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.
Jeremy said, “Evolution has a few billion years to work with!!”
Since it appears at the beginning of a sentence, it’s anyone’s guess whether Jeremy capitalizes “evolution.” It appears to enjoy a rather important status of some sort. Perhaps, not to take his presumed Creator’s name in vain, he could even spell it “Ev-lution” or Evol-tion.” Philosophers would, of course, have a giggle over the origins and deeper meaning of the “work” bit, whereas simpler souls might ask about where the time thing suddenly came from. Must be from his watch. Which…works! My, are we all brilliant today.
“Nor is life on Earth a random occurrence as Darwin implies.
I mean, come on.”
OMG – we are special and the Earth is special! All created for a divine purpose!!!
I mean, come on.
Why did the “divine being” bother creating all the countless other galaxies if the Earth is such a special place? And why are we not at the center of everything like we should be if it was not all random?
The NCSE position on this is simple nonsense and illogical, for people can fully support the idea of climate change , the fact their not sitting very flatly under half of mile or ice my help them here , but still not support or have good concerns about AGW .Not even the IPCC claim there one an the same thing , so why NCSE pull the offensive and stupid ‘climate change deniers’ BS is anyone’s guess .
But given who they have chosen form an alliance with its clear the S out of NCSE no longer stands for science in any real sense.
Jeremy asks: “Why did the “divine being” bother creating all the countless other galaxies if the Earth is such a special place?”
As a theist myself, the simplest and most honest answer I can offer here is, “I don’t know”. Theists are allowed to say that. Not having an answer to such a question does not disprove the existence of God.
Jeremy also asks: “And why are we not at the center of everything like we should be if it was not all random?”
Why should we be at the center of everything?
“Nor is life on Earth a random occurrence as Darwin implies.”
You…you don’t really know what Evolution by Natural Selection actually is…do you?
“Not having an answer to such a question does not disprove the existence of God”
No, but you actually have to *prove* God first. If you’re making the claim that ‘X’ then you have to demonstrate that ‘X’ is true; saying “well that doesn’t disprove it!” is irrelevant because you’ve yet to demonstrate the validity of the conclusion in the first place.
Bill says: “No, but you actually have to *prove* God first. ”
Until I make a statement of fact, I don’t have to prove anything at all. I was merely addressing a question Jeremy asked. He did not ask if God exists, but rather why He would make so many galaxies. And again, not knowing why, does not speak to the question of the existence of God. That’s an altogether different question.
@ur momisugly CW “Why should we be at the center of everything?”
As far as I can tell, the Universe extends the same distance in every direction from me. If it is the same distance in every direction, then obviously I am at the centre of everything. The universe revolves around me.
@ur momisugly Jeremy. “Why did the “divine being” bother creating all the countless other galaxies if the Earth is such a special place?”
Decoration. It costs him nothing, and it makes the universe pretty.
California columnist Steve Frank looks at the graduation rates of California schools: ‘This is from the Los Angeles Times, “L.A. Unified’s estimated graduation rate for the four-year period is 55%. However, the state’s new system places the district’s rate at 64.2%.
And a broadly adopted formula used by the National Center for Education Statistics credits L.A. Unified with graduating 70.4% of high school students in four years.”
So what is it—55, 64 or 70% graduation rate?
It should be noted that last year the dropout rate, statewide, was about 40% and LAUSD admitted to a 60% dropout rate. Could things have improved so much in the past year?’
_______________
The horrible dropout rates for these schools which push social agendas, rather than provide basic academic skills, show evidence of being manipulated and hidden. A missing student can be reported as “homeschooled” or “truant.” 20,000 students in CA are stuck on waiting lists to attend charter schools, while those who can afford it leave the failing educational system and send their children to private school, or they choose to homeschool. Meanwhile Gleick et al whinge on about the “push back from parents” concerning the global warming farce, and seek greater regulations for schools and students that do succeed.
I am sure we can all agree on this: there is absolutely no evidence of intelligent design – in the California public school system.
Bill says:
January 19, 2012 at 2:57 pm
“Not having an answer to such a question does not disprove the existence of God”
No, but you actually have to *prove* God first. If you’re making the claim that ‘X’ then you have to demonstrate that ‘X’ is true; saying “well that doesn’t disprove it!” is irrelevant because you’ve yet to demonstrate the validity of the conclusion in the first place.
————————–
You ‘know everything’ people have yet to prove you know everything..
Your claim is implicit..
Intelligent Design could be rephrased as Guided Evolution..
does that change your mind? or are you still a bigoted atheist that can’t handle the thought that humans aren’t the greatest thing in the universe..
The Universe is a soccer ball God created. The big bang is God kicking the ball. The ball has curve from spin. Ball goes where it may. God starts again.
=========
can anyone disprove this statement..?
(here’s where this belongs 😉 )
@Mike Wilson
1. Einstein did not believe in God in any conventional Jewish sense. He publicly declared belief in Spinoza’s God. Spinoza’s ideas were so un-Jewish he was expelled from the Synagogue and cursed by the Dutch Jews.* But his letters reveal that he thought that Judaism was childish superstition. Text here:
http://www.skeptically.org/thinkersonreligion/id8.html
and here
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/13/peopleinscience.religion
2. He was only a cultural Zionist. He opposed the establishment of the state of Israel. There is a good discussion here.
http://globalwebpost.com/farooqm/writings/other/einstein.htm
*Now that Spinoza is classed as one of the great philosophers he is reclaimed as a great Jewish philosopher rather than as a Dutchman, and they insist on calling him Baruch (his synagogue name) rather than Bento or Benedict, which were the names he used himself.
‘Tis a pity that my comment has generated far too many participants in this forum talking about whether or not God exists — which is not really the point.
The point is that science is on the side of the occurrence of evolution — as many of you mercifully concede. And science is also on the side of those who reject the hypothesis of human caused (CO2 caused) global warming. In both cases the scientific evidence is overwhelming.
So, the teaching of creationism in science classes is in no way equivalent to the teaching of the skeptical rejection of the CAGW hoax. It is only the CAGW dupes who makes this invalid comparison.
The teaching of creationism in science classes makes not sense and the teaching of the CAGW religion in science classes is equally inexcusable.
We ought to be consistently on the side of honest science and surely that is exactly what WUWT is all about.
Whether or not God exists and deep philosophical speculation about the nature of God and human spirituality does not enter into the story.
It is not correct to presume that epistemologies which do not a priori deny the possibility of a personal beginning also reject the concept of fact, and belong in some “upper story” of provability. It is generally good form to let a viewpoint explain its own views rather than forcing your views of them into their mouths.
Creation model science deals in data and fact. It isn’t about an existentialist “leap of faith” ID, which is an entirely different thing, a form of neo-Darwinism which does not make the a priori assumption of no personal actor, should not be confused with it. There are proponents of the former, and possibly proponents of the latter which live up to the stereotypes, but it is exactly of a piece with the way warmists deal with skeptics. What is needed is rigorous science, not a priori assumptions that are never examined on pain of job loss, refusal to publish, or comment deletion.
“I agree with your first paragraph in that faith and science are two different systems of knowing which need not be mutually incompatible”
Faith is not a system of knowing at all. It brings no new knowledge. It is simply systematic self-deception.
“It’s not like we’re bored,” says NCSE Director Eugenie Scott. “But we were running short of funds, and let’s face it: Fighting Creationism pays dick. I’m sure we can get a government grant in today’s liberal Washington for this program, maybe even enough to make us relevant again.”
@ur momisugly Van Grungy
“You ‘know everything’ people have yet to prove you know everything.”
But Bill says he doesn’t know. You are the one claiming knowledge.
“Intelligent Design could be rephrased as Guided Evolution.”
When there is compelling evidence for guidance, then I will accept it.
“or are you still a bigoted atheist that can’t handle the thought that humans aren’t the greatest thing in the universe.”
I do not seriously claim to be the greatest thing in the universe. I simply don’t see a reason for believing God exists.
Absurdities:
* birds can’t outfly climate change
* clown fish drunk on CO2.
Contradictions
* Warm Winters Result From Greenhouse Effect
* Global warming could cool down northern temperatures in winter
False Prophesies
* Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past
* Drought is permanent in Australia,
Intolerance:
* 10/10
* gassing of skeptics
Looks like a religion to me.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/
(see table on right)
And there was I having posts deleted cuz U don’t do religion on this blog.
[Unless there’s an exception, like an article about a specific subject, such as comparing skepticism with creationism. Normally religious discussions that creep into science threads are discouraged because they tend to get out of hand fast. ~dbs, mod.]
Ted Swart:
“The point is that science is on the side of the occurrence of evolution . . . So, the teaching of creationism in science classes is in no way equivalent to the teaching of the skeptical rejection of the CAGW hoax.”
True. If, that is, we use a definition of “evolution” much narrower and more limited than what is typically presented in school and if we use a definition of “creationism” that is akin to something like Biblical literalism.
On the other hand, the possibility that a highly scalable, massively parallel system architecture incorporating a super-dense, information-rich, multi-layered, 4-bit digital coding system with storage, retrieval and translation mechanisms, utilizing sophisticated file allocation tables, concatenation and bit-parity algorithms, and advanced protocol hierarchies is more likely the result of intelligent activity than a series of coincidental accidents is most certainly a valid scientific question — one that any objective individual, even in the classroom, might do well to consider.
“It is only the CAGW dupes who makes this invalid comparison.”
Agreed, it is only those who are trying to push a “consensus” view of science (which is precisely what Eugenie Scott referred to) who try to draw the invalid comparison. There are plenty of folks who accept evolution (writ large) and reject CAGW, and probably vice-versa.
Having debated creationists for quite a few years now and having lately started to follow the debate on this and related websites, it never ceases to amaze me how alike the two groups (creationists and folks who are…not too keen on the idea of anthropogenic global warming) and their way of discourse are. People on this website are generally better educated and more well-informed, though, and remind me more of Intelligent Design fans. I can certainly see why the NCSE would like to get involved, but I do hope they make a better job of it than they have so far.
“I trust K-12 teachers have more sense than to listen to him.”
I think the ones that do are rare. I teach AP Environmental Science at our homeschool academy, so joined the teacher listserv run by the College Board. All I can say is… “Wow.” There are many laments about parent “deniers,” colleagues who dare to question, kids who are foolish enough to enter the classroom with a styrofoam cup, etc.
I made a comment early on about the history of science teaching us to be humble in our ignorance. I suggested that they teach the kids how to research their concerns about data, analysis, etc. And to include a lesson on logical fallacies during the semester. You can only imagine the welcome I received in this community…
I have been thinking about the parallels between the creationist/evolution debate and the climate change controversy for a while, except that I equate the AGW proponents with the creationists.
In the 1970’s, the University of Texas sponsored a debate between two esteemed biologists and two members from the Creation Institute. One of their rationalizations put forth to explain modern day observations of natural selection at work was to accept the reality of “horizontal evolution” but reject the possibility of “vertical evolution,” though the mechanisms were identical.
Blinded by their ideology of what they would and wouldn’t accept, they made these bizarre rationalizations. Similarly, the AGW folks’ inability to look at climate variation over geologic time seems comparable to what the creationists did with their distinction of evolutionary processes being special and unique over the short term but impossible over the long term. Climates are varying over the long term and short term due to the same mechanisms – both the creationists and AGW proponents won’t interpret the data in front of them due to interference from more powerful belief systems.
Roha says:
I simply don’t see a reason for believing God exists.
Henry@Roha
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 Roha appeared.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/why-do-i-believe-in-god
To quote from the above:
What about the question: where does matter itself come from? Where did all the atoms that form the person that you are and the earth that you are living on and the air that you are breathing, came from? If you believe there is no God, then obviously in the beginning there must have been absolutely nothing. Good for you if you believe in the Big Bang theory. But the question still remains: where did all the matter that forms the universe, originate from? You see what the problem is? It does not make sense to believe that there is no God because that in itself is not logical. In fact, if you believe there is no God, you are actually saying that you believe that out of absolutely nothing and guided by absolutely nobody, an incredible intelligent and intellectual person (like yourself) with a material body came into being. Now, for you to believe that such a miracle could have happened, you must actually have a much bigger faith than that of a person simply believing and admitting that there is a Higher Power, a God who created him for a specific plan and purpose…