Guest essay by Eric Worrall
A study published in Science reveals that a number of teachers are rebelling against Federal education directives – that a significant number of school teachers are failing to indoctrinate their students with the politically approved position on climate change, or worse, are teaching students that there are forcings other than CO2, which might be driving changes in global temperature.
According to the Washington Post;
A major new survey of U.S. middle school and high school science teachers has found that across the country, a majority are teaching about climate change in their classrooms — but a significant percentage are also including incorrect ideas, such as the notion that today’s warming of the globe is a “natural” process.
The study, published in Science Thursday by Eric Plutzer of Penn State University and a number of collaborators from Wright State University and the National Center for Science Education — which supports the teaching of evolution and climate change in schools — consisted of a mail survey of 1,500 teachers nationwide. They included both middle school science teachers and also high school biology, chemistry, physics and Earth sciences teachers, since it wasn’t entirely clear which classes might cover the subject (unlike evolution, which clearly belongs in biology class, climate change stretches across many disciplines).
One of the most striking findings: 30 percent of teachers said in the survey that they tell students that the current warming “is likely due to natural causes” — contradicting major scientific assessments of the matter. Thirty-one percent of teachers also said that they include both the scientific consensus position — that global warming is human-caused — but then also a “natural causes” position that contradicts it, thus presenting “both sides,” in the study’s words.
The abstract of the study;
Climate confusion among U.S. teachers
Although more than 95% of active climate scientists attribute recent global warming to human causes (1, 2) and most of the general public accepts that climate change is occurring, only about half of U.S. adults believe that human activity is the predominant cause (3), which is the lowest among 20 nations polled in 2014 (4). We examine how this societal debate affects science classrooms and find that, whereas most U.S. science teachers include climate science in their courses, their insufficient grasp of the science may hinder effective teaching. Mirroring some actors in the societal debate over climate change, many teachers repeat scientifically unsupported claims in class. Greater attention to teachers’ knowledge, but also values, is critical.
Read more: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6274/664
From the study itself;
… Although most students will hear something about climate change in a science class, the median teacher devotes only 1 to 2 hours to the topic (table S7), inconsistent with guidance from leading science and education bodies [e.g., (9)]. Of course, quality of instruction is more important than quantity, so we turn to how students are introduced to climate change science.
MIXING MESSAGES. Notably, 30% of teachers emphasize that recent global warming “is likely due to natural causes,” and 12% do not emphasize human causes (half of whom do not emphasize any explanation and thereby avoid the topic altogether). Of teachers who teach climate change, 31% report sending explicitly contradictory messages, emphasizing both the scientific consensus that recent global warming is due to human activity and that many scientists believe recent increases in temperature are due to natural causes (see the first chart). Why might this be the case? Some teachers may wish to teach “both sides” to accommodate values and perspectives that students bring to the classroom (6, 10). Beyond that, the survey data allow us to evaluate three explanations.
…
Our data suggest that, especially for political or cultural conservatives, simply offering teachers more traditional science education may not lead to better classroom practice. Education efforts will need to draw on science communication research and acknowledge resistance to accepting the science and addressing its root causes (17, 18). College and university instructors will need help reaching teachers and teachers-in-training who bring diverse political and value commitments to the classroom—particularly in avoiding “boomerang effects,” in which attempts to promote a particular view can instead harden opposition. …
Read more (paywalled): http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6274/664.full
Where will this end? Everyone knows that scientific knowledge advances when everyone agrees the same settled position, that questioning established viewpoints, or dissent from politically approved ideas, is anti-scientific, and should be punished somehow.
Off to Room 101 for those heretics.
– O’Brien.
My teacher Grand daughter is a solid professional. She guides students on how to research for the facts. She doesn’t tell them the facts. Once they have done their research on the assigned topic they tell each other in class discussion what they have learned and often debate. She helps them over the rough spots and fills in the blanks when they are done. She says they learn much more, understand it more completely and remember it better when tested. The days of text book reading assignments and teacher lectures are coming to an end. She does history and social studies. I will have to inquire how the global warming goes in the science classes. I think I will be happily surprised.
The fact that a few people here argue against both evolution and mainstream climate science speaks volumes. Someone on this thread has actually asked how birds lungs have developed via evolution. Really. That’s a worrying lack of comprehension regarding basic science and evolution. Just for the record, we don’t have a complete record of the evolution because lungs do not fossilise well, and you may as well say where is the intermediate phases for red hair. Looking at something now and saying it’s amazing how it came to be like this or that is silly, because we looking with hindsight, it could be applied to anything.
In what way does it speak volumes?
It tells me more or less nothing. Except that people are free to turn up and post here.
The Catholic Church or the Hare Krishnas are in general anti-evolution and now have officially adopted pro-CAGW positions. What does this prove?
Incidentally, the Hare Krishnas, a.k.a. ISKCON were also strong supporters of the moon landing hoax conspiracy theory.
Does that speak volumes? Does that prove that supporting CAGW also allies a person with moon landing conspiracies, anti-evolution and a preference for chanting hare krishna?
I think not.
http://www.vina.cc/2015/12/03/iskcon-supports-hindu-declaration-on-climate-change/
The red herring, Guilt by Association ?
Feels that way. Please set me straight if you see it differently.
The point is that if you do not believe in evolution, you are flying in the face of one of the most demonstrated and accepted theories in Western science. That tends to suggest that if your view of basic science is radically flawed in one area, it could well be be flawed in others.
People who reject science don’t tend to do it in just one area. That fact that HKC reject evolution certainly does speak volumes. It reflects the adherence to it’s mother religion of Hinduism and is a similar idea to the rejection of evolutionary sciences in fundamentalist Christianity and other religions. Anyone who rejects the moon landings are patently bonkers, but I’m not sure there is a close correlation between the rejection of evolutionary science and conspiracy theories about moon landings. Conspiracy theories and religious beliefs are separate issues.
A lack of belief in a well recognised branch of any science is usually reflective of a particular mindset. For instance, would you be happy to be treated for a serious illness by someone who believed that giving any form of medication was wrong and contrary to Gods will?
With regard to climate science, we can whether climate change is proceeding as normal as natural variation, or we can say debate whether is has been affected by human activity, and the change is effected by CO2 or whatever.
But if someone says is not changed and never will, or that jesus or Krishna changes it for some reason or another, that tends to undermine the validity of the debate. That suggests a mind set where science does not loom loud in the personal decisions regarding the nature of climate change. The same mindset that says evolution did not happen and Humans and Dinosaurs were contemporaries a few thousand years ago.
Thankyou for this lengthy reply.
I too would have once been inclined to assume that attitudes to one aspect of mainstream science could inform us about views in other areas.
BUT – the point that I was making was that the Vatican and ISKCON (the Hare Krishnas) actually SUPPORT the global warming and climate change consensus whilst simultaneously questioning the validity of Darwinism. And in the case of ISKCON doubting the reality of the moon landings.
These people have apparently eagerly embraced the UN/IPCC consensus position.
So, the world (and the people in it) ain’t so simple…
An authentic reply.
Thanks Froggie.
Garetrh,
“The point is that if you do not believe in evolution, you are flying in the face of one of the most demonstrated and accepted theories in Western science”
I know of nothing even remotely like a “demonstration” of Evolution . . it’s just some “experts” opinions that it prolly happened, and many people believing that experts in a field are to be treated as “seers’ essentially, whose visions must be falsified or they are “settled science” (some say “established science”).
It’s literally science by imagination, to my mind.
What is your advice if someone posts a viewpoint you don’t like Gareth? Should we call them names, or should we just bar them from the site?
For the record I think the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. The most compelling evidence that evolution is a good explanation for different species, is that you can use the theory of evolution to make non trivial predictions, as Darwin did, when he predicted his famous moth.
You can’t say the same about Climate science. Climate scientists are great at attributing events which have already occurred. Not so good at predicting what is going to occur next.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/08/csiro-climate-update-we-dont-know-what-the-heck-is-waiting-for-us/
Hi Eric, Good question, No, someone should never be banned from any site for dissension; rudeness and aggression is of course another matter. I think that there are various issues in science that we do not know, and we should not be afraid to say it. Personally I believe that much of climate science is probably correct, however there is much that is not known and we have to acknowledge that,
The very fact that I have been posting and reading this site for many years is a token of the fact I recognise that, and skeptics can be very useful in pointing out areas of the science where there are unknowns, and we should not pretend we know all the answers. I also do not need to point out that I believe the science is far from settled !
However there are posters here who seem convinced that climate science is fundamentally flawed and has no value. To me that is every bad as those who believe the science is settled.
I do note though that on the site there are a lot more right wing ( or Conservative) opinions who oppose mainstream climate science than Lefties like myself. I suspect there are other correlations as well that I would get hell for if I mentioned them. However, I think the idea that climate skepticism is closely correlated with conspiracy theories is complete nonsense, designed more to undermine skeptic opinion than to illuminate the debate.
With ref to prediction, it appears to me that some of the changes in weather patterns we see were predicted, however I accept that someone, somewhere will always find an example of an event happening previously and so dismiss the fulfilment of that prediction. Living in Wales it is hard to challenge the idea that the the weather is getting more severe in every way.
Ultimately , like all science, there is a lot more subjectivity involved than many would care to admit, and it shows in these debates on all sites.
As I pointed out above : the two sciences cannot really be compared. One (evolution) can be seen and measured; with the other (climate) we see only the changes throughout time – and we can hardly pinpoint reasons for the changes with any scientific certainty.
The fact that a few people here argue against both evolution and mainstream climate science speaks volumes.
Oh? I saw only one person arguing against evolution, and he never mentioned climate at all in his rant. I may as well ask why people like you come on to science sites and claim the moon landing was faked? Oh, and are you still beating your wife?
No, she is beating me. Must be evolution.
Mine only beats me at Yahtzee.
Davidhoffer. Read the thread again, I suspect you have missed a few points. No one has claimed the moon landing was faked, least of all me. There was a dodgy piece of research a few years back that suggested that climate scepticism was correlated with conspiracy theories. Regular readers of this site will understand that is what I referred to.
My personal opinion is that if someone rejects the theory of Evolution, they are allowing their personal faith or beliefs to override objective science. If they are happy to do that in the area of evolution, they may act in the same way in other areas. A belief in creationism and rejection of evolution is not a great sign if you are for an objective view of science in any area. However, as I mentioned, that is my personal opinion, others may feel differently.
There is a qualitative difference between evolution and climate science. We can look back 3 billion years and see evolution proceeding linearly (with lots of blind alleyways!). We have no such fortunate view of climate science – in fact, all we see is 3 billion years of continuous climate changes. And, let us face it, we have no real, scientific explanation for all those climate changes.
Some of those young students will still be around in the year 2100 to see how much the oceans have gone up.
I doubt anyone will remember the climate crisis a decade from now, let alone by the end of the century. Far more interesting “crisis” in the pipeline, mostly technology related.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_goo
I had a ‘discussion’ with a fellow across Facebook today about anthropogenic climate change. When he allowed that any CO^2 above 400 ppmv was anthropogenic and therefore was causing climate change, I gave him Janet’s anthem and signed of.
Saw a program some years back about the huge quantity of people in America opting to home school their children, because of this brainwashing from Washington.
Natural variability is the main cause of climate change, the CO2’s role is very minor if any.
Solar activity is considered to be principal driver of the changes, but solar scientists insist that the changes impacting the Earth are very minor.
There is also N. Atlantic’s tectonic alternative, but for the time being is not getting any traction
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Tec-TSI.gif
Perhaps combination of two solar and tectonics could do it, but there are too many vested interests (mainly for personal reasons) which are not going to give in without a bitter struggle.
“a significant number of school teachers are failing to indoctrinate their students with the politically approved position on climate change, or worse, are teaching students that there are forcings other than CO2, which might be driving changes in global temperature.”
This is good. But what are they teaching their students about what determines basic climate?
When I was at school, a geography teacher told us about some German guy who had the idea that the continents slid around on the Earth, and even suggested that there might something to it! (Sounded interesting but doubtful to me. Surely the continents were rock attached to the Earth, weren’t they?)
That teacher was not burnt at the stake, but of course in exams we only wrote about the geosyncline theory of mountain building. Exams are not the best opportunities for doubting the consensus.
Mind you, the geosyncline theory seemed pretty dodgy to me, too. I’m not sure I ever properly understood it, though.
CO2 is like the geosyncline theory of climate science.
It is both encouraging and enraging to read this, as the viewpoint is so backward. Those teachers daring to teach what is true, instead of the CAGW doctrine are heros, yet, in Orwellian fashion they are denigrated as lacking in both knowledge and values;
Notice this gem as well;
So, it is because they have an “insufficient grasp” of “the science” which renders them “ineffective”. My God, what must be done with them? Again, Orwell’s “1984” comes to mind. The implication is that they need “re-training” so that they will give the “correct” point of view to their students.
I see a typo in the WaPo article.
A major new survey of U.S. middle school and high school science teachers has found that across the country, a majority are teaching about climate change in their classrooms — but a significant percentage are also including (politically) incorrect ideas, such as the notion that today’s warming of the globe is a “natural” process.
From the paper:
– I was interested in what “1,2” could be. I found that the 95% comes from Doran and Cook papers (no surprise there). This indicates to me that while there seems to be a concern that some children aren’t being taught AGW, there is no concern that the ‘belief’ is supported by such shonky papers which, if any teacher was worth their salt would be dissected in a class exercise so that pupils could learn how surveys are NOT carried out.
Optimizing private education versus public education is interesting to consider as mitigation against total cultural influence of political mandates on public school curricula.
John
Except that these “standards” apply to private schools too. As well as home schooling. Not following the government prescribed indoctrination when home schooling will, literally, get one confronted with a charge or child abuse.
Yes, the clamoring for a re-education of the educators is well underway.
http://www.newsweek.com/science-teachers-confused-climate-change-425650
I teach AP Chemistry in a New England public school, and I speak with the class from Day 1 about how badly science is being done concerning global warming. Unfortunately, it takes me the entire year to tear down the indoctrination, but I win many of them over in the end by providing the entire picture.
The phD in Chem who teaches next door to me does the same thing. Unfortunately, we remain very much the minority in our department.
“Incorrect” in this context means not ‘inaccurate’ or ‘erroneous’ but. . .
‘unacceptable’
from which it is a short step to “must be punished.”
/Mr Lynn
Eric Worrall: “In science, prediction is everything.”
Actually, prediction is only the first step. The sine qua non is falsification.
The hypothesis that late-20th-century warming was caused by anthropogenic CO2 has been falsified.
Yes, the ‘null hypothesis’ is not predictive, and cannot be falsified. It is equivalent to saying, “We don’t know,” which is the essential impetus to scientific inquiry. To claim, as the Climatists do, that “We know, and it’s settled; no argument is allowed” is the very antithesis of science—it’s dogma, religion.
/Mr Lynn
Leonard Lane
February 11, 2016 at 10:04 pm
You are not a scientist Leonard Lane. It does no harm to teach problems and uncertainties about the main theorem and there are problems. The so-called 97% would have no more to do if it was all known – this belief has been instrumental in 350 climate scientists being laid off at CSIRO in Australia and it is a logical thing to do given the certainty expressed by climate scientists about what is happening. The big layoff has, as expected, resulted in international criticism of the decision. Why? Well because there is so much ‘we’ are uncertain of. They stopped being certain when it came to not needing their services any longer.
You seem like a logical fellow Leonard. Surely, with this certainty stuff, does it not make sense to you to layoff most of the 100,000 climate scientists in the world and keep a small caretaker few to keep the records up to date and record the progress of the end of the world or what might be done to avert it? After all, if it is a one-formula-fits-all science, I would say one in each of the 5 or 6 decision making countries would be enough to form a discussion group on the progress. With the invention of the automobile and the airplane, would we still need someone to head up a city office of horse manure problem mitigation?
It becomes a problem when students are being taught that AGW is fact when in reality it is a conjecture with gaping holes. When you tell them that there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate rather than discuss the issue they call you a liar because they were taught otherwise. It seems that AGW is being taught as a religion and to speak against it is some sort of blasphemy. I have run across commenters that object to the idea that H2O is a gas in the Earth’s atmosphere. They treat science as a list of facts that they have to memorize to pass a test and they have no concept of first principals. The big problem with climate science is that you cannot prove anything. There are too many variables and one cannot run definitive experiments. Models are really some form of make believe and are not reality but there are many who do not really understand that.
Studies have shown that 87% of all statistics are made up on the spot
There are no limits to how far the left will go in order to force their agenda. For instance, in order to combat “Climate Change” Obama should be permitted to pack the Supreme Court with leftist flunkies. Think I’m kidding?
http://theweek.com/articles/605314/how-save-world-from-supreme-court
‘Correct’ and ‘incorrect’ ideas sounds very ominous to me. Can we all mouth the names ‘Mao”, ‘Khmer Rouge’, and ‘Stalinist Russia’ together and take pause.
As we all know the brains of middle and high school students are nowhere near fully formed. Teachers need to school students on how to think, not what to think. Critical examination of scientific ideas and evidence is the learning they need, not a spoon fed recitation of a dogma approved at the national level.
Denial of natural variability is ecological blasphemy.