Home  »  Global Warming  »  Flash Point: American Students Rebel Against Global Warming Theory Being Taught As Fact

Flash Point: American Students Rebel Against Global Warming Theory Being Taught As Fact



Jan 20, 2012 14 Comments ›› The Assassin

Sacramento Bee:

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.

Last May, the school board of Los Alamitos, Calif., passed a measure, later rescinded, identifying climate science as a controversial topic that required special instructional oversight.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

Against this backdrop, the National Center for Science Education, an Oakland, Calif.-based watchdog group that supports the teaching of evolution through advocacy and educational materials, announced on Monday that it will launch an initiative to monitor the teaching of climate science and evaluate the sources of resistance to it.

NCSE, a small, nonpartisan group of scientists, teachers, clergy and concerned individuals, rose to prominence in the last decade defending evolution in the curriculum.

The controversy around “climate change education is where evolution was 20 years ago,” said Eugenie Scott, executive director of the NCSE.

At that time, evolution – the long-tested scientific theory that varieties of life forms emerged through biological processes like natural selection and mutation – was patchily taught. Teaching standards have been developed since then, but it’s unclear how widely evolution is taught, given teachers’ fear of controversy.

Studies show that teachers often set aside evolution for fear of a backlash. Scott worries this could happen with climate science, too.

“The question is self-censorship and intimidation. What you have to watch for is the ‘hecklers’ veto,’ ” she said. “If a teacher ignores a particular topic, it will likely go unnoticed.”

Climate change skeptics like James Taylor, environmental policy fellow at the Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank, said the pushback in schools and legislatures reflects public frustration at being told “only one side of the global warming debate – the scientifically controversial theory that humans are creating a global warming crisis.”

“It is therefore not surprising that state legislatures are stepping in to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not spent in a manner that turns an important and ongoing scientific debate into a propaganda assault on impressionable students,” Taylor said.

Climatologists say man-made climate change is not scientifically controversial.

Instruction on climate change is typically introduced in middle school earth science classes and in recently popular high school environmental science courses, often electives.

In 2007, science teachers said their greatest challenge was making climate change fit in with their curriculum, according to a survey by the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, a joint project of NOAA and the University of Colorado at Boulder. By 2011, the biggest concern wasn’t the curriculum but the controversy, said Susan Buhr, director of the education outreach arm for the institute.

Resistance to the scientific consensus breaks down mostly along regional lines, Buhr said, with greater pushback in the South and in regions where “livelihoods have been built on extractive industries” of fossil fuels.

Attacks on evolution come largely from conservative Christians who believe in a literal reading of the biblical creation story. Climate change denial is mostly rooted in political ideology, with foes decrying it as liberal dogma, teachers say. The NCSE’s Scott said that makes it much harder to use the courts to protect climate science education.

New national science standards for grades K-12 are due in December. The standards – based on a framework by the National Academy of Sciences and developed by a partnership of private industry and state governments – are expected to include climate change. But some science educators predict that could heat up local and state resistance in some areas.

“You could see more states or localities challenging the topic,” said Niepold, who is familiar with the NCSE initiative. “Given the polarized nature of how people take this issue, having a community organization that looks at the issue could be valuable.”


  • YERMOM

    It must pain liberals to report on the truth.

  • Anonymous

    Good article. It will take time.  It wasn’t until about 2000 that I felt comfortable using evolution as an explanation for nutrient needs. Eventually the science of climate change will have a more unemotional forum.

  • Anonymous

    I remember when I stopped believing in manmade global warning; I was doing research on the ice ages for 8th grade science. The earth warmed and cooled, and all without the help of the great industrial revolution. Truth hurts, but it will set you free.

  • Anonymous

    Of course it changed without us. But, consider what we may have done to alter the natural cycles.

  • Anonymous

    And how, precisely, would we know what the natural cycles were? Did mother earth whisper in the ear of these so-called scientists to tell them? How would we know we had altered them, if we couldn’t prove what the cycles were in the first place?  

  • Anonymous

    Geological evidence would indicate the natural cycles. By tracking these we can measure the changes since the start of the industrial age as it is imposed on the natural cycles. Also, it just makes sense that we are releasing much more CO2 than ever before because we are drilling deep to get the fossil fuels.

  • Anonymous

    Natural cycles are not necessarily linear, so how does interpreting geological “evidence” from 500 years ago mean anything today? How does “geological evidence” tell us anything useful about temperature cycles, when we see the climate debate swirling around decimal degree differences? Nobody who was there 500 years ago is here to tell us what the temperature was to the decimal degree, so how can interpretive data from geology be relevant to todays debate? This is a “science” of computer models and guestimation – if the weather man can’t tell me for sure what the temperature is going to be 3 days from now with all the technology currently available, I am certainly not interested in the best computer model guess for temperatures 100 years from now.

  • Anonymous

    Natural cycles are not necessarily linear, so how does interpreting geological “evidence” from 500 years ago mean anything today? How does “geological evidence” tell us anything useful about temperature cycles, when we see the climate debate swirling around decimal degree differences? Nobody who was there 500 years ago is here to tell us what the temperature was to the decimal degree, so how can interpretive data from geology be relevant to todays debate? This is a “science” of computer models and guestimation – if the weather man can’t tell me for sure what the temperature is going to be 3 days from now with all the technology currently available, I am certainly not interested in the best computer model guess for temperatures 100 years from now.

  • Anonymous

    Natural cycles are not necessarily linear, so how does interpreting geological “evidence” from 500 years ago mean anything today? How does “geological evidence” tell us anything useful about temperature cycles, when we see the climate debate swirling around decimal degree differences? Nobody who was there 500 years ago is here to tell us what the temperature was to the decimal degree, so how can interpretive data from geology be relevant to todays debate? This is a “science” of computer models and guestimation – if the weather man can’t tell me for sure what the temperature is going to be 3 days from now with all the technology currently available, I am certainly not interested in the best computer model guess for temperatures 100 years from now.

  • Anonymous

    First of all, weather is different from climate. I am not a geologist, so I don’t know much about how the findings are compared. I am a scientist, however, and I understand how science interprets data with constant exploring and challenging of theories. I will trust the refereed journals for reporting studies and groups of scientists for giving us answers and recommendations.
    There is no dispute that we are extracting and burning more fossil fuels than ever before in history. We know because we have historical records of how man lived.

  • Anonymous

    Really Sandra, climate is a construct of weather…

    climate |?kl?mit|
    noun
    the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period : our cold, wet climate | agricultural development is constrained by climate.
    • a region with particular prevailing weather conditions : vacationing in a warm climate.

    You can trust the so-called scientists all you like – consensus is not science, and answers are different from recommendations. I may take recommendations from the climate “science” community (under advisement) but they have no answers they can prove and certainly have no right to dictate that we legislate due to so-called man-made global warming.I agree, there is no dispute that we are burning more fuels than ever – the debate is whether that is the cause of so-called man made global warming.

  • Anonymous

    OK, once again we get hooked up by definitions. Let’s avoid the climate one, but science is a procedure of determining causes and results. What would you have legislation based on? Science is pretty good as far as I am concerned, but of course I am biased.

  • Anonymous

    OK, once again we get hooked up by definitions. Let’s avoid the climate one, but science is a procedure of determining causes and results. What would you have legislation based on? Science is pretty good as far as I am concerned, but of course I am biased.

  • Anonymous

    CONSENSUS is science, those who doubt the CONSENSUS are deniers, all deniers are to report the NCSE room 101 for reeducation!