New Science Curriculum to Address Climate Change Controversy

Education News ^ | March 14th, 2012 | Julia Lawrence

[Sopater]

The groups currently drafting new science standards for American classrooms have decided to include a section addressing the issue of climate change. The Congressionally chartered National Academies, including the National Research Council, plan to include a document drafted last year that says that human activities have at least a partial impact on climate.

Although there’s a strong consensus in scientific literature on anthropogenic climate change, in America the issue is a source of significant controversy and debate. Just how strident the debate over climate change had become came as a surprise to one California middle school teacher:

When Treena Joi, a teacher at Corte Madera School in Portola Valley, Calif., last year showed her sixth-grade students the global-warming movie “An Inconvenient Truth”—a documentary in which former Vice President Al Gore issues dire warnings about climate change—the drama quickly spread beyond the classroom.

A father filed a formal complaint accusing Ms. Joi of “brainwashing” the students. He demanded that she apologize to her students or be fired, according to the complaint. The local school superintendent settled the matter by requiring parental permission before students viewed the movie in the future and prohibiting teachers from talking about ways to address climate change.

Ms. Joi said that this was the first time she’d been confronted by such extreme parental reaction, even though in the past she taught other subjects generally considered controversial such as evolution and sex education.

While the battle between global warming supporters and skeptics rages on in state houses, court houses, news programs and everywhere in between, it’s no wonder that school teachers have felt more than once that they are caught in the middle.

When her daughter’s ninth-grade teacher mimicked a gagging motion when discussing climate change during science class in Clifton Park, N.Y, Kimberly Danforth complained to the school science advisor for redress.

The teacher explained he was playing devil’s advocate and actually believed in mainstream climate-change theories, but Ms. Danforth, who believes children should be taught about global warming, wasn’t persuaded. “He seemed to be thumbing his nose at our values,” she said.

David Wojick, who is leading the effort, backed by a Conservative think tank the Heartland Institute, to design a scientific curriculum that challenges the conventional view of global warming, says that schools shouldn’t be seeking to teach only one side of the debate, but instead to offer a balanced view that will allow students to reach their own conclusions. Arguments like these are very familiar to Eugenie Scott, the executive director of the National Center for Science Education which has previously opposed efforts to introduce Intelligent Design into science classrooms around the country.

Like evolution, climate change is “settled science,” said Scott. “We shouldn’t fight the culture wars in the high-school classroom.”

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

See this thread for some MUST reading....

Climate Coup — The Politics (How the regulating class is using bogus claims )

The above thread does not have a very illuminating title ...but believe me it will make your Hair Stand Up....and explains why the Kiddies MUST believe the Leftists Propaganda ...for their Global Scheme to work!!!

Also:

Forget evolution, climate science is the most controversial subject in school

************************************************

And Senator Inhofe has just released a Book:

The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future [Hardcover]

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

See the post below for how I am trying to spread the word about What Is Really Going On!

[Marine_Uncle]

I noticed you are starting to advertise Jim’s book. It would be neat if it became a best seller.

[Sudetenland]

Comment left at website.

The only thing settled in “anthropogenic climate change” is that there is no “consensus” except among those who conspire (out of their desire for job security) to extort grant money from the tax-payers to fund their pet theory. Those who study the actual data are far from arriving at any “consensus” over AGW . . . err, excuse me ACC (it’s latest incarnation) . . . only those who believe in the goal driven computer models believe there is any consensus. That is because computer models only tell you what the biases of the modeler are. The data don’t support the claims and anyone who spends a modicum of time studying the issue rather than blindly believing what faux scientists like Mann and Jones tell them understands that fact. Science, by definition is never “settled.” Only religious tenets, based on mythology are “settled.”

The best way to fight these lying proselytizers of the religion of global warming is by confronting them on their own websites.

[SierraWasp]

It's as low an idea as those foster by liberals, but I like it anyways!!!

WELCOME BACK, BOB!!! YOU'RE A REAL GAS!!! (I've missed your gaseous expertise)(grin)

[BOBTHENAILER]

You bet. I saw that about Heartland’s efforts which NEED TO BE DONE.

I’ll definitely be buying Inhofe’s book. He has done such good work on exposing the lies. Even got EPA sientists to admit there was no evidence of global warming.

[BOBTHENAILER]

and I’ve missed your STINGING COMMENTARY.

[SierraWasp]

Hey Lizard Lip! Don'tchew be tryin ta zap me with that lightening quick-silver tongue of yours!!!

I've be a pingin ya till I wore out my ping finger an I had finally resigned to the idea that you musta fell down one of your multitudious gas holes you been diggin, dude!!!

Hey Dave the Grampa, look who just showed up after an elongated hiatius!

[twistedwrench]

The Greens have been indoctrinating California’s children for many years.

[BOBTHENAILER]

Been usin’ dat silver tongue convincing folks in the NE how nice it is to be getting piles of money just to sign a few papers, then get piles more when the gas hits the pipeline.

Funny how thw EPA and Chu and Obummer don’t get their idiotic way in the real world, YET.

Gotta keep fightin’ the battle or they will.

[Ditto]

Anyone who would call either evolution or climate change "settled science" is no scientist.

AGW is total junk 'political science".

I personally have no problem with evolution.. I learned about it via studying the experiments of the Monk, Gregory Mendel, when I was in Catholic school 50 years ago.

The Church has no problem with the theory of evolution. They only insist that God is the Creator. That species can change over time is not a shocker - we can plainly see it.

In that school, at that time, we also learned quite a bit about Creation, including daily recitations of the Apostles Creed. I believe in God, the Father almighty, Creator of heaven and earth...Knowing science, a Creator also make perfect sense. Nothing comes from nothing and there is no infinity. Matter, time and space are all connected -- all one, and have a beginning.... and an end.

I accept both Creation and Evolution and they are in no way incompatible. I see both as true and logical. And so do millions of other faithful.

If you are a 'young earth believer and want to take King James word-for-word, " that's fine. Believe as you wish. It is your freedom to do so.

But please, quit being sucked in by the the leftist game (as you can see in the above article) of comparing the bogus science of Man Made Global Warming with Evolution. They have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Believe what you wish about evolution, but please, stop comparing it to this current 'political science' fraud.

Our Creator could make us in any way He so chose to make us, If it took six days of 6 billion years, I don't really give a damn, and wouldn't presume to tell Him how He should have done it. It's a meaningless thing to argue about. People of Good Faith can be anywhere on that argument, and honestly, most people of faith do not disagree with evolution and it is not an affront to their faith.

But the leftist push to take control with this Global Warming scam is a clear and present danger to all of our freedoms. When you allow it to be mixed up with evolution, you are giving the leftist power mongers more ammunition to paint opponents as ignorant and anti-science!

AGW has nothing to do with evolution. Nothing. Don't make that comparison and don't allow others to make it either.

< / End Rant. > ;~))

[SierraWasp]

You are DA MAN!!! You're doing the Lord's work!!! Keep your eye on the ball, you're nose to the grindstone and your pedal to the metal!!!

Then try to work in that position... (smirk)

Seriesly, nail 'em down with that money for the good of America!!!

[Sopater]

I personally have no problem with evolution.. I learned about it via studying the experiments of the Monk, Gregory Mendel, when I was in Catholic school 50 years ago.

But would you call it "settled science"?

Believe what you wish about evolution, but please, stop comparing it to this current 'political science' fraud.

I have no idea what you're talking about. My claim is that neither is "settled science". Once we think that we're "done" because the issue has been "settled", scientific investigation stops.

[Ditto]

I have no idea what you're talking about. My claim is that neither is "settled science". Once we think that we're "done" because the issue has been "settled", scientific investigation stops.

Only two questions in reply...

1. Do you think God could have done this Creation we all enjoy over the course of Billions of years via many stages and gradual changes ... or does that Creation have to confirm to a 'short earth' time line that a literal reading of Genesis provides?

2. If He had taken billions of years instead of a few thousand years, would you love Him any less?

And I'll add my warning from before. If you allow the Global Warming Crap to be confused with evolution, you only give more power to the Godless people who push this Global Warming BS.

Believe what you want. But the two topics have zero to do with each other. Don't Compare Them!

[Sopater]

1. Do you think God could have done this Creation we all enjoy over the course of Billions of years via many stages and gradual changes ... or does that Creation have to confirm to a 'short earth' time line that a literal reading of Genesis provides?

God could have done whatever He wanted, and He told us what He did in Genesis. Question to you, do you think that God could have told us how He created everyting by having it written in a book? Do you believe that His enemies would work to discredit that book?

2. If He had taken billions of years instead of a few thousand years, would you love Him any less?

Certainly not.

It really matters little what God could have done. What matters is the truth. However, you're completely missing my point. Even a staunch evolutionist who understands science would not call evolution "settled science". Believe what you want, but I'm not the one who compared them in the first place, it was stated in the article.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

DOOMAGE!

Global Warming PING!

You have been pinged because of your interest in environmentalism, alarmist wackos, mainstream media doomsday hype, and other issues pertaining to global warming.

Freep-mail me to get on or off: Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to all note-worthy threads on global warming.

Global Warming on Free Republic

Latest from Global Warming News

Latest from Real Climate

Latest from Climate Depot

Latest from Greenie Watch