Comparing climate skepticism to "creationism" in the classroom

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.”

Peter Gleick
Peter Gleick

“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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

187 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 22, 2012 12:11 pm

Henry
First of all, note that I don’t look down on anyone. If you look carefully, I said to RoHa:
“yet”
I acknowledge that there has been a time in my life where I was agnostic.
We are all on a path going through life.
Think of the apostle Paul. He persecuted the Christians before he met Jesus and we know of at least one murder in which he was involved. There were probably more. Many holocaust survivors and people running the camps had terrible feelings of guilt after the war – knowing that you did not act when you should have – to save lives.
I am saying all of this because, to get rid of this guilt, many of us will seek redemption, for that which we know we did wrong. In the old days, people sought to get rid of this guilt by making sacrifices to God. In the new covenant, it is God (Jesus) Himself who paid the ultimate price for us so we could be free from this guilt. None of the other prophets or religious leaders from other religions did this.
“Science” is not without error, causing serious problems. For example, here, on WUWT,
we often note that man made climate change, (which is a pseudo science), is a man made myth, that looks like real science, to keep “green” jobs.
I explained some other more serious errors here:
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/open-letter-to-radio-702
Again I say: If you are looking for the truth, and 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.
John 18 vs 33 –38

January 22, 2012 3:14 pm

HenryP, I didn’t imply you do look down on anyone. We all get combative here, but on this I’m taking a totally non-contentious attitude.
However, I must respectfully decline to think about, look up, research or discuss the distinctly Christian arguments and sources you present. We’re of different faiths you and I, you see, so I do not necessarily accept your theologically based arguments and conclusions about science and religion agreeing on the same truth or Truth. But this is where the scientific method comes in really handy in giving us a common platform; for no matter what you, I, or anyone else may believe, we can effectively discuss anything which may be universally observed, tested, verified or falsified.

January 22, 2012 3:17 pm

[Mod: Sorry, messed up the html again, here’s the better ersion:]
HenryP, I didn’t imply you do look down on anyone. We all get combative here, but on this I’m taking a totally non-contentious attitude.
However, I must respectfully decline to think about, look up, research or discuss the distinctly Christian arguments and sources you present. We’re of different faiths you and I, you see, so I do not necessarily accept your theologically based arguments and conclusions about science and religion agreeing on the same truth or Truth. But this is where the scientific method comes in really handy in giving us a common platform; for no matter what you, I, or anyone else may believe, we can effectively discuss anything which may be universally observed, tested, verified or falsified.

Beale
January 22, 2012 4:29 pm

Crito says:
January 19, 2012 at 6:31 am
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?
I’m convinced this is already happening, and has been for some time. When I was in school – long ago – there was no serious opposition to the idea of evolution that I could see. My generation understood that “Inherit the Wind” was a parable on the McCarthy era, and not a beating of the dead horse of anti-evolution.
How, then, shall we explain the fantastic revival of creationism (even the word is recent, as far as I know)? Have new discoveries cast doubt on evolution? There have been plenty of discoveries, but none that are even explicable except in terms of evolution. I can only see the popularity of creation ideologies as a reaction to the series of assaults on freedom and civilization in the name of science, of which AGW is only the latest and most destructive.

January 22, 2012 6:46 pm

That’s a very interesting line of thought, Beale. I recently looked through some primary and high school books from the early 1900s and was surprised to see how mater-of-factly evolution was dealt with and how positivistic, perhaps a little naively, attitudes on science were several generations ago. What probably happened, I think, is that once science became the dominant knowledge source, scientists adopted over-the-top authoritarian pretensions and then blew their credibility in the worst possible ways. I’m thinking eugenics, inability of the mainstream to spot and cull the cranks, especially those of social standing, racialism, Lysenkoism, Nazi “medicine,” “scientific” socialism, ever-changing and contradicting “scientific” pronouncements by the nutritionists, naturalists/environmentalists, educators, psychiatrists, psycholigists and social workers and now, of course,AGW proponents. People can understand errors in science, but when these are accompanied by costly and at times horrible errors by status-hungry megalomaniacs, near-religious certainty and arguments from authority backed by the power of the state, they understandably conclude that science is just another unreliable and dangerous form of oppression.

Myrrh
January 24, 2012 7:32 pm

Ted Swart says:
January 19, 2012 at 4:23 pm
‘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.

I thought the teaching in classrooms kerfuffle was about “intelligent design”, not “creationism”? Or are the two synonymous for some? Seems to me random adaptation without intelligent design and creationism with, both have the same drawback, lack of intelligence. They both use indoctrination, bullying that they are right, so neither should be allowed in a science class.
http://www.publicschoolspending.com/daily-updates/12271/

Anne
Reply to  Myrrh
January 24, 2012 8:05 pm

I surely concur on your issue about these comments. I can only add that creationism had to rebrand itself to stay relevant and adapted it’s approach to “intelligent design.” I think this was a little after “punctuated equilibrium” articles started to appear about the evolutionary record, because this was one of the creationists big complaints about what we knew then about the record…I am too far away from this now, but I was impressed at the time as to what seemed like a major marketing/rebranding/rationalization-to-stay-relevant effort from the creationists, rather than a theory that emerged from scientific analysis. Evolutionists and climate warming skeptics are kindred spirits.

Anne
January 24, 2012 8:14 pm

And if one were to look for parallels, I bet the rebranding tactics that the creationists used to reinvent themselves c. the late 1980’s, early 90’s could have many similarities to the tactics used by the AGW folks to remain relevant against a swarming tide of conflicting evidence to their positions. Just sayin’ somebody should compare and contrast the two “movements.”

January 24, 2012 10:52 pm

Peter says:
We’re of different faiths ….so I do not necessarily accept your theologically based arguments and conclusions about science and religion …
Henry
It does not matter what faith(s) we are. In fact, you could be agnostic or an atheist and still do the work on earth that God wants us to do. Namely Matt. 25:31-46 shows what God’s work entails and how we will be judged. It does not say you have to have a faith or that believe in God specifically is a pre-requisite.
Nevertheless, at the end of this blog, it is perhaps good to consider a sermon that I heard the other day,
freely quoted from my memory here.
We all live in a ship (body) called the “Titanic”. That ship is sinking slowly every day. One day it will be completely submerged. All that will matter then will be this: did I make the right choices? Did I make the right decisions? Did I have the right priorities? What does our life revolve around? Perhaps we made ourselves the center of everything in the world, but, at the end of time, God will be at the centre of everything beyond. We should be able to measure the effect of our faith by the positive effect it has on the lives of the people with whom we get into contact. If it is not God’s work that you are interested in (think of someone like Hitler – he was interested only in doing the opposite), then you won’t like heaven and you probably won’t get to go there.
remember this on a daily basis.

jonathan frodsham
February 3, 2012 7:11 am

What! Consensus, What! a well founded anti-AGW campaign by who,what money how much did the pro-AGW spend.? What! fear. What! climate change and evolution. What! rising sea levels. What! Tobacco, fossil fuels, the merchants of doubt. What! teach the kids lies. What! WTF I cannot listen to this.

February 9, 2012 6:09 am

jonathan frodsham says
WTF I cannot listen to this.
henry
the feeling is mutual
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/what-was-that-what-henry-said-3

Immolate
February 22, 2012 7:20 am

Let me be the first to engage in a bit o’ schadenfreude on this old thread.

1 6 7 8