Climate change skepticism seeps into science classrooms

latimes ^ | January 16, 2012 | By Neela Banerjee, Washington Bureau

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Some states have introduced education standards requiring teachers to defend the denial of man-made global warming. A national watchdog group says it will start monitoring classrooms.

Reporting from Washington—

A flash point has emerged in American science education that echoes the battle over evolution, as scientists and educators report mounting resistance to the study of man-made climate change in middle and high schools.

Although scientific evidence increasingly shows that fossil fuel consumption has caused the climate to change rapidly, the issue has grown so politicized that skepticism of the broad scientific consensus has seeped into classrooms.

Texas and Louisiana have introduced education standards that require educators to teach climate change denial as a valid scientific position. South Dakota and Utah passed resolutions denying climate change. Tennessee and Oklahoma also have introduced legislation to give climate change skeptics a place in the classroom.

In May, a school board in Los Alamitos, Calif., passed a measure, later rescinded, identifying climate science as a controversial topic that required special instructional oversight.

"Any time we have a meeting of 100 teachers, if you ask whether they're running into pushback on teaching climate change, 50 will raise their hands," said Frank Niepold, climate education coordinator for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, who meets with hundreds of teachers annually. "We ask questions about how sizable it is, and they tell us it is [sizable] and pretty persistent, from many places: your administration, parents, students, even your own family."

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

From JoNova (Australia) regarding this report:

Love it: Skeptics winning in the classrooms

*******************EXCERPT************************

“Climate change skepticism seeps into science classrooms”

The LA Times laments the loss of the totalitarian educational view — pity the poor students subjected to hearing both sides of the story:

Texas and Louisiana have introduced education standards that require educators to teach climate change denial as a valid scientific position. South Dakota and Utah passed resolutions denying climate change. Tennessee and Oklahoma also have introduced legislation to give climate change skeptics a place in the classroom.

In May, a school board in Los Alamitos, Calif., passed a measure, later rescinded, identifying climate science as a controversial topic that required special instructional oversight.

The news itself is interesting, but sadly viewed through the usual green-colored glasses.

Is it “reporting” or a propaganda piece? Let’s check the three boxes:

Box 1: One half of the story is reduced to Orwellian nonsense. Tick yes! — who, exactly, teaches children to deny we have a climate? Johnny, there are no clouds… Which state passes resolutions declaring that the climate does not change? Henceforth California will be 78…

Box 2: Look for the Mandatory Ritual Pean: “scientific evidence increasingly shows that fossil fuel consumption has caused the climate to change rapidly”. Tick two! Ritual complete. Notice that daring sweeping conclusion, of course, is backed by pffft-puffery-nothin’. (Yes we believe that driving causes droughts, and heaters cause hurricanes. Storms are coming, switch off your air-con to save the world!)

Box Three: Find spurious tenuous associations of one view of climate change to a/ Tobacco-propaganda, b/ creationism or c/ Big-oil-profits. Tick b and c. Yessity yes. (How did they manage to leave out the tobacco slur?)

Despite the propaganda, the news is good news. The people are not fooled.

“Any time we have a meeting of 100 teachers, if you ask whether they’re running into pushback on teaching climate change, 50 will raise their hands,” said Frank Niepold, climate education coordinator for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, who meets with hundreds of teachers annually. “We ask questions about how sizable it is, and they tell us it is [sizable] and pretty persistent, from many places: your administration, parents, students, even your own family.”

You’ve gotta love it.

 

But look out for the “New national science standards for grades K-12 (which) are due in December.” Since they are based on standards from the National Academy of Sorcery, we know logic, reason and evidence will need all the help they can get.

[dirtymac]

WE WILL FORCE YOU TO ACCEPT OUR POLITICAL SCIENCE PHILOSOPHY.

WE HAVE ALL THE STATISTICS WE NEED TO PROVE ANY SCIENTIFIC FACT WE WANT.

WE WILL NOT ACCEPT ANY SKETICISM AT ALL.

THE GREAT LEADER IS WATCHING.

[cuban leaf]

The three page site here should be required reading for all students, grades K through 12, even if the teacher has to read it to them.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/global_warming.html

One of the pages is the Global Warming Test It is the extra fun part: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html

[BenLurkin]

b t t t

[Maceman]

Although scientific evidence increasingly shows that fossil fuel consumption has caused the climate to change rapidly

Liberals always say this, but never offer any facts to support it.

They don't even acknowledge the actual facts that: 1) 30,000 scientists have signed a petition arguing against AGW, 2) Climategate I and II have demolished the integrity of the "science" behind AGW, 3) the IPCC reports have been proven to be both inaccurate and fraudulent, 4) no AGW-believing scientist has dared to publicly debate any scientist or expert who disagrees with AGW, 5) global temperature has not risen for 15 years, and 6) the original data used by AGW proponents doesn't even exist so that it can be checked by other scientists.

If they don't even acknowledge, let alone address, these actual facts, why should anybody take these "scientists" seriously?

[G Larry]

“Although scientific evidence increasingly shows that fossil fuel consumption has caused the climate to change rapidly...”

Actually, there is no “scientific evidence” showing any such thing. There are some opinions and some data. But none of it withstands actual “scientific” scrutiny.

[Hodar]

One would find it easy to debate “Man made Global Warming”, in that all you would have to do is show the ‘evidence’ that has been found to be fraudlent.

Hockey Stick graph? Fraud
Data manipulation and raw data permanetnly ERASED
Emails denouncing Global Warming and asking how to pertunate the fraud, were exposed

Everything they predicted to happen, hasn’t. The data they proported to show what was happening was found to be fraudlent.

To disprove a case; you first have to make a case (without fraud).

[kidd]

The intent of this article is to make skeptics sound like creationists.

While creationism has some merits, it has been effectively ridiculed to the point that these merits are ignored. This article seems to try discount AGW skeptics, not by discussing the issues or the crumbling basis for AGW, but by making it sound like teachers are being forced (”seeps into the classroom”) to address just another unscientific issue.

[savagesusie]

This indoctrination into ONE WORLDVIEW-—the Marxist one——IS GOING ON IN ALL AREAS OF IDEOLOGY===NOT JUST GLOBAL WARMING.

Curricula is designed to DESTROY MORAL ABSOLUTES—(the idea of God and Right and Wrong and to make the Bible obsolete—as they also do with global warming).....

WE need GOVERNMENT OUT OF EDUCATION—exactly like JS Mill stated-—all government schools do is create slaves for their agendas.

We need to have scientists write textbooks, NOT CAIR and BILLY AYERS Type people. They have an agenda to destroy your children’s minds with cognitive dissonance-——LIES stated as TRUTH. It is how they create useful idiots===fill kids with lies and half-truths and “FEELINGS” instead of intellectual knowledge and wisdom and the idea that intellect needs to overrule passions in a Rule of Law society.

GET Back to Natural Law Theory-—Justice, Truth, Duty, Temperance-—etc., CLASSICAL EDUCATION and dump the “God is Dead” postmodernism of Marx, and Lenin and Stalin and Hitler and Pot.

We need a STANDARD of Right and Wrong-—for RULES-—and it comes from the BIBLE-—it was FROM the BIBLE until the postmodernists kicked out GOD and put in Barney Frank and Odin and Satan-—as standard for Right and Wrong which they indoctrinate kids with. OUR natural rights come from GOD-—NOT Barney Frank. He sent us a list of Right and Wrong—and we used to follow it until the leftists wanted to eliminate God from everything—to create slaves and drudges and dysfunctional people and neglected kids who become obummer thugs.

[Baynative]

I received a draft of a resolution in opposition to Agenda 21 that has allegedly been passed by the RNC. I am trying to verify and will print it if I can substantiate. My communication said it is being sent to county officers for inclusion in local and state platforms.

If anyone else has seen it, let me know.

[Carry_Okie]

If they don’t repudiate, Sustainable Development, ICLEI, Smart Growth, Liveable Communities... all in the same resolution, then it’s meaningless.

[Bigh4u2]

Ok.. I got all 10 questions right..

What did I win?

:0)

[Baynative]

I think opposition to Agenda 21 naturally includes the elements contained within.

I'm still working on verifying where it came from. I'll print it when I know I haven't been duped.

[MrB]

AGW and evolution controversies are worldview fights,

and it appears that the left is trying to marginalize AGW skeptics as they have Darwinism skeptics.

How soon will it be before any teaching of AGW skepticism is challenged by the ACLU as “bringing religion into the classroom”?

[longtermmemmory]

only 50? it should be 100% pushback.

the evidence is DECREASING not increasing.

NPR had a pure propaganda piece which had a fluff scientist saying the “there is no debating” meme.

Those 50 who are not getting pushback are doing their jobs wrong and should be fired.

[BuffaloJack]

> broad scientific consensus

What the blazes is that? Science, thet is true sience, is based on facts not opinions. Junk science is based on consensus.

[allmendream]

It is the evidence of the long ages of the Earth and the massive changes in climate over those long ages that is the best evidence against mankind being the driving force behind climate change.

If you throw out all that evidence in favor of a religious dogma of a few thousand year old Earth - you lose a lot of value - including the data that shows the climate changing long before mankind came around.

[Bob]

Texas and Louisiana have introduced education standards that require educators to teach climate change denial as a valid scientific position.

Since it is a valid scientific position, it certainly should be presented as one.

[MrB]

Massive changes in climate over “short” periods of time when man was not burning fossil fuels wouldn’t be evidence against man-caused climate change?

OK.

“climate changing before mankind came around” is assuming the consequent, ie, begging the question.