Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiWhen Mark Colley learned late last year that his daughter viewed "An Inconvenient Truth" during science class at Midvale Middle School without advance parental notice, he was intrigued. When he learned his daughter's teacher allegedly presented no rebuttal to former Vice President Al Gore's popular documentary film warning about the perils of climate change, he was stunned.
"When you do that, you stop becoming a teacher and start becoming an advocate," said Colley, who considers Gore's movie "a political statement."
"Under no circumstances would I pull my daughter out of her science class. She can get the other side of the argument at home," he said. "But I am concerned that there are 29 kids in that class walking away thinking that they know everything there is to know about global warming."
The Midvale science teacher did not return telephone calls for comment. The subject of climate change can become touchy in the public school classroom, a place where contending public opinions often color the core curriculum. Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, Calif., said the study of carbon emissions on the Earth's climate is so vast and involves the interplay of so many complex scientific disciplines, that it leaves even the best teachers almost helpless in offering useful lessons.
The choice isn't left to Utah science teachers. The state's standards of secondary core science curriculum expect that Utah science teachers introduce the topic, if only because students are expected to understand it to a degree. So science teachers walk the line, risking charges that their approach gives one side of the political debate too much credence, or none at all.
With the educational debate over evolution subsided for now after several court rulings that "intelligent design" did not qualify as a science acceptable for classroom instruction, some have switched battlefields. Early last year, an evangelical Christian parent of seven in Federal Way, Wash., objected to a screening of "An Inconvenient Truth" in his daughter's seventh-grade science class on grounds that the film ran contrary to his religious beliefs.
Colley's objections, he said, are science-based. In a three-page objection sent to his daughter's science teacher, the Sandy businessman and father to eight listed and referenced several scientists and scientific organizations, along with their arguments, taking issue with Gore's thesis that human activity is the culprit behind recent changes in the Earth's climate. Like many global warming skeptics, Colley believes climate change is real, but only natural as evidenced by the ice age. What he won't concede is that carbon emissions are the cause.
"We may be contributing 1 percent to global warming. It's largely due to solar activity, and there's not a thing we can do about it," Colley said. "The polar caps on Mars are melting, and there's not an SUV or smokestack in sight."
As it turns out, state curriculum makes no declarations about naming and teaching climate change's exact causes. "You'll notice we don't say anywhere that humans are warming up the atmosphere," said Barbara Gentry, secondary science teacher specialist for the Jordan School District. "Students are merely asked to investigate or research the effects of global changes on Earth systems."
It's assumed, then, that students examine evidence and data for themselves and reach their own conclusions. At the same time, there's no requirement that science teachers give equal time to scientists who interpret the data differently. Presenting "both sides" of the debate would be appropriate, Gentry said, but not altogether necessary.
"It's very difficult to find materials on the other side of the debate that are science-based," Gentry said. "That comment's going to get me into trouble, but it's true.
"Yes, a good teacher would present all the different ways in which we know why the climate changes. At the same time, current data show that our climate has never changed this fast before."
The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union and The American Meteorological Society all agree that carbon emissions have changed the climate. The National Academy of Sciences issued a report seven years ago stating that, "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise."
That doesn't satisfy Colley, who marshals "dissident" scientists such as Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Queensland, Australia.
Scott, of the National Center for Science Education in California, said that in general, science teachers follow the lead of professional and university-level scientists in teaching a subject, such as evolution, that generates controversy outside the classroom. If university-level scientists teach evolution as a matter of accepted scientific theory, teachers at all levels usually follow suit. Teachers at the secondary level should have little or no reservations about teaching students that carbon emissions generated by humans influence climate change, she said.
"If evolution carries 99 percent unanimity among scientists, then climate change as being caused by human activity has a rate of 85 to 90 percent unanimity among scientists," she said.
"Where legitimate science-based positions on an issue exist, it's appropriate for students to know there are different views. But when you have an extremely complex scientific problem such as climate change that has components from virtually every science, you can think it's almost ludicrous to expect high school or middle school students to analyze models by different sides to make arguments when even professional statisticians and mathematicians argue over the appropriateness of some models."
Don't fault Clayton Middle School science teacher Adrian Bancroft for trying. His students analyze data and information on the current climate without any commentary or interpretation. They view Gore's film, and another from the opposite view titled "The Greening of the Planet Earth," which argues that increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere will lead to more oxygen-producing plants and balance out the carbon dioxide we produce.
True to his middle-of-the-road approach to teaching climate change, Bancroft's opinion also falls somewhere in the middle.
"As humans we're definitely affecting the temperature of the climate, but I don't know if it's to the degree that Al Gore claims," he said. "I should also say that I believe that if we stop carbon emissions today, that would be a good thing."
Climate Change in Utah Schools
- What Utah's secondary core science curriculum says about climate change:
- Teachers are to introduce students to ways the Earth's climate "interacts with and is altered by" cycles generated by plants and animals, among other elements.
- Those cycles include the use and distribution of energy by humans and its effects on the Earth's climate. As the curriculum states in parentheses, that includes the examples of "global warming" and "solar fluctuations."
Ben Fulton can be contacted at bfulton@sltrib.com.
© Salt Lake Tribune
78 Comments so far
Show AllI have let this sit for some time, but as someone who is clearly to the right of most posters here, I must respond to "bobclive". Rachel Carson`s book Silent Spring was a book of fiction and is not taken as a scientific work by any serious scientist. However, it did motivate a more careful analysis of the environmental effects of pesticides which was good. DDT is very persistant in the environment, and has some adverse effects. It is also very cheap and is effective against mosquitoes where insect-resistance has not developed. We used DDT to rid the southern USA of malaria. It has, and continues to be used in third world countries to fight mosquito-borne illnesses like malaria. There is no evidence that mosquitoes can transmit AIDS, so this is quite a stretch. The evidence for man-produced greenhouse gasses as the main driver for global warming has also been overstated, and alternate hypotheses often discounted unfairly. However, man has certainly influenced climate as we have changed the face of the earth through our activities. We have also influenced the amount of CO2 in the air. This change in an important gas that makes up our atmosphere should give us pause. It is clear that we don't really know what the effects might be. As a scientist, I am sceptical of all the modeling because hypotheses and models to predict past activities are always plentiful. A model's worth is it's ability to predict something unexpected in the future. I just want to clarify that not everyone to the right of the mean posters here is entrenched. I am interested in evidence and logical arguments and try to weigh the costs and benefits of any proposed action. I believe that hype just polarizes folks into two factions, neither of which can really defend their position.
Rachel Carson`s book Silent Spring which demonised DDT, was accepted by the scientific community as FACT.
It turned out years later that the study Carson did was totally flawed. Banning DDT especially to the third world has caused millions of unnecessary deaths and has possibly been the main driver of the Aids epidemic in Africa.
A few scientist opposed the consensus view at the time but were ridiculed similarly to the skeptical scientists that oppose AGW. In that case the consensus was WRONG.
1. There has been NO global warming since 1998, the hottest year in the US was 1934 and five of the top ten warmest years on record are in the 30s, check it out.
2 The probable cause of the present warming is the SUN, the solar wind and cosmic rays and the recovery from the little ice age that the Hockey stick graph by Mann tried to erase. See
www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf
See this video on Utube The cloud mystery by Dr Henrik Svensmark, in Six parts.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3uB3vJIq4I
Watch this in 4 parts,
www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI
( Climate change is CO2 the cause)by Prof Bob Carter.
To end the climate warming hoax is ALL based on flawed computer models, ie Garbage in Garbage out.
Both sides of the debate need to be put to students or a mistake of far greater proportions than the DDT debacle will occur.
gcshaw5 March 3rd, 2008 10:21 pm
One (well, really there were several) thing that bothers me — the Mars rovers, according to the reposts I have read, have found no moisture on the surface of Mars. They have found signs that moisture once existed there. If there is no moisture on the surface of Mars, how can there be ice caps?
It's dry ice; frozen Carbon Dioxide.
FYI - I find no conflict between science and a belief in God. Why would a all-powerful God have difficulty using evolution to create. Science helps us understand our world. God helps us understand our spirit.
Many speak derisively here about creationism, yet ignore what is completely factual about it: the fervency of its believers, no matter how misguided we "scientifics" may consider them.
Mocking their beliefs is tantamount to mocking someone's religion. We supposedly well-reasoned thinkers ought to concede that and address our differences with a bit more tact.
Yes we know that scientists are not reliable they make enormous mistakes, would any refute that? The human being has developed from hundreds of years of refuting the obvious as a result of Rome's fear of truth. Many, I am certain who write here believe that faith is the answer and resolves the painful necessity of trying to find the truth of existence. But we have learned that that to move ahead in life it is necessary to bite the apple but religion has argued against the apple tree although it helps with survival.
For those who do not wish that painful truth or to understand and accept that experience of many is necessary to hold an opinion of any worth, our writer in this article is correct with the concept that many ideas are important but woefully incorrect with regard to the subject matter, climate change. He argues for opposing opinions and thinks they are necessary to create the tension for cogent thought. However, the basis for that view should come about with the careful selection of opinion that must stand against the weight of counter argument.
With the issue of climate change the world is convinced that we have a problem, simply offering your truth to this situation leaves one thinking that your child will suffer from the wrong bibliography. This is not a problem confined to Utah alone is is one which the vast proportion of the world suffers.
It is also why the world suffers from climate change.
Here we haver one of the basic problems of climate change is the consumer society because in the West the preponderance of opinion is that Democratic capitalism is the answer to the economic direction of the globe when it is only one of the answers and a failing one at that. Here we need many other opinions to deal with why we can not change?
cobrafifty - We agree on something - stupidity and ignorance runs rapant. Stating that scientific theories are fact is a proof in point. Even evolution is considered a theory by scientists.
ok so next time a Utah school invites a Holocaust survivor to speak, lets provide the proper "rebuttal" and invite David Duke or some Holocaust denier. Lets invite a member of the Flat Earth Society to "debate" the shape of the earth.
Global warming is a scientific fact, and the controversy is manufactured. Exxon Mobil, BP and the rest produce not only gas and massive profits, but also lies, coverups, and company-employed think tanks to create a "controversy." The father in this case is deluded. Education in this country is awful and embarassing. We value stupidity and ignorance, and we debase scientific fact! The right-wing war on science is real you guys. Very real.
quietgenbob - The way one validates a model of this type it to "train" on one subset of the data, and to see how the model works on the subset that were not used to develop the model. The real problem is that none of the models are very predictive. The typical scientific conclusion reached in such cases is that we don't have a predictive model and therefore cannot make reliable predictions. If the consiquences of our inability to predict climate was not so critical, the global warming predictions would be relegated to some obscure journal gathering dust. However, due to the dire predictions and lack of any good models, this issue has become politicized, and alternate theoriies are seen as blasphemy. This is an unhealthy situation. Many are not as brave as the scientists that continue to look at alternate theories. I am reminded of the 100 prominent physicists that signed a letter condemning Einstien's theory of relativity as a rubish, or the criticism heaped on the prion theory for the cause of mad-cow disease. Popularity does not count in science, just right or wrong. Greater than 50% of Americans do not believe in evolution, this does not make the theory wrong.
A famous man once said: "Is our children learning?" Nuf said.
Sometines it seems as though the American public is ready to reject all science in favor of religious beliefs. I'm certain that isn't true, but the combination of apocalyptic evangelicals and far right pro-business people do generate an enoormous amount of heat and confusion whenever science questions their view of the universe. More Americans believe in astrology than accept modern science, we find that more than half the population believe they are being watched over by angels. What has happened to our once world-leading educational system? How did we become a nation of idiots, where none of the contestants can answer correctly to a series of 1-5th grade questions on yet another stupid 'reality' show?
If it isn't already too late, we desperately need bold, new leadership, a drastic change in direction, not only politically, but culturally as well. While the US still leads in military power and spending, in most areas world leadership has moved to the Europeans and Asians, even while our corrupt politicians proclaim that we are 'the envy of the world.' Like the Roman Caesars, our leaders rant about endless wars and conquest, all in the name of some bizarre view of 'freedom.'
The problem is the whole issue is a one-trial experiment that we're in the middle of. By the time we know with absolute certainty, it'll be too late (if there's anyone left to draw a conclusion). The correlations between changes in the state variables of the atmosphere and human activity are too startling to minimize or rationalize about. And how can measurements be rebutted in any case? I don't know if Gore's movie should be shown in science class, but certainly the data is admissible.
While the debate may be over on this site, it continues in the scientific community (see one representaive article below). When someone says the debate is over, it usually means they cannot defend their position. By this I do not mean that the position that CO2 is causing most of global warming cannot be defended. What I mean, is that the person shutting down the debate is not well versed enough in the field to defend it. Defending a solid scientific position by addressing critics challenges is a great way to demonstrate the strengths of a good hypothesis. Shutting down debate creates suspicion.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/319/5860/144.pdf?ck=nck
What I find exasperating is that you really can't argue when someone is dug in and has a thousand erroneous Internet links to 'prove' their point. This is the dark side of the Internet... it's given us relative reality, and who has the knowledge to rebut every point, or the time to find out?
When it comes to global warming, I stick my flag firmly in "Whatever happened to erring on the side of caution?"
The scientific community should construct a huge tombstone saying, "I told you so. Morons."
Just in case.
The problem with representing the "other" side of the story, as if there is only one debate about climate change - man-made or otherwise - is that we risk tyranny of the scientific minority. Anyone who has ever taken a basic science class knows that in any experiment, or series of experiments, the most regular outcome has to be the accepted notion, until proven otherwise. If basic scientific reasoning was valued in this country, the so-called "debate" about global warming would essentially be over. Instead, we would be debating the details there-in and talking about mitigation and adaptation; exactly what the IPCC reports have consistently called for.
Yes, the sun is monitored. And the sun does effect climate. Go figure.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/17jan_solcon.htm
"the plague of locusts that is mankind" 3:29 post
Do we deserve this? To be compared with humans?
Hey, don't forget we tried to chase the Mormons out. Stupid seagulls.
I wonder if the Utah schools allow equal time for a rebuttal to abstinence only sex education? Talk about a curriculum with no scientific basis whatsoever. . .
It is interesting that those that want to advocate CO2 as the cause for global warming and as a science-based fact, also say that the debate is over. Science is about debate. The critics do not claim that global warming was created by God, rather they offer alternate hypotheses based on solar radiation and cosmic rays. Science by consensus is not science, it is politics. Science is evidence based not agreement based on expert opinion. CO2 from human causes is a very plausible cause for global warming, but teaching kids that alternate scientific hypotheses are not permitted is ludicris. Lemarck's hypotheses are still taught along with Darwin's theory. It is interesting that epigenetics is now showing that some traits can be passed on to future generations based, not on genes, but based on gene regulation due to the experiences of a progenitor. Pretty Lemarckian... When the debate ends, so does science.
Jan Steinman writes:
"Or the way I put it, "I won't teach science in your church if you don't insist on religion in my science class."
*********
I understand and agree with the thrust of your comment above--that science should be about that which is concrete tangible fact. However, when subjected to this test evolution fails the same test as creationism. Both evolution and creationism demand that certain things be taken on faith.
Creationism demands that one accept the scientific inerrancy of ancient scriptural interpretations of how existence occurred. This is the equivalent reading legends in order to determine actuasl history.
Evolution demands the preexistence of matter, energy, other forces on which its acceptance is based with no credible explanation of how such came into existence.
It also demands a belief in statistical probability of various combinations and permutations of these preexistant forces and matter that are beyond the presently known (based on the extrapolation of astronomical observations of the expanding universe) age of physical existence as we know it.
In other words there is not enough "time" for everything to have occurred that would have had to occur for evolution to have any chanve to have happened as a result of random chance. Hence evolution is a matter of philosophical faith in the "god" of blind and random chance.
I say: "a plague on both your houses"--Teach philosophy as philosophy in philosophy class. Teach religious faith as religious faith in comparitive religion class. Teach fact as science in science class.
"In four or five years these folks will wake up. In ten they will want to know why nobody did anything about it. In 20, we'll all be in ration lines or watching the big die-off on TV during our 2 hours of electricity per day."
Americans don't wait in line. That is why they have so many handguns and assault rifles. Hopefully when "positive feedback" is occurring it will be quick and fast. Fried vs. baked?
Many years from now, when a more advanced civilization digs up the remenants of America, they will, after carefully examining of the evidence, come to two conclusions as to why our civilization failed:
1 - They let assholes be in charge.
2 - They shit in their own nest.
Global warming education in science, it is science, so bloody what. The father needs to gets an edumacation to be learned of the worlds
Just teach "Turtles all the way down" and hand out coloring books of bible stories without captions and you'll be science teacher of the year in Utah.
I swear by the Flying Spaghitti Monsters most sacred noodly appendage that this nation hasn't learned how to do anything but download porn off the internet in the last 30 years.
We're just dumb as rocks and there's no improvement in sight. We deserve climate change. Maybe Utah can join all those other states with a nice happy drought. Salt Lake city won't be so much fun without a snowpack to give you fresh water all summer will it?
I think in the movie and book "An Inconvenient Truth", Al Gore makes the point that over 900 peer-reviewed scientific papers present evidence of global warming and 0 peer-reviewed papers present evidence to the contrary. What more science is needed to verify that it is happening? The questions are: How fast is it coming and how high will the sea rise and what calamities will befall the planet and its inhabitants? Stay tuned and you will likely find out on a very personal level if you live long enough. Here is a little advocacy for you as I am not a teacher just an ecologist: Save the planet and save children from a bad future--- have a tubal ligation or vasectomy!
No teacher left behind, meanwhile I'll teach my daughter the earth is flat and that faith trumps math and science nearly every time!!!!
Do they still teach that Columbus discovered America?
My Danish Grandfather may have a problem with that as well as the Natives.
evidently Smog is just a theory too? we all know its really just warm fog.
"As humans we're definitely affecting the temperature of the climate, but I don't know if it's to the degree that Al Gore claims,"
....No, I don't think 20-40 degrees F warmer Winter weather in the Boston area compared to my first 35 years there is extreme, idiots.
I think it's a tragedy that "The Greening of Planet Earth" is being given equal time with Al Gore's film. What's next, films about how the Holocaust never happened? That which is false does not deserve equal time with that which is true. The overwhelming evidence is that global climate change is real and human caused, and the quicker we stop dignifying the deniers with a response, the sooner we'll get on with arresting and reversing the problem.
I wrote to the school board when the one evangelical hijacked the whole school in Federal Way. The US is spiraling down the highway to chaos, because we do not plan anything including energy usage, water usage, global pollution control, or anything else. This is only to our detriment. As some of us are waking up to the realization that we are on the edge of a cliff ready to fall off into the abyss of chaos, we have to deal with individuals with the mindset of thugs in the middle ages. The so-called Christians are just throw backs to the middle ages when they didn't want to learn anything for fear that their religion might go out the window as they learned something.
Article: "science teachers walk the line, risking charges that their approach gives one side of the political debate too much credence, or none at all."
Since when is Global Warming a political debate? It was a scientific debate two decades ago, but it's been won.
Just because a large group of deniers can't wrap their own minds around the subtleties of Global Warming, doesn't make it a 'political debate'. That's the attitude that has parts of the U.S. still teaching creationism in the classroom as it if had any scientific legitimacy, while the rest of the world moves on.
Once upon a time, Global Warming was debated in scientific circles. Today, it is not. It's real, as far as scientists can determine. Which should be enough for a science teacher to play Gore's film, unchallenged.
I'm sorry that there are laymen out there who can't figure it. Those are the same minds that couldn't figure that the earth was round before Columbus. It doesn't make any obvious sense that the earth isn't flat, after all. It also doesn't make obvious sense that black holes should exist, but that's the way it goes. Stop believing that, if enough people challenge a scientific theory, it becomes a 'political' debate. It was a scientific debate, now the debate is over, and science isn't a democracy.
One (well, really there were several) thing that bothers me -- the Mars rovers, according to the reposts I have read, have found no moisture on the surface of Mars. They have found signs that moisture once existed there. If there is no moisture on the surface of Mars, how can there be ice caps?
"Apathy is the glove into which evil slips its hand"
CanuckChuck, thanks for the laugh. The image of you squatting on the ceiling is too funny.
While I know opposition to this teacher's actions obviously appears absurd to most individuals, Colley contended that it was a "political statement" and the teacher was acting as an advocate. I want argue these premises as fallacious. Global warming is no longer a "political topic." People can no longer hide the fact that we are contributing to the eventual destruction of earth. I must ask how this is a "political topic." Any politician running will tell you supports the environment and and acts of going green. Can you imagine Obama or Clinton arguing that pollution is not contributing to global warming? No.
Secondly, why aren't we defending acts of advocacy rather than condemning them? Let me answer my question, because this message wasn't corporate-sponsored, subliminal propaganda, approved for by skewed, selfish individuals.
I'd like to 'rebutt-it' -- preferably with Al 'Carbon-Taxation' Gore present...[hoax of the Century].
And Gore, folks (and, quite-obviously) is a political lick-spittle -- NOT any 'scientist' [just a once&future VP].
This kind of thing makes me so angry. We need a political rebuttal for teaching science in science class??? Do we need to present an "opposing viewpoint" to the "theory" that the earth is round and revolves around the sun? Furthermore, it angers me that this is presented as a Christian point of view - by so-called Christians. I'm tired of my faith being hijacked by narrow minded idiots proud of their ignorance. And would those right-wingers please get over the "inconvenient truth" that Mr. Gore is a Democrat. Global warming is not a political issue, don't turn it into one!
Let's not all forget something very important. While I personally believe that global warming has been accelerated by man's activities there is research still being performed - models being perfected.
It is the scientific method at work. The 15-20 percent of scientists that are on the opposing side are not all shills, stupid, or any other such thing. A lot of them are good scientist positing alternative theories and conducting experimentation to see if they are right. This is how the scientific method works. Even if all alternative theories are eventually discarded and a 100% consesus is arrived at, these researchers did their part by finding the blind alleys and dead ends.
The perniciousness is not the researchers doing contrary work. It is the politicians directing science to specific goals and propagandizing for its own nefarious ends.
Every economic class and lesson I ever received in school was provided with no rebuttal. Turns out a lot of it was wrong and Gore has highlighted a few of the 'EXTERNALITIES' that are always dismissed when the religion of supply and demand at the church of the almighty buck is practiced in economics class.
The current form of capitalism at play in the US is a rebuttal of Gore's movie. None further is required.
send all these comments to the Salt Lake Tribune
elmysterio:
I agree not all Christians are idiots or let their faith get in the way of science and common sense. Unfortunately, many of the noisy ones are.
How much of the problem with these people is caused by a perceived challenge of one's faith and how much is loss of control over friends and family through all knowing religiosity? Man tends to create God in his own image and tries use Him to control the world. When science doesn't fit the paradigm, it must be wrong.
My church watched "Inconvenient Truth" after the service one Sunday. We are mixed politically, but most of us agree warming is ocurring and humanity producing greenhouse gases is the primary cause. It seems every few weeks there is another new Prius in the parking lot. We haven't yet done anything about GW in an organized fashion, but no one is screaming for a rebuttal, either.
I want them to teach a rebuttle to the Theory of Gravity...and I want to be sitting on the ceiling when they teach it.
I also want flat "globes" in science class to rebut the round earth theory...
I also think they should teach the "Stork Theory" and "Cabbage Patch" theory in biology to rebut the human reproductive theory.
Hello, I meant to mention the melting polar ice caps on EARTH that might be more important to you and me personally, rather than Mars' polar caps melting, perhaps (also available by Satellite photos). Mr. Eight kids probably never considered overpopulation either. I just noted the source: The Salt Lake Tribune(Utah). One World, One human race, One Atmosphere. Let's get on with the Solutions; gardening, caring, windmills, solar panels, bicycles, filtering our own water, stop importing water, clean up our own; and so much more. Peace my fellow Humans.
The problem with teaching a subject that is "controversial" is deciding what percent of a population opposed to a position creates a 'controversy". Is it 1%? 50%? If the vast majority in a scientific field believe in a concept, then a science teacher only needs to begin his/her class with the statement: "The vast majority in the field of science currently hold this belief to be true. There is a minority within and outside the field who do not. If you want to hear their side please feel free to pursue that opposing belief outside of the classroom. If the majority in the field of science at some point in the future changes their mind, then that new viewpoint will be taught in this classroom. Until then, only the commonly accepted viewpoint of the scientific community will be presented." Organized religion seems to have a double standard when addressing "controversial" topics. They want their viewpoint taught in the schools, but will strongly resist any attempt to have opposing viewpoints taught in their church, mosque or synagogue. I think that when creationism is taught in a Sunday School class, that the students would benefits greatly if they were also presented with Moslem, Buddhist, scientific, and atheist viewpoints concerning this 'controversy".
Science is taught in science class. Global warming and its cause are scientific fact. There is no scientific rebuttal available.
Presenting a "rebuttal" would be politicizing science class because all rebuttals are not legitimate science. Legitimate science is in unanimous agreement.
Parents that have a problem with this are admitting to dismissing the scientific method. That's a personal choice that should have no place in science class, just as intelligent design is not science.
My sister, a science teacher in New Jersey, has finessed this pretty nicely -- at least when it comes to evolution.
When she begins to teach evolution, she writes in on the board. Underneath, she writes "Intelligent Design." Then she follows that up with a dozen or more creation myths, such as "Earth on the back of giant turtle" and "Ice god exhaled the earth."
Then she says, "Any of these may be true. But none of them -- except evolution -- has any scientific evidence, and this is a science class."
Or the way I put it, "I won't teach science in your church if you don't insist on religion in my science class."
Everyone put on your old Lovin' Spoonful records and we'll sing a chorus of "Do You Believe In Magic?" The Medieval mindset of alchemy, witchcraft, phrenology, and inquisition certainly appears to be making a comeback too.
Porcupine,
I'm sorry that we Christians have trampled this earth with such heavy footprints. I'm sorry that we have done nothing but argue (quite vehemently) our beliefs and defend ourselves in ridiculous and frightful manners. I'm very sorry that we have separated ourselves so far from the idea of caring for our environment or seeking to learn more about it. I truly believe that Christianity is harmonious with scientific principles, but we Christians have made the two strangers. I'm not here to argue. I simply would like to say that I am sorry. I am trying to learn more, and I'm trying to change. I'm interested in spending more time letting my faith and my scientific knowledge make me a better acting person.
Please forgive us.
Reminds me of those 4-food-group "balanced" diet charts the meat and dairy industries used to distribute to schools. Plenty of beef, cheese, and ice cream -- that's what growing bodies need!
This kind of stuff teaches our already underpaid overworked teachers that it's not okay to challange your students, it's not okay to think in a classroom. Just take our hand picked government approved knowledge from this text book here and spoon feed it to the kids. If they barf on it give them ridilin to make it go down easier.
Do not be surprised about what people will object to, but would never allow a "second" view to be broached. Take the "In 'god we trust" on the coins they carry in Utah. Could there be a second opinion, based on fact rather than fiction, that alerts the students that when they look at a coin in their pocket, they need to hear a rebuttal? And can Mormonism be debaed in Utah? And should not we require T.V. stations to return to the old "balanced" viewpoints? The world is too ccomplex for those without minds to ever really want opposing views presented. They want simple truths that only they know,like 1% of warming is due to humans.
Ok, I was going along with this story and even Feeling Mr. Colley's point; that some essential part of critical thinking was missing in the school curriculum... Until he said,
"We may be contributing 1 percent to global warming. It's largely due to solar activity, and there's not a thing we can do about it," Colley said. "The polar caps on Mars are melting, and there's not an SUV or smokestack in sight."
That father of eight needs to go back to school and get involved in some critical thinking exercises. "The polar caps on Mars are melting, and there's not an SUV or smokestack in sight." Is just not acceptable in a proper view of Our Small to medium sized planet, it's place in our Solar System and it's very specific atmosphere- live pictures of deforestation and strip mining and bombs available by Satellite - showing our One World, One atmosphere, Only One species driving SUV's, Only One Species operating smokestacks. If you flick a switch in one room the light can come on in another. My Five year old son already understands the basic science and physics of this.
The home of arguably the most hair-brained religion is replacing Texas as the dumb-ass state.
I'm sorry. Maybe I didn't get Christianity. I thought Christians believe in a supernatural being. I thought they believed in virgin birth. I thought they believed in resurrection. I thought they believed in miracles. Didn't the Catholic church just pardon Galileo? Come one. Let it go. I have known several Christian scientists, but they did their work by expending enormous energies at remaining oblivious. I think they did it in the name of some comfort. Nice to think there's some caring consciousness. It seems to me that Christianity emerges from Judaism, an even older, more primitive superstition. Why be an apologist for some desert religion? I'm sure you can wade back into the shallow, warm waters of archetypal psychology. Take a beach vacation. And maybe someday you can step out into the real universe. I love the smell of Coppertone. But I wouldn't slaughter Palenstinians or Jews beacuse of that. Let me tell you. I have talked to God. A long and illuminating conversation. One thing I remember: there are no chosen peoples.
Frankly, even IF climate change has nothing to do with the plague of locusts that is mankind, where's the harm in reducing our greenhouse gas emissions and attempting to be more energy conscious and environmentally aware? Even if Gore's film was completely false, if it encourages people to become better steward of our ecosystem, there's nothing but good in that. So what's the problem? Another thing that I have a hard time understanding is why so many Christians are on the wrong side of science when there's nothing biblical that rejects science at all. In fact, it's wholly possible to be a Christian and a scientist. They are not mutually exclusive of each other. Also, not ALL Christians are "flat earthers" who think the planet is 6000 years old. We're not all that stupid.
I wonder why the Pledge of Allegiance doesn't require a rebuttal. At least some caveat—like maybe not justice for all, not if you're on the list of 930,000 the government has on its list of terrorists for example. Or if you're Muslim, Japanese, black, hispanic, poor. One nation under God with liberty and justice for all? It goes against our very foundation of no god in government. e.g. the separation of church and state. But they keep piping this asinine nonsense into classrooms across the country. Why does anyone have to pledge allegiance more than once? Dumb and forgetful? That would explain it. Dumb and forgetful would also explain how someone could not think human activity—notably that of fathers of eight, oil companies, oblivious auto manufacturers, frequent fliers. Republicans in Cadillac Sevilles, rainforest loggers, and cows— (not necessarily in order of dumbness or forgetfulness)—was responsible for global warming. Most of these people are still claiming that fossils were planted by God as a test of faith and that we've only been on earth a couple thousand years. Why do we keep listening to ignorance, myth, and superstition. I pledge allegiance to the flag and to the republic for which it stands . . .a country which has invaded another country without a plausible reason (except oil), killing over a million helpless innocent civilians, a country which has used kidnapping and torture, secret prisons, kangaroo courts, spying on its own citizens, secrecy, executive privilege, etc.
Oh, yeah, go after a science teacher for showing a prize-winning science film. These days, with the most ignorant and perhaps evil president in recent history, why not?
stateless March 3rd, 2008 2:46 pm; "Have they been passing out the Kool Aid there yet?"
It's provided with the school lunch. Has been since the 50's.
"Yes, let us all march to the sea where we will petition Yahweh, yet again, to command the seas retreat and the water become ice again. We have burned the heretics and purged them of their sin and cast out the literate unbelievers with their science idolatry. Open your missals to Psalm 29...The Lord is my shepherd..."
Some species are too stupid to live.
Pieces of 8.
god, I hope I don't ever have to go to utah.
Have they been passing out the Kool Aid there yet?
Gore's film should come with a rebuttal. The rebuttal that the meat industry produces more greenhouse gases than transportation. Want to get some parents upset? Talk about that in class.
This goes unmentioned in his film, which I suppose is an "inconveinent truth" for most of those who eat large amounts of meat.
Little Brother:
Very good point. And further, why would he even show a 'counterpoint' movie that was produced by business interests? Unless he already felt cowed.
The Flat-earth Republicans strike again.
Yes science is the problem, Mr. Father of 8. Mr. A$$Backward Christian. Science would be a problem for you, because then you would have to think!
Put Mark Colley on the list of people from which to extract reparations in the event of any negative side or direct effects of global warming. Idiot.
Once again America has shown how ignorant some of its citizens are
So, what if I were to posit that Mormons have an end-times prophesy that involves (demands?) the effects of global warming? How would that elucidate father-of-eight's position?
Even if someday we were to uncover irrefutable scientific proof that humans were NOT the cause of global warming, it shouldn't make any difference, because so much of what we are starting to do to combat global warming (whatever the cause) is good for us and for the planet. People are finally waking up to the problem (perhaps too late, I'm afraid) and making greater efforts to recycle, to search for alternative energy sources such as solar and wind (I'll leave aside the controversy about ethanol and biofuels), and to preserve what's left of our rainforests, coral reefs, national parks and forests, wildlife refuges, etc. This "debate" about the causes of global warming is, IMHO, besides the point. Rather than trashing Gore, these nay-sayers should be praising him. If it weren't for Gore, I truly don't believe we'd be seeing this green revolution. Maybe Americans would have awakened just by hearing the consensus of the scientific community, but I think Gore's documentary fast-forwarded the green movement by leaps and bounds. We owe him a debt of gratitude for caring so passionately about this issue.
From the article: "In a three-page objection sent to his daughter's science teacher, the Sandy businessman and father to eight listed and referenced several scientists and scientific organizations..." father of eight jumps out at me; how about some of you? What are his opinions about birth control, abortion, Mormonism, women's rights?
Just curious...
peace,
st john
I am committed to Oneness through Justice and Transformation.
As a science teacher, I don't teach astrology, I teach astronomy.
I don't teach religion, I teach science.
This teacher was fully justified.
Amazing ... Mr. Gore made such a convincing arguement in his film that some people are upset that it is "scientifically imperfect". Well of course it is - everything in science class is. The earth doesn't go around the sun - both bodies orbit a common centre of mass. Electrons don't orbit the atom - they fluctuate as probablilty waves of charge and spontaneously appear, even if it means teleporation through some reasons. But there's no way that you'd introduce these concepts in the first 2 hours of an initial class in space science or chemistry. Why then the additional pressure that anthropogenic climate change have hyper-accurate portrayals of all topics at all times?
I've fought this battle pretty much every time these topics have come up, and I make certain that ACC comes up regularly. The other thing that gets me is that some person with no training will object on the basis of some effect that may not have been noted explicitly. Come on people, there's a reason that many models are used, each with different focusses, and all are considered.
One question that I have found somewhat useful is "If a market based solution to Anthropogenic Climate Change was to appear tomorrow, with no government intervention needed, would you still think it's as much of a problem?" Lots of people can't separate facts from political opinions.
Sorry, rant is over now.
Craig
This part puzzles me:
Don't fault Clayton Middle School science teacher Adrian Bancroft for trying. His students analyze data and information on the current climate without any commentary or interpretation. They view Gore's film, and another from the opposite view titled "The Greening of the Planet Earth," which argues that increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere will lead to more oxygen-producing plants and balance out the carbon dioxide we produce.
I learn that the film with the "opposite" view, whatever that may be, was produced by The Greening Earth Society, a front group of the Western Fuels Association. Apart from the issue of whether corpoganda constitutes a valid "balance" to Gore's film, it would seem as if the teacher took the familiar, if problematic, point/counterpoint approach which required students to think and synthesize their own views.
So what is Mr. Colley barking about? (Not for his own kid, of course, but to rescue the other 29 from undue influence by that scurrilous propagandist, Al Gore.) It would've been helpful if the article had addressed the apparent discrepancy between Colley's claim that the kids didn't get another point of view, and the information that contradicts this assertion.
The deniers got a reprieve this winter. It was unusually cold and snowy in several spots and the arctic ocean had a large area thinly freeze over.
In four or five years these folks will wake up. In ten they will want to know why nobody did anything about it. In 20, we'll all be in ration lines or watching the big die-off on TV during our 2 hours of electricity per day.
The switching and shifting positions of the skeptics are getting humorous.
First denial global warming was happening at all, then; warming exists, it was just a natural cycle so don't worry about it, now they posit some nonexistent increase in solar luminosity based on some coincidental observations of marttian polar caps - ignoring the fact that the Sun is intensively and continuously monitired, 24/7 by spacecraft..
i'm reminded of a doonesbury cartoon which begins with a distraught student complaining because "these pesky facts" won't line up in support of his beliefs. suddenly, up pops a white-coated "situational science expert," who advises him that there are always two side to every debate. thus we have the asbestos controversy, the tobacco controversy, the radiation controversy, the evolution controversy, etc., etc.
the student takes this moral from the lesson: "i'll never trust science again. it's just too controversial."
And why do we feel so righteous to challenge school teachers when we don't have the cojones to hold our political leaders to higher standards than the most dangerous street thug. Do the fools challenging teachers do the same with more esteemed folks like lawyers, judges, and law officials? Hell, try pushing a plumber around the way you push teachers and you'll find yourself knee deep in your own excrement. (Some say we are already there with the cuts we've made to education.)
Torture proves acceptable in the new world order; education, though, must be squashed.
Perhaps Mr. Colley's experts would care to post a rebuttal to the melting of the north polar ice cap last year.
egon
You can tell the fascists are winning the war over language when all science curriculum comes under pressure for not presenting "rebuttal."
Think about the politically weak chemistry teacher wondering if it's okay to suggest that water results from a combination of two hydrogen atoms with an oxygen atom.
Perhaps Exxon should fight math curriculum as well? If it's in their interest that 1+1+5, then they should demand teachers challenge the "old school" paradigm the combination of 2 ones yields a sum of two.
Maybe Dr. Seuss's "On Beyond Zebra" was right and that our 26 letter alphabet only tells part of the story. Any English teacher worth their salt will not trouble their students into believing in a limited alphabet.
We're letting our language and our meaning become as useless as the crap we buy at Wal-Mart. Let's see how all this nasty rhetoric suits us when we live in the infernal world we're creating through our negligence and greed.
I wonder what Colley would accept as acceptable rebuttal? Maybe the words of that intellectual giant George Bush?
Be advised that the opponents of global warming will always be around to cause problems as long as there is money to be made from being polluters.
It's the stupidity, stupid. Back in the '60s, I flunked a third of 4th period sophomore English. The prinicipal wanted to meet with me after school. He said that the students didn't have the kind of life I had as a teenager, that they had TV now, and people drop by, and there are smaller houses and too much noise for study, parents aren't at home, blah blah...
I said, "I can't imagaine what kind of world we'd be making if we accepted that as an excuse."
Now I know.