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.
There is a real risk for propents of AGW linking up with the evolutionsit-creationist debate. If AGW is observed (as opposed to proven) to be false by the very children who are forced to trudge through snow no learn it, won’t these children also become skeptical of the evolution meme, as well? If teachers appear to be as sane as Blue Footed Boobies (no disrespect to Blue Footed Boobies) by teaching the indefensible would not all of their teaching come under scrutiny? The idea of evolution has been around since at least the time of the pre-Socratic, Anaxamander although clearly Lammark and Spenser are the groundfloor of our current views on the subject. It would be a shame to further confuse the issue in children’s minds by linking a good theory to a bad one.
It’s actually available in paperback for $14.40 from Amazon here:
http://www.amazon.com/Delinquent-Teenager-Mistaken-Worlds-Climate/dp/1466453486/ref=sr_1_1_title_0_main?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1326983614&sr=1-1
I don’t know about the rest of them, but Bezos is a libertarian.
Peter Glieck does not sound all that knowledgeable about either the science or the skepticism. Is he supposed to be a scientist?
This is unfortunately one more facet of a growing problem in education in general. We no longer teach critical thought. Glieck, McCaffrey and organizations like the NCSE are all about turning our children into regurgitative automatons – “you shall think and act exactly as we tell you to.” The only way to teach critical thought (what I consider REAL education regardless of the subject), one must present more than one side of a topic or arguement. Like it or not both climate change and evolution are arguements. Present the evidence and let the individual figure it out on their own.
Old text books were as full of propaganda as new ones are, just on different topics. Every decade or so, these textbooks are declared out of date and old fashioned, stamped with “discard”, and replaced with new textbooks filled with new interpretations of what we should believe and how we should behave.
A case in point, one of my favorite phonics based early readers had a man smoking a pipe as one of the central characters. The new edition has the same man minus the pipe. And somewhere in my storage closet I have an old flashcard set of Dolch sight words, which includes a picture of a frosty mug of “beer” and a nice shiney 6-cylinder, 45 mag, “gun”. But one of my favorites is an old grade school textbook chronicling the life and times of Dick and Jane. Their mother ate, slept, and apparently went to the bathroom with her apron, stockings, and dress in picture perfect condition, while dad, in clean white shirt and tie, was happily taking a drag on whatever tobacco product he had in his mouth.
The reasons for such propaganda-ladened textbooks (in the US; sold by just a few private for-profit companies), are probably twisted and complicated. It is enough for parents to know that it exists in all textbooks in every decade and to perform due diligence in staying involved in the education of their children, wherever it occurs.
I think this is very apt for this string. From my local paper in Sussex, England:
“Hello I am R… F…….. and I would just like to inform you about the environment. In 40 years time the world’s oil will run out and that could cause wars, which we do not want to happen after all the wars we have had, including World War 1 and 2. Also in 60 years time the world’s rainforests will have been completely demolished. If we don’t change in 80 years we could all be dead and I am only 8 years old.
I learnt this all in one geography lesson, but that’s not what I’m writing this letter to you for. The reason is if we don’t change then we are all going to be stuck for life and I could die at the age of 88.
RF, aged 8
I’m trying to phrase a polite reply, not to upset RF, but to let the teacher responsible know that he/she is not doing the next generation any favours.
Anthea Collins
The hour-long NPR show “This American Life” devoted 15 minutes in its second segment (of three) last Saturday, Jan. 14, 2012, to a woman from the NCSE attempting to re-educate a home-schooled, skeptical gal of 14. The host stated that she provided evidence disproving skeptical claims, and showing that the medieval period was considerably cooler than today’s. The gal stated at the end that she hadn’t been persuaded, and that she’d like to see the points and counterpoints from both sides listed alongside each other. This was followed by a discussion between the host and the NCSE-er discussing whether it’s ever possible to get through to disbelievers.
Lonnie Schubert says
it was relatively easy for me to figure out that man made climate change is a myth.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
however, I have not yet been able to conclude that out of absolutely nothing,
and guided by absolutely nobody, an incredible intelligent person like Lonnie Schuber appeared.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/why-do-i-believe-in-god
That’s okay RF. Don’t feel bad that you don’t understand climate variability and natural drivers. The other day I listened to a national news program anchor say that $99,000 (and change) was “Ninety Nine Hundred dollars” and even argued with her panel that she was right, before finally realizing her mistake and claiming “I don’t know how to read”. Adults can be wrong, including teachers and news anchors. This is a lesson you have fortunately learned at the age of 8. That will make you a very lucky and wise 9 year old.
Anthony send him your CO2 vs Air in a jar video. Maybe he’ll catch on that some of CO2’s physical qualities have a cooling effect. And that good science can be taught in a class room to show/teach young folk real information.
NSTA found that over half of the respondents reported having encountered global warming scepticism from parents, and 26% had encountered it from administrators.
It would seem to me that if half of the parents and a quarter of the administrators are saying that the teachers need to adapt their methods to include skepticism then the proper course of action would not be to hire a [self snip] like Peter Gleick. I tend to think Gleick will up those skeptical percentage rather quickly.
“… that WUWT creationists chain smokers flat earthers moon landing deniers readers ..”
Moon landing deniers? There is no Lunar Sound Stage in Bldg 1420 at Johnson Space Center in Houston, and they didn’t do nine takes before they got stepping off the LEM to look believable. And then find out that Armstrong flubbed the line after it went out on air. Anyway, we’re all sworn to secrecy.
I think the problems in our school systems are almost universal.
Here in Alberta, the Calgary Board of Education (CBE) is a member of 1010.org. (A perusal of 1010.org website will confirm this). Also the CBE tried to construct a wind turbine in one of their primary school yards recently – needless to say there was an outcry from the entire neighbourhood which feared noise, an eyesore as well as slaughter of the many birds of prey that live in a city surround by the prairies.
In Canada, it is almost weekly that we have to compensate for the harmful brainwashing of our children. I believe the situation is not far different from that of the 1900’s in Germany when German Youth were energized into a nationalistic fervor over nature and the “fatherland”. The extremist belief that nature/environment trumps anything else (food, jobs, energy, health, well being, economy) is most clearly a step along the path towards a form of patriotic fascism (Gaia being the end which justifies whatever means).
The typical type comments by Peter Gleick are noteworthy if only because they are echoed everywhere throughout the blogosphere by other citizens. The keystone pipeline was cancelled yesterday by Obama and a perusal of comments on every news story relating to this announcement reveals rampant “hatred” against conservatives and oil companies. Despite our total dependence on fossil fuels (the relationship between standard of living and fuel consumption is undeniable), this complete hatred of the “hand that feeds” has been whipped up in our very own education systems. There is no longer any balance or rational debate. The extremists are completely opposed to any and all minimal environmental risks despite the huge and proven benefits that industry/development brings to society.
Sorry, please correct my previous post to read as follows:
Lonnie Schubert says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/19/comparing-climate-skepticism-to-creationism-in-the-classroom/#comment-869346
it was relatively easy for me to figure out that man made climate change is a myth.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
however, I have not yet been able to conclude that out of absolutely nothing,
and guided by absolutely nobody, an incredible intelligent person like Lonnie Schuber appeared.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/why-do-i-believe-in-god
An interesting thread.
Clearly the Warmistas are on the same side as Creationistas: both are faith based and doctrinal whilst those who believe in real science will be sceptical, searching and open to debate.
To have faith denies debate (see above).
So, an interesting thread but also very worrying that so many here are Creationistas – unless the Earth was really created 6,000 years ago.
But the really horrifying point is Gleick and his appointment. How stupid are those who thought this remotely sensible? I hope they are elected and can be voted out! Oh, wait a minute, it’s California…
!st Climate Scientist: Oh no! The IPCC doesn’t expect any discernible effect of co2 emmissions on climate extremes for another 2 0r 3 decades.
2nd Climate Scientist: Pesky weather, guess we’ll have to turn back the Doomsday Clock a few minutes.
!st Climate Scientist: DIdn’t we already do that?
2nd Climate Scientist: Yes we did, but as every climate scientist should realise, the price of truth is eternal vigilance.
I think the entire view of creationists are strawmanned to the point of stupidity. You have to divide them into the correct divisions
A: Intelligent Design /Divine Puppetmaster – At one end, everything happened in scientifically explainable ways, but it was pushed along. In this case, it is impossible to determine if there was any divine interference at all.
B: “Let There Be Light”/”Let there be Life” – Almost everything happened in scientifically explanable ways. However the generation of life and/or the beginning of the universe (both still scientific mysteries) divinely occurred.
Those are the most common versions, but you have a lot of variation, down to the most extreme, “7 Days in 7321 BC Earth Poppage”. Every word in the Biblical histories was the exact, literal truth with no symbolism and all evidence to the contrary is lies, conspiracy, or misinterpretation.
Now, most of these are compatible with scientific reasoning. Some are not. You cannot lump all of them together and deride the entire thing equally.
Yet another excellent reason to homeschool your children. Teach them to think for themselves.
Dr Gleick:
Sharing your spirit of alarmism, I just saw a pick-up truck, pushing through our current blizzard. It had a load of very angry men with baseball bats. I am sure I saw a bucket of tar and a gunny sack of feathers. It was heading in your general direction. Please take all appropriate measures.
My advise is to RUN! Hide! Don’t come back until it warms a little. GK
/sarc
climatereason says:
January 19, 2012 at 1:24 am
Peter has nailed us ‘deniers’ I’m afraid when he says;
“(climate change denial) is incredibly well funded.’
“…Just apply to Big oil and you too can be incredibly well funded and enjoy an Al Gore type lifestyle.”
Ah, but can you get as much as Phil at UEA got from Shell?
My Pop was educated in a one room school house to the Eigth grade.School’s still standing btw.
I have his old readers and texts from that era. late 1900’s and early 1920’s.
Shakespeare.Pasteur.Jefferson.Et.al.
Free thinking was encouraged.Not a problem as it is today…
Pop favorite thing was tracking the space program and launches, when I was a kid.
Remember sitting on his shoulders watching Sputnik..
Now we get to watch China and Russia fly into space…
Glieck and others are part of the problem, not the solution..
“Climate change education …”
In as much as it has to do with science, it would be a pretty advanced and esotreric branch more suited for specialization after first learning the scientific method, empiricism, physics, chemistry, biology and other well-grounded scientific fields of study before wandering off into the speculative – based almost entrely on how one measures things. Don’t get me wrong. I make a distinction that the basics of natural history (like the presence of an ever-changing climate) and climatological events (like the reoccurring ice ages) are not the same as the multiple unproven and/or unprovable hypotheses about how climate might work and how it can(not) be predicted. In as much as it has to do with measurement and data analysis, it seems like a college statistics course – or three.
In as much as it has to do with indoctrination, it seems suited for grades K-12 in a social science curriculum.
He blinks a lot when he talks.
Typically that’s a good sign someone is lying.
Pamela
You said
‘The other day I listened to a national news program anchor say that $99,000 (and change) was “Ninety Nine Hundred dollars” and even argued with her panel that she was right, before finally realizing her mistake and claiming “I don’t know how to read”.
The way that numbers are portrayed can cause confusion in such matters as climate. When someone says 0.040 or 0.0040 how many people can actually translate that into a meaningful expression in words or actually imagine how small that number is? I dont think people cotton on that co2 for example is around 380 parts per million or that the vast majority of emissions are natural which puts that figure into an entirely different context. It might be useful for those people writing for a general audience to use figures AND words, especially when talking about fractions.
tonyb
The good folks over at the Resilient Earth blog has an article on this:
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/climate-skepticism-new-creationism
“Those who thought that the war was won and the forces of junk science—who prop up the climate change alarmists—were sent packing need to think again. With the new year, a new assault on climate skepticism is being waged on multiple fronts. Editorials in Nature and Science herald the resurgence of the climate catastrophists and their attempt to bamboozle the public, mislead government officials and brainwash our children. Wake up and smell the steer manure, the battle against the bogus boffins of climate hysteria is far from over.”