Posted on 12/16/2015 5:27:54 AM PST by simpson96
Last Saturday, delegates from 195 countries signed a historic pact on human-made climate change. Following two weeks of debate in a Paris suburb, they agreed to lower their planet-warming pollution and to establish international monitoring and reporting of it.
But in many American classrooms, students are debating whether pollution warms the planet at all. According to a recent survey by the National Center for Science Education, 40 percent of teachers present human-made climate change as "controversial."
That's the result of a concerted effort by right-wing activists to raise specious questions about established science. And it harms the effort to teach truly controversial questions, which have too often been neglected in our schools.(snip)
How can our students become informed citizens, if we don't challenge the disinformation that is all around them?
For most of our history, teachers have been discouraged or barred from addressing controversial issues. Now that they're allowed to do so, it would be a true tragedy if they let a pseudo-debate get in the way of an actual one. There’s no controversy about whether humans have changed the climate. The real question, as we learned in Paris, is what they should do about it.
(Excerpt) Read more at dallasnews.com ...
We “deniers” are simply asking Zimmerman and his fellow Eco-Fascists to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
TOTAL LIE!!
When are we going to start punching these Global warming kooks in the mouths? Debating them is pointless. HIT.THEM.IN.THE.MOUTH.
Every time they open their yap, punch them in the teeth and say "You are Wrong, and we are tired of your lies."
"You lie again, and you will get hit again."
“We’re climate infidels”
Great term!
We “deniers†are simply asking Zimmerman and his fellow Eco-Fascists to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Maybe Mr. Zimmerman should go the Mikey Mann route and sue those that disagree with him. You know, instead of providing data and reproducible experiments...
For laughs from M4GW: I’m A Denier - YouTube ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vx-t9k7epIk )
This climate argument shows that things have gone full circle, from Galileo standing before a panel of churchmen awaiting judgement, all the way around to skeptics awaiting condemnation from a panel of “scientists” who are now the guardians of all knowledge. Send the painting back to the art shop and change the cardinals robes and caps to green and make the Pope’s face reminiscent of Al Gore.
The author of this piece teaches education and History ...I didn’t see mention of his Doctorate in Climate Change-ology....
“...established science...” Great flashback to the Congressional Hearing where Sen. Cruz questioned the President of the Sierra Club (it’s on youtube). The idiot from the Sierra Club could only muster the ‘established science’ BS without being able to define a reason for ‘the pause’ or give any other credible reason to believe this nonsense.
what happened to “question everything”?
LOL, but most of the comments are great, to include a couple that I contributed this morning.
That is great news! That means that 40% of public school teachers are not complete morons.
Ahhhh. . .no.
The whole concept of academia, the Academy, is to address controversial issues, to have a free debate, to explore and expand and think.
In my college government class, I have the students debate climate stuff, thereby ensuring BOTH sides are addressed and then let the student make up their own mind.
Amazing to see the students become awed at the very thought that climate stuff has another side.
Apparently he values free inquiry in academia, since there never used to be any (oh, really?) but there is now (oh, really?) but only for "real" debates and not "phony" ones, the difference to be decided on the basis of what the current groupthink might be on any particular issue. How this qualifies as free inquiry is a little difficult to grasp, but it appears that in the author's opinion free inquiry is the sort of thing to be carefully controlled by Experts, one of whom, naturally enough, is himself.
This would be embarrassing as serious intellectual discourse coming from a freshman in high school. What we have here is an Expert on education (oh, really?) propounding nonsense on a field over which he has not the slightest mastery, secure in the conviction that if "everybody" says so, it must be so, and absolutely terrified and resentful that someone might think him the overreaching tom-fool and poseur that he actually is. It may be too much to expect a PhD in Education to be able to define "standard deviation" yet dealing with what is, after all, a highly statistical field, but one would expect at least a certain facility with the English language. What we have here contains such gems as "right-wing deniers". Anyone receiving a course of instruction from this wretch is probably due a refund.
It's a Ph.D in anagrams.;)
Agree with your post.
Stupid anagrams. (Walks off muttering darkly)
How the author managed a PhD is the only hard part to imagine.
It’s a Ph.D in anagrams.;)
It is because his PHD stands for “Piled Higher and Deeper”.
The truth may hurt, but so many times needs to be presented
Interesting factoid...
and the entire group consists of 79 people
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.