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.
“Global Warming” is no less a religion than creationism. Neither has any place in a public school classroom.
Conflating evolution with “global warming”, especially using the very hard line “consensus is science, dissent is denial” meme, is a very bad thing for the future of science. When “global warming” sinks beneath the waves, that anchor is now going to be chained to the neck of evolution, and to the publics trust in science generally.
As a scientist, that is my fundamental objection to the “global warming” religious/political movement.
I got quite a chuckle when I checked the details of the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) poll that the article’s author referenced to “suggest that attacks on climate education are far from rare” in the quote:
“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.”
It seems that much of the National Center for Science Education’s (NCSE) angst is really about the question:
“Have you faced skepticism about climate change education from students?”
82% of teachers said they had. Conspicuously, the article’s author “forgot” this particular detail.
In my experience kids have an innate ability to perceive when they are being snookered. So, it appears the NCSE’s problem core problem is that AGW advocates are simply not believed.
The fact that that 54% of teachers received push back from parents is also encouraging. Particularly given that considerable skepticism is evident among college educated Republican women. Women are the group most likely to be involved in school activities and prepared push back… and know how to do it.
The NCSE’s also appears to be conspicuously evading clear antidotal evidence of considerable skepticism in the teaching community as well. The NSTA polling site included a number of quotes from teachers. Many of these quotes are real gems. See the sample below:
“I believe that “climate change” education is used to indict western civilization of false[ly]-manufactured crimes. Most of what the general news media and the education establishment insist upon as true science is simply not. Also, the numerous incidents of researchers altering data and cherry-picking sensor locations in order to influence data have left the United Nations’ and other groups’ theories and claims discredited and untrustworthy.
—Other, Middle School, High School, Ohio”
“As an educator in the field of science for 10 years, I am myself still very skeptical…I see too many dollar signs involved in this indoctrination.
—Educator, Middle School, Oklahoma”
“I am teaching my students that there is little to no evidence that climate change is [hu]manmade and that the reason that it is such a big deal is because of the money that is being exchanged in order for scientists to support the idea.
—Educator, Middle School, New York”
“Poor science on the climate change and obvious falsification of data as shown in the “Climategate” memos…Present side-by-side presentations: Give Al Gore two days, and I do a counterpoint on one day.
—Educator, High School, Kansas”
“Politically based, not science based…students either believe [humans are] the evil-doer[s] of all that happens in this world, or they disbelieve in global warming.
—Educator, Middle School, California”
The bottom line: It looks like a majority of students, parents, and teachers simply don’t believe in the AGW advocacy within the classroom… and are not prepared to simply roll over and accept it.
Regards,
Kforestcat
AGW Alarmisim uses the same arguments as Creationism.
Intelligent origin of a natural process: World created by intelligent being. / Climate change caused by intelligent being.
Authority provides all evidence: “The Bible tells me so” / “The IPCC tells me so.”
They both use mockery and ridicule as arguments.
They are cut from the same cloth.
when stating a supposed ‘fact’ that one doesnt believe is true, the person doing the stating tends to blink. not only do they blink but in a very different form. it is typically an ‘extended’ one. watch the video and see for yourself. try to pick a sentence that isnt complete bullsh**t and watch how the actions are different compared to when he knows he speaks untruths. OR he is the most condescending a88hole in the world (or maybe just over the parts of the world that were used to collect data for BEST…which would really limit how much of an a88hole he is).
Trying to compare attempts to teach creationism in schools to attempts to teach the scientific facts about non-existence of Human caused global warming is nothing short of bizarre. The boot is on the other foot. The scientific evidence for the occurrence of evolution is positively overwhelming (fossil record, radioactive dating techniques, DNA analysis etc etc). So trying to teach creationism in schools is clearly anti-science. The only possible scientific teaching regarding climate change in schools IS that the mass of scientific evidence shows that the hypothesis of CO2 caused global warming has been found to be a dishonest hoax.
It is the teaching of CAGW in schools which is anti-science and NOT the other way round.
Possibly slightly OT and not sure if anybody outside of the UK will be able to access the podcasts, but this could be interesting: Next Thursday (26th Jan) there is a discussion being held on BBC Radio 4’s series “In our Time”. These are chaired by left-wing, arty, media luvvy and confirmed CAGW believer, Melvyn Bragg and the topic is The Scientific Method. Here’s the spiel from the website:
Melvyn Bragg and his guests discuss the evolution of the Scientific Method, the systematic and analytical approach to experimentation. In the centuries since the birth of the modern sciences, thinkers have recognised that we can only construct an accurate picture of the universe if we succeed in escaping the influence of our own preconceptions and beliefs. Many great philosophers and scientists have examined this problem, and proposed methods, such as the testing of hypotheses, to eliminate such bias. Today the rules and process of the Scientific Method are crucial to any meaningful scientific research.
Producer: Thomas Morris
It will be interesting to see if Climateology is mentioned and if so whether Melvyn learns anything. It’s certainly going to be difficult to rationalise the state of climate science with the scientific method so I put money on Melv to stear the discussion well clear.
The details can be found at the Beeb website here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01b1ljm
Gleick, like Mooney and Romm, is just another profiteer hack pushing AGW.
All three make a good living pushing AGW propaganda, and none of them are able to actually deal with the issues. Instead they rely on bigotry like eugenics, critiques on books they don’t read, and temper tantrums to avoid communication.
Wade (January 19, 2012 at 6:14 am ), as a fellow Creationist, but of a different religion and of a significantly different sort, I can sympathise with you…only up to a point, though. Fortunately, my kind of creationism, the Modern Orthodox Jewish variety which admittedly may not be your cup of tea, assumes that G-d created the world and the universe, somehow made humankind and gave it a mission and a purpose. This view doesn’t take the creation narrative in Genesis as a scientific description listing time frames and sequences literally. It treats such narratives as simplified and brief figurative preambles in a document that mainly reads as a detailed contract between G-d and mankind and a blueprint for an ethical and worshipful life….i.e., anything but a better-believe-it-or-else textbook on physics and biology.
This is not a recent rationalisation or a convenient cop-out in the face of undeniable scientific discoveries for us, but a position in a well-established tradition that goes back to at least the Middle Ages. The legitimacy of a rationalistic, evidence based inquiry into the mysteries of our universe and the mechanics behind our kind is covered in the Talmud and even the mystical traditions, Kabbalah, both of which allow honest inquiries through rational, materialistic, scientific and non-mystical means. This tradition assumes that while we may have greater tasks and goals, it is still our job to understand Creation as we see and experience it, and to do this by the rules and tools of human thought and skill with which the Almighty has gifted us.
That being neither here nor there, where differences in faith or lack thereof are concerned, I’m not fishing for a theological debate or attempting to sway you into my camp. But I will boast that my approach doesn’t set me against obvious and clearly established realities such as evolutionary processes, the age of the universe, geological time frames and who-knows-what-else we are bound to still discover. To me, the idea that G-d would concoct an elaborate hoax salted with a gazillion pieces of evidence to apparently and inexplicably mislead our senses about our world, to trick our logic and ways of knowing about our physical universe and then to punish us for doubting, is not only absurd to me, but verges on a blasphemous contempt of G-d. But that’s me.
In any event, friend, when on a science site, surrounded by people grounded in rationalistic, evidence-based thought, expect to see some knocks at the absurdities of literalist Creationism. And don’t hope for much help from Creationists of my kind, who regret that that our views, our open theology and respect for empirical science are being eclipsed, shamed and debased by the literalist quackery of uneducated rural pastors in backwoods churches and pseudo-scientific cranks in bible colleges. Sorry for the strong opinions on that, and no insult directed at you, but that’s them facts as I sees them and tell them.
I suspect Ms Scott is indeed concerned about boredom in her membership base, and is glad to have found another thing to be annoyed about and keep the funding coming in for her staff. What better choice than the wealthy climate alarmism sector for funding, and Mr Gleick for hyperbole to stir things up and present the NCSE as fighting the forces of darkness and ‘anti-science’? I am encouraged, though, by the ostensible goals of her organisation, which boil down to encouraging good science in schools. If they follow that path and study the weak arguments and evidence of the alarmists, they will become their arch-enemies. But first they have to get past the powerful PR and other manipulative tactics of that sector. I hope they do so quickly, before much more harm is done by the pushers of fearful alarmism in schools, not least by those who see this as a good way to recruit ‘little climate activists’. A few more thoughts on all this here: http://climatelessons.blogspot.com/
Oh, goodie, that bastion of scientific objectivity, the NCSE steps into the climate fray.
At least Scott got this part right: “. . . she says she began to see “parallels” between the two debates . . .” Scott mistakenly thinks one parallel is “–namely, an ideological drive from pressure groups to “teach the controversy” where no scientific controversy exists.”
That’s right folks, there is no controversy. All is consensus science. Everyone move along now.
The real parallels are in fact quite striking. Just off the top of my head: (i) an authoritative claim of “consensus” among all scientists, when science doesn’t operate that way and there is serious question about the extent or breadth of the consensus in any event, (ii) labeling those who dare question the status quo with pejorative labels, (iii) claiming that all who question the status quo are “anti-science” and, therefore by definition, not worthy of consideration, (iv) official proclamations from organized science organizations that the science is “settled” and that there is no debate, (v) failure to properly define and quantify what is being discussed so that terms and definitions are slippery and can serve the particular consensus claim being made, (vi) reliance on models about things that are not currently observed but that allegedly occurred in the distant past or could occur in the distant future, (vii) an organized campaign behind the scenes to keep papers out of scientific journals, (viii) an organized campaign behind the scenes to sack journal editors who dare publish articles against the consensus . . .
We could come up with more parallels between the two debates — they are indeed quite striking.
I’m glad to see the NCSE weigh in on the horrors or climate change — it will help people to see the propaganda for what it is.
@HenryP, not sure I follow. Perhaps I address your concern here:
http://gottadobetterthanthis.wordpress.com/2012/01/18/having-been-asked-about-my-views-on-evolution/
The use of ad hominem attacks is telling. For thousands of years the rhetorical device has been the desperate refuge of debaters who recognize they can no longer effectively counter propositional statements, but have not the sense to abandon a debate they cannot win.
From a strategic point of view it is encouraging.
Of course, the best counter to it has always been to point out this fact.
The Bible is a spiritual book and is not a book about science. And science can’t do anything to prove or disprove the existence of God. There SHOULD be no conflict between the Bible and evolution. The problem is some Bible scholars incorrectly draw the conclusion the earth is 6000 years old when nowhere does the Bible say that. And some scientists incorrectly say these old bones dug up out of the ground prove the is no God.
Not saying one way or the other if Albert Einstein was a Christian, but he did believe in a higher power:
“The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects.”
-Albert Einstein
So I guess some think evolution science has evolved so much since Einstein was here that we now KNOW there is no God? Prove it! No? I didn’t think so.
So Climate Warming Holy Rollers™ are just as uptight as the Christian, Maoist, Moslem and Hindu varieties. How knew??
Frankly I have no problem with the religious and I understand the view that one must express to others one’s opinion as a duty to what they feel is sacred. Some feel they have a duty to save CO2. Well, they should be the example of what they advocate. People can perhaps learn by their example and dedication.
The problem comes when any particular group (or individual) view is forced on the general population because of the fervour of the adovcate. It is typical of the missionary zeal that led to the destruction of library of the Incas, for example, because as the monks said, they could not find in it any reference to Jesus Christ (in an acceptable form).
The anti-scientific reasoning of the monks burning libraries is no different from the anti-scientific reasoning of those who burn data and fabricate ‘pope-ish’ blogs exhorting the faithful to punitive holy-war action against the heathen who, in any case, deserve no respect or tolerance. The pattern of behaviour is evident thoroughout history: fleeing true Religion for a man-made imitation of it, then inflicting wrath upon those who question the petty orthodoxies that spring from their vain imaginations.
Is there any doubt that the AGW crusade is anything other than vainty and the desperate defence of those who have lost any semblance of probity? It is long past the stage of them knowing they are fabricating evidence. The environment is a deeply moral subject.
There is however, to use a religious term, an abomination: that nothing is being done at the global level to prepare us for the coming food shortages that will result from the downturn in temperature when so much is already known about its inevitability.
Sorry, Lonnie, I seemed to get the impression from your post here that you did not believe in God.
I was wrong.
Your views are interesting and thought provoking. Something to discuss for hours and hours, whilst having a few sundowners. Perhaps that is why God created: To have friendships. That is what I think. But, in the way that an artist creates an artwork: He cannot be in His own artwork. The best He could do is leave an image of Himself, by the example of the life that He led on earth. And He believes that we will pick up on that, in a way that I am there for you (when you need me) and you are there for me, (when I need you). That is the test/choice for everyone in life…. (Matthew 25)
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/what-was-that-what-henry-said-3
Evangelical Christian here, who teaches science in my high school classroom. I therefore teach neither creationism or AGW.
Henry@Lonnie
BTW
I don’t think nucelar energy is any good.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/nuclear-energy-not-save-and-sound?page=2
How does this clown (Gleick) explain Matt Ridley ?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/01/thank-you-matt-ridley/
Mike Wilson, Einstein was actually a Jew. Not strictly observant and quite secular in outlook, but he did have his bar mitzvah, was a Zionist, and throughout his entire life fully identified as a Jew. However as much as I admire Einstein for his science, I find his or any scientist’s belief or lack of belief in G-d to be entirely useless as pro or anti “proof” in any discussion. While unlike Einstein I’m fairly observant and theistically-inclined, I don’t think good rational arguments, proofs or dis-proofs, can be made by either side at this point.
Otherwise, I agree with your first paragraph in that faith and science are two different systems of knowing which need not be mutually incompatible. The letter should be taken with a grain…no, make it a block… of salt, though, I’d caution. Attempts by some to make them compatible, to “force” a happy middle ground are often simplistic, misguided and ultimately futile, leading to even more misunderstanding. It’s far better for both sides to retain decorum and to agree to disagree on some of the issues. In my own case, I’m quite comfortsble with befuddlement, mysteries and lack of answers (no choice really, what with being neither a particularly good theologian or scientifically very literate) and I simply assume that science and religion are two entirely different ways of knowing about different aspects of existence, which may overlap and compete in some areas, but mostly address very different issues.
I believe in evolution. How could I not? It was taught to me as absolute fact from grade school on. The church I grew up in viewed the Genesis creation story as figurative, symbolic. It seemed that the ONLY alternative was Creationism (i.e. a literal interpretation of the Genesis narrative) and this always seemed preposterous to me. I never questioned evolution. I always conflated “Intelligent Design” with Creationism and dismissed it out of hand. Just within the last year or so I encountered a comment thread right here at WUWT that discussed Intelligent Design so I did a little reading about ID. Turns out there are gaping holes in the theory of evolution that I either never was aware of or never bothered to question. I still believe in evolution but I approach these discussions today with an open mind. The real epiphany I had was when I realized that I was indoctrinated. Evolution was taught as absolute scientific fact and none of the weaknesses were ever presented. The lightbulb came on while I was railing against the fraudulent AGW theory being taught as absolute fact to school children. I realized that I, too, was taught to accept an unproven (and unprovable) theory as scientific fact since I was a child (I turn 55 next week).
Evolution and AGW are very different theories. Though it’s incomplete, we have about 150 years of pretty good evidence – PHYSICAL evidence – to support evolution. We have maybe 2 or 3 decades of conflicting and contorted “data” and manipulated computer models that support the AGW theory. Evolution is no longer a political issue. AGW is almost entirely a political issue. Belief in, acceptance of or denial of evolution doesn’t really change anybody’s life. It doesn’t affect global economies. It doesn’t diminish standard of living. It doesn’t lead to a worldwide redistribution of wealth or loss of national sovereignty. With evolution we’re guessing about the past. With AGW we’re trying to divine the future. It’s hard enough to determine exactly what has already happened. It’s impossible to predict what is yet to be.
Warmists love to compare evolution to AGW. How could you possibly believe in one unprovable theory (evolution) yet “deny” another unprovable theory (AGW)? Truthfully I’m rather pissed that the valid doubts inherent in the evolution theory were never presented to me. Google them – I think you’ll be amazed. Go to the ID sites rather than the religious Creationist sites. They make some very good points that are quite thought provoking.
I think evolution and ID (not Creationism) should be taught in schools – as THEORIES. Accordingly, I think it’s fine if the AGW theory is taught in schools as long as the other side of the debate is presented as well…and they’re explained as THEORIES rather than proven fact. Finally, I agree with a previous commenter – I think it’s far more important that school kids K-12 (and early college) learn chemistry, math, biology, physics and basic Earth sciences before they can be expected to actually understand even the basics of climate science.
The NCSE needs to address this extremely serious problem.
All these evil parents and evil children need to be questioned about their lack of faith in the truth of CAGW.
I propose that they adopt the “proven methods used by the Spanish Inquisition” and implement said at all levels of schooling.
OMG – we got the intelligent design extremists out… Another attempt to prove God exists!
Hello hello – of course things look intelligently designed, what else could anyone expect ? Evolution has a few billion years to work with!!
Once I had grown weary of listening to a co-worker’s creationist rants while arguing with another co-worker’s Darwinian rants. I implored them to shut up with the extemporaneous proclamation that “Evolution IS Creation”. At the time I did not know of “Intelligent Design” philosophy. I had felt it though, in my own self-generated philosophy.
Adam and Eve were not God’s “Ken and Barbie” in Eden, as depicted Genesis.
Nor is life on Earth a random occurrence as Darwin implies.
I mean, come on.
It must be tough being upstaged so often by his brother Jiminy.
Upon reading Donna L.’s “Delinquent Teenager…” book, I was stricken by an observation of hers that I had not heard put so succinctly before. The gist is: With human-caused global warming the problem – warming, is presented to us, the masses, inextricably linked to the solution – the control of fossil fuels. With no debate allowed on either argument.
She’s right, this AGW scare does stink from the onset.