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.
These are real kids trapped in these pathetic schools. Don’t any of you get it?
I’m guessing they were tasked to find a rabid intellectual who unquestioningly supported the offical dogma, and in the end they just had to go with rabid.
There’s nothing like sticking your fingers in your ears and going La La, La La very loudly to win an argument.
As those who question AGW have come to expect in reply to their questions and offering of looking at actual readings.
James Bull
Regarding intelegent design:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Only_A_Theory
http://www.amazon.com/Only-Theory-Evolution-Battle-Americas/dp/067001883X
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Only-a-Theory/Kenneth-R-Miller/e/9780143115663?workid=1100360213
What I’ve read of Behe’s is totally unconvincing.
Homeschool!
Your children are your responsibility. If the school won’t do it, you must. Teach your children well! They are worth it.
HenryP: What about the question: where does matter itself come from?
Everything comes from the bifurcation of nothing into positive and negative domains, i.e.: 0 = -1 + 1
A period of early hyperinflation produced “the ultimate free lunch”…
~~~~~~~~
“There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty zeros after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raise the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy in the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, once can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels out the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.”
Stephen Hawking, Brief History of Time, p.136
~~~~~~~~
Khwarizmi (or S.Hawking) says
But that just raise (sic) the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy in the universe is exactly zero.
Henry@Khwarizmi
do you see that that statement above does not make sense?
I think many believers in God including those of the Jewish and Moslem faith (Exodus 14:24) and even those in the past who believed in the Sun as their God, can understand that God= energy + intelligence.
We can also perceive that His intelligence is bigger than ours, but unfortunately, unlike the popular belief of some, He is not like Superman in the sky. Jesus said that you must compare Him with someone like your father when you were a child.
The key part of Gleick`s video is at 1:34 to 1:44, where he says: “..and it`s our understanding of the natural components (of climate change) that is what really tells us that the changes we seeing today cannot be explained purely by natural phenomena.”
It`s a bluff, there is no chance of explaining natural variation or “climate disruption” without considering short term solar factors.
“Anne says:
January 19, 2012 at 10:09 pm
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.”
Exactly right Anne. That is the only logical comparison to make. The sooner we teach genuine science in schools the better.
“Anne says:
January 19, 2012 at 10:09 pm
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.”
I equate the AGW proponents with psychiatrists, they say it`s all down to a chemical imbalance, and believe it`s too late for a cure.
One of the best examples of the futility of the theist vs. atheist disputation can be found in a post by RoHa, a few posts above. Therein two proponents of the atheist and materialistic paradigm exchange a joke. Jeremy, asks, “Why did the ‘divine being’ bother creating all the countless other galaxies if the Earth is such a special place?” A reasonable question, to be sure. And RoHa quips, just as reasonably unbeknowst to him/her, “Decoration. It costs Him nothing, and it makes the universe pretty.” Dissecting the underpinnings and implications of these two quips can fill volumes and take centuries, and will still not be resoved to everyone’s satisfaction.
We’re wrestling over explanatory models based on cultural realities, philosophical inclinations and degrees of probability, not over evident or verifiable, fool-proof certainties…assuming the latter is even theoretically possible, given our limitations. Otherwise, we’d know for sure and we’d all either be atheists or theists. Science, though, stands quite apart from all of this, being a methodology, a strategy, an inqury system. It’s an incredibly successful means of knowing, but as such, has inherent limitations as well and these limitations are just as hard on the materialistic paradigms as the theological ones. In any case, both theists and atheists can be hopelessly stumpted by a number of good alternate explanations or speculations, such as the simulated universe theory. That one’s based on purely materialistic and theoretically possible principles and yet raises a reasonably strong challenge to the presumed reliability and certainties of observation.
No wonder our moderators want to shy away from such discussions!
This sure puts a new light on the Fahrenheit 451 book and film. Now the temperature police will drag you away if you mention that the earth is cooling when it is obviously not supposed to. The brown shirts are gathering their forces now to round up the scattered opposition. And punish the students with more doses of ADD meds too.
Henry@PeterKovachev
If you define religion as: seeking God’s face and asking Him to show you which is the way (to do good) and you define science as doing tests and measurements and evaluations to find out what to do (to do good), then it should not take you very long to figure out that science and religion are two paths that both must lead to the truth.
On important measures, evolution and AGW share strong similarities. Both are the dominant official paradigms within the scientific establishment and societal institutions, while anti-evolution and climate scepticism occupy minority positions, and all that entails.
There are also numerous and strong similarities in the arguments made by anti-evolutionists and climate sceptics about their respective opponents. Among them are claims of:
Corrupted science; media bias; accusations of religion/cult; evolution/AGW as groupthink; no consensus; politically inspired science; educational indoctrination; lack of falsifiability; career prejudice; corruption by funding; growing numbers of anti-evolutionists/climate sceptics; evolutionists/AGWers as nasty people; censorship; “The tide is turning”; nefarious agendas; Hitler/Nazi/communist links; hoax and fraud.
Of course, these similarities tell us nothing about the accuracy of the science in either case. Nevertheless, they do indicate a similar mindset or way of viewing an issue.
Anne says:
Here are two pieces of evidence as to why the analogy doesn’t work well that way:
(1) Of the small handful of “AGW skeptic” scientists who have a real publication record in the field, one of them is actually on record as saying that he believes “intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism” ( http://www.ideasinactiontv.com/tcs_daily/2005/08/faith-based-evolution.html ) To my knowledge, there is nobody amongst the scientists who publish in climate science and are not “AGW skeptics” who has made a similar claim. [Given that there are so many more of the latter, it is possible one might be able to find one…Although even if one could, it would represent a much smaller percentage of the relevant sample.]
(2) For both creationism/evolution and AGW, there is a gap between what the public thinks and what the scientists in the field think and the statements of respected scientific organizations like NAS, AAAS, and the councils of the various societies like AMS, AGU, and APS. And, that gap suggests that the analogy goes the other way.
You might want to check out some of the posts and comments on this website if you want to see similar rationalizations are completely untenable positions (e.g., http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/29/unified-theory-of-climate/ ).
It is in fact by looking at what has happened to climate over geologic time that scientists have been able to estimate how the climate responds to “forcings” such as the one we are producing by changing greenhouse gas levels…and, alas, the conclusion is that the climate is quite sensitive to these forcings. See, for example, this short Perspectives article in Science ( http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5697/821.summary ):
“Brendan H says:
January 20, 2012 at 12:38 pm
On important measures, evolution and AGW share strong similarities. Both are the dominant official paradigms within the scientific establishment and societal institutions, while anti-evolution and climate scepticism occupy minority positions, and all that entails.”
What you say is superficially true Brendan. But my point is that this superficial resemblance is extremely misleading. The scientific support for evolution is long-standing and growing in strength as time goes by as new evidence clarifies its trajectory. CAGW is very far from being in the same category. Its strength is crumbling in the face of hard evidence to the contrary. The supposed consensus for CAGW is a fabricated myth (as attested to over and over again here on WUWT). The 15 years of no warming attested to by satellite temperature measurements is a harbinger of the end of the phony CO2 caused global warming hypothesis. I see no such imminent demise of the scientifically based claim that the occurrence of biological evolution is an indisputable fact.
Time will tell but time is running out w.r.t. AGW.
Ted Swart,
Exactly right. Evolution is a Theory; AGW is not. And CAGW is plain ridiculous, with zero supporting evidence.
There are no ‘strong similarities’ between AGW and Evolution. Brendan may not be aware of it, but the only honest kind of scientist is a skeptic. Scientists are not “climate skeptics”, they are either skeptics, or they are not. Very few of those pushing AGW – and none of those pushing CAGW – are skeptical scientists.
Ted Swart: “But my point is that this superficial resemblance is extremely misleading.”
I don’t think the resemblance is superficial. There is a fundamental underlying similarity between anti-evolution and climate skepticism: both exist as pushbacks against the dominant paradigms of evolutionary theory and AGW theory.
Absent the theories of evolution and AGW, there is no reason for the existence for anti-evolution and climate scepticism. It’s this pushback by the “underdog” that gives both of these movements their similar flavouring.
Thus, for example, claims about the imminent demise of the theory are a staple of both anti-evolution and climate scepticism, and are repeated despite their failure to eventuate.
Really, you should take this over to
http://forums.about.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?nav=messages&webtag=ab-atheism
so that we can go into this at length. (I’m a retired professional philosopher, and philosophy of religion is one of specialisations, so when I say “length”, I mean length!)
I’ll just give a few comments on what you have quoted.
“where does matter itself come from? … If you believe there is no God, then obviously in the beginning there must have been absolutely nothing.”
1. This assumes there was a beginning. Perhaps the universe – or some sort of multiverse – has always existed. We don’t know.
2. Why is it impossible for a universe, and matter, to pop into existence? Admittedly, we don’t see many things popping into existence here inside the universe, but that observation only tells about things inside this universe. It tells us nothing about universes as wholes.
3. “It does not make sense to believe that there is no God because that in itself is not logical.” The writer does not understand much about logic. I suspect he means “not reasonable”.
4. “out of absolutely nothing and guided by absolutely nobody, an incredible intelligent and intellectual person (like yourself) with a material body came into being.”
But to believe in God is to believe either
(a) that out of out of absolutely nothing and guided by absolutely nobody, an incredible intelligent and intellectual person without a material body came into being,
or
(b) that such a being has always existed.
The implications of (a) should be obvious.
But if (b) that being (God) always existed, it is equally possible that I, too, always existed, though I was not always embodied. (There is a brilliant argument to this effect, but space here is too limited for it. The argument also shows that it is logically impossible for God to create me unless I am God.)
So God is not necessary to explain my existence, and is superfluous.
5. “But what about the body?” I expect you to ask. Well, we do know that bodies come from other bodies. We have never experienced bodies (or any matter) being brought into existence by a non-physical entity. We do not know how that could happen. On the other hand, our knowledge of chemistry and biology gives us some hints about how living bodies could emerge from non-living matter.
At the moment, then, it seems there is no need to postulate a Higher Power, a God. It explains nothing, and just adds another layer of things to be explained.
But just in case anyone has any further doubts, we’re doomed.
@ur momisugly Peter Kovachev
“two proponents of the atheist and materialistic paradigm exchange a joke.”
Jeremy canspeak for himself, but being an atheist does not, in my case, make me a materialist in the philosophical sense of the word.
So I used to sport a soup strainer, and a goatee and hairy chops. It was a compensation for the fact that nothing grew above my eyebrows.
Then when I started to look more like Santa Claus year round, I bought a razor and excommunicated all of it.
Not only did my head naturally sit up by itself, but suddenly I was 30 years younger.
Looking at that video, I can sort of imagine what Gleick might look like 30 years younger.
Well you can’t be a scientist without a beard. The clam chowder also tastes better without being strained, through a brush.
Henry@Roha
It seems you ignore the knowledge that we already have, namely, that the universe started out really very small, the size of a proton. or smaller. Our equations and understanding of physics tell us a great deal about the state of the universe when it was a day old, an hour old, a second old, even a tiny fraction of a nanosecond old. But if you go back far enough in time, to when the Universe was literally 10 to the power -43 second old, our physics break down. There is a veil hiding the true beginnings of the Universe….
(freely quoted from a book by Philip Plait Ph.D)
You say: I am the beginning and the end, and that you have not experienced Him (yet)
I say: He is the Beginning and the End (Rev. 22:13), I experience Him every day.
I am afraid we have to leave it at that.
HenryP, you said, “…it should not take you very long to figure out that science and religion are two paths that both must lead to the truth.” I must disagree.
First, there are many different religions which say many different things. Your assumption, then, may lead you to admit that a religion which centres around human sacrifice, or one that is based on gods and godlings running around causing mischief and strife, somehow leads to “the truth.” I’m guessing this is not what you meant. Secondly, science may lead us to many truths about measurable phenomena and even their effects on us, but it does not attempt to, if it’s a true science, to rule on such things as purpose, ethics or morality as absolutes, which philosophy and religion strive to provide. The point I was tring to get at before, though, (not very successfully) is that both theism and atheism are, at the core, philosophical outlooks, paradigms, ways of looking at the world.,,,in short, pure beliefs based on assumtions which cannot be objectively tested or verified. It is why eventhough I’m a firm theist, I can’t in all honesty “look down” on the atheist. His worldview is just as logically consistent and logically unassailable as mine.
RoHa, I’m not sure what you mean when you say that you’re not a metrialist “in the philosophical sense of the word.” I suspect you may think that use the vernacular sense, as a value-laden insult implying shallownessand greed . Given how popular usage has sullied the term, perhaps I should have clarified that I mean it in the purely philosophial sense. Wiki, which I must say is rather good with such things, gives us the following bare-bones definition in its opening paragraph on the subject: “In philosophy, the theory of materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter or energy; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions. In other words, matter is the only substance, and reality is identical with the actually occurring states of energy and matter.”
Of course, philosophical materialism comes in many flavours, yet with the above general definition in mind, I can’t imagine how atheism can be anything other than a materialistic philosophy. But then, I don’t know everything, so perhaps you can fill me in, as I’m genuinely curious about how one can be an atheist and a non-materialist at the same time.
Smokey said, …the only honest kind of scientist is a skeptic. Scientists are not “climate skeptics”, they are either skeptics, or they are not.
A good reminder.