decreasing anomalies…
Anthropogenic global warming and alarmism equals creationism! They are the same faith- and dogma-based religion. No science needed. As a member of a denomination that has lots of creationists, I deal with them all the time, and have for decades. When one has so much experience, one can spot them quickly. The AGW adherents are the same as the creationists. The notions are based on authority and preconceived ideas. Both use simplistic science arguments in twisted ways to make arguments that seem convincing, but are incomplete. Both quote and cite each other in closed loops that give the appearance of open review and thoroughness. But when the facts prevail, and the hard work is done, the claims of the AGW advocates ring just as hollow as the antitevolutionists. It seems to me that proponents like Gleik are the same kind of huckster evangelists as Dr. Henry Morris. Sooner or later, the climate will prove the climate-change types wrong. I worry, that like evolution, long after the average person can go to the records and examine the evidence first hand, climate-change “faith” will live on and “deniers” will continue to be denigrated after all serious scientists move on and abandon alarmism and attempts to regulate burning. A century from now, when it is actually colder and most energy is produced from nuclear power, there will still be environmentalists and progressive extremists who are calling for restrictions on fossil fuels and for preparations for thermogedon and boiling oceans. Hansen will by then be exalted similar to Dr. Henry Morris, and our children will still be subjected to the nonsense, just like has happened with the antievolution movement. For now, it takes a bit of digging and a deliberate long-view to see that the earth has always behaved as it does now. A century from now we will have the historic data and actual records. It will be obvious by then that nature wins and humans don’t really matter that much. Still, there will be the ELF types, and M. Crichton’s State of Fear will be just as relevant then.
I object to your statement. I am a creationist. Your views on creationists are myopic and bigoted and just plain wrong. Creationists don’t believe “god must have done it … and it is true unless or until someone proves she didn’t”. First, although God (with a capital G) has no gender, he is always referred to as a male in the Bible or Koran. There are religions with gods, but you did not says gods plural but god singular. That statement alone shows that you have misconceptions about creationists.
This is not the time or place to get into why I believe in God. Needless to say, it is founded on facts and things I have seem with my own two eyes. My belief in God is based on faith and proof. I cannot see gravity but I know it is exists because I clearly see the effects of it; I cannot see God but I know he exists because I clearly see the effects of him. Please, I beg you, talk to someone like me as to why I believe in God and stop pigeonholing people like me. By pigeonholing me, you are doing the exact same thing you are lambasting Peter Glieck of doing.
The National Center for Selling Evolution (NCSE) is expanding into a different area of narrative science that needs defending. Precious. And what a perfect guy to do it. If Eugine Scott didn’t wax her mustache for a week she’d be a dead ringer for Peter Gleick. I’m not sure which of them that insults more but I’m sure it insults neither of them sufficiently.