Slashdot Log In
California Lawmaker Seeks Climate Change as part of Public Education
Posted by
Zonk
on Sat Feb 16, 2008 02:45 PM
from the getting-hot-in-the-senate dept.
from the getting-hot-in-the-senate dept.
Andrew Feinberg writes "A California State Senator is seeking to mandate climate change as part of the standard science curriculum. Other members of the legislative body seek to teach an opposing view. 'Simitian noted that his bill wouldn't dictate what to teach or in what grades, but rather would require the state Board of Education and state Department of Education to decide both. Although global warming is mentioned in high school classes about weather, it is currently not required to be covered in all textbooks, said the head of the California Science Teachers Association ... teachers would have plenty to discuss: rising levels of carbon dioxide, how temperatures are measured globally, and what is known and not known about global warming.'"
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
The slippery slope creationists help wet.... (Score:4, Funny)
That's all teachers need is one more jerk telling them what to do.
Re:The slippery slope creationists help wet.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The Creationsts probably wish that mandated curriculum didn't exist in the first place since intimidating individual teachers in small towns is easier than school boards (Kansas notwithstanding.) However as they do exist, the creationists will use them to the best of their abilities to cripple science education and push their religious agenda.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not an issue of establishing a curriculum. The issue is, WHO establishes that curriculum? I agree, a standard base of subjects and techniques makes sense, but I think it also makes sense for a board of science teachers to establish the science curriculum, NOT
Re:The slippery slope creationists help wet.... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
it's teaching a point of view, not an actual science, history or skill. as much as creationists and global warming nuts would like to think, their views aren't proven to the point i'd be comfortable having them taught as fact in a class room.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says [nationalgeographic.com]
Hostility to Science, and Avoiding Indoctrination (Score:5, Informative)
Firstly, the level of many of the posts here, the reflexive and snide referral to the principles of atmospheric science as religion indicate to me that an increasingly large group in society are hostile to science. Here is a New York Times article [nytimes.com] that argues just that, that there is a rising tide of anti-intellectualism building in America today.
As for the accusations of indoctrination, I believe that climate science should be taught in schools. However, it should be taught at a far more advanced level than they typical caricatures that appear in popular culture. Students should first be taught about the physics of electromagnetic radiation, about absorption, reflection, and emission. They should be given an understanding of how some wavelengths transparently pass through some materials, while others wavelengths are absorbed by the same materials. In my experience, students today typically have a terrible understanding of these concepts.
They should also be taught some basic atmospheric science. For example, they should know why the air becomes cooler as altitude increases (up to the thermosphere at least) because the reduced pressure causes the air molecules to move more slowly. This means that they should be familiar with gas laws, and with the concept of adiabiabatically raising a parcel of air. They should be taught about the latent heat in water vapor and also about relative humidity and the capacity of air to hold water vapor. They should understand that raising a parcel of air causes it to cool, thus reducing the amount of water vapor it can hold. When the water vapor condenses to form clouds, heat is released, causing the parcel of air to rise even faster...this is the main mechanism of storms.
Finally, they should be taught the mechanisms of the greenhouse effect. They should especially be taught that the typical pop culture caricature of the greenhouse effect is wrong. The greenhouse effect is typically portrayed as a sheet of gas reflecting infrared radiation back to Earth. This is not the way it works. Instead, increased carbon dioxide, especially at high altitudes (where it is dry) makes it more difficult for infrared radiation to escape to space. The high altitude carbon dioxide causes the Earth's infrared radiation to be emitted to space at a higher altitude. However, since the air is cooler at higher altitude, the infrared radiation is emitted to space less effectively, thus causing an increase in temperature of the entire system. Here is a nice summary [realclimate.org].
If the material is taught in a logical scientific way, then I believe that it cannot be called indoctrination. If the students are familiar with the detailed science underlying the field of climate science, then they will be more able to judge between authentic and fallacious arguments. Mandating that this material be taught is really not that different than mandating that chemistry be taught.
Parent
Global Warming not a Religion? C'Mon! (Score:3, Insightful)
They're not hostile to science. It's Slashdot, it's all about teh Science. What the posts are hostile towards is *religion*, which is what the Global Warming Cult has become. It's got everything a good old school religion could want: High Priesthood whom one must dare not defy; a clear blue print designed to funnel money away from the weal
Re:Global Warming not a Religion? C'Mon! (Score:5, Insightful)
a complete and holistic set of rules which stretch across diet, fashion, pets, transportation, and commerce; and now more and more, really scary and dangerous zealot foot-soldiers and crusaders.
C'mon yourself. That last bit is a hyperbolic reduction meant to provoke a negative response and justify the whole "religious fanatic" analogy. I'll take it otherwise the day somebody sets off a bomb, tortures someone, or mandates genital mutilation in the name of curbing human-exacerbated global warming.
Parent
Re:Global Warming not a Religion? C'Mon! (Score:4, Informative)
This has already happened. Remember the uni-bomber? In all, the guys writings were right in there with main stream environmentalism. After reading up on that, take a moment to observe that many of the terrorist groups, and activities, in the US are related to environmentalist groups.
I am not saying that they are wrong; but, to deny that they exist is just plain dishonest.
Parent
Re:Hostility to Science, and Avoiding Indoctrinati (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure it can. You can "indoctrinate" people in a "logical scientific way" because what you're proposing is to stuff students with a enormous body of information that would take a PhD in one of the relevant fields to understand. Unless you happen to be actively researching the field, either from avocation or professionally, it will be impossible for anyone to be able to gather enough expertise to really understand the data and it's implications.
And there's the rub. Climate Change / Global anything is a hugely complex issue with lots of side arguments, issues and complexities. And that's just the technical aspect of it all. Your lecture series didn't even start with the social and political ramifications of the confluence of global climate change and the rapidly expanding human population on said globe.
Your curriculum is great, more suited to a high functioning college student than random high schooler. But it still doesn't really help and it's not remotely practical for a high school education. If high school could just teach students to understand the scientific method we would be a lot further along in having a populace with some understanding of how we can possibly deal with many of our upcoming issues.
Parent
Correlation != Causation. (Score:3, Insightful)
Or, in general:
Correlation != Causation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Correlation != Causation. (Score:5, Informative)
Your argument is disingenuous. The importance of a greenhouse gas is more than simply the strength of its absorbtion lines, but also its sources/sinks and residence time in the atmosphere. Water is a strong absorber, but its distribution is highly time dependent and its residence time in the atmosphere is exceedingly short. Water acts as a strong feedback mechanism rather than a direct cause. The simple fact is that if there were no CO2 all of the water would freeze out of the atmosphere and its contribution to warming would be lost. See for example the Snowball Earth [wikipedia.org].
Water is highly unstable in Earth's atmosphere and has a very strong tendency at positive-feedback processes in both directions. If it gets colder and more ice starts forming, more water freezes to ice and makes it get even colder. Methane is a minor effect for a different reason. Without a constant source there would be no more methane in a very short time (it breaks down quite quickly in the atmosphere). CO2 however has a very long lifetime in the atmosphere and as such has a much stronger influence on long-term processes.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Let's take an example. Say that the global average temperature is proportional to the amount of greenhouse gases (plus say -40 degrees Celsius, supposedly the temperature on an Earth without any greenhouse gasses). If CO2 makes up for 10% of the greenhouse effect, doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would contribute to a 3 degrees of
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're wrong. We know enough about the climate model to prove causation, and correlation just happens to support it. Be careful not to go into the extreme believing that correlation disproves causation, or you will not see this fairly.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Causation can be shown by a repeatable, verifiable experiment.
Showing causation with a theory is hard, but if the theory is sufficiently descriptive of the situation, might be enough.
The environment and the atmosphere is incredibly complex, and we aren't even close to understanding what is going on.
For example,
Bad Idea (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The real cause of global warming (Score:3, Funny)
Erm... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
In before global warming deniers (Score:4, Interesting)
Seriously though, I never understood why, on slashdot or all places, there are so many of them. Heck, even if you thought global climate change were a complete scam, wouldn't you at least be in favor of technological advancement? Who wouldn't want to move beyond 19th century technology like internal combustion engines and coal-fired power plants?
I do, however, agree that politicans shouldn't be in the business of setting education curriculum--that's definitely a slippery slope.
Re:In before global warming deniers (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:In before global warming deniers (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
the guy is a politician so .... (Score:3, Interesting)
Why not let scientists decide what should be taught in science?
Now there's a radical idea!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds political (Score:3, Insightful)
Schools aren't required to teach about the dangers of ozone depletion, nuclear fallout, or mercury poisoning -- what exactly is it that elevates this particular environmental catastrophe to the point of being required curriculum in primary education?
Something doesn't seem right about it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
To me it would seem far more important to mandate a course or two throughout the K-12 curriculum on Critical Thinking.
I'm rather worried about too much spoon-feeding of children in education. I'm not talking about presenting the traditional opposing sides of a controversial issue (eg. Creationism vs. Evolution) and letting the children make
Education (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing that amazes me about this whole thing is that (otherwise intelligent) people seem to have been suckered by marketing. For example, companies that advertise about C02 being a harmless gas are simultaneously investing in arctic oil exploration (on the assumption that the arctic ice is melting). Maybe the biggest thing that needs to be taught in science is objective reasoning - something that seems fairly thin on the ground..
Here's something I often read on
"correlation != causation" - true, but I'd challenge anyone to name a single scientific "law" we _know_ to be caused, and don't "merely" observe correlation.
The other thing that amazes me are the number of people who believe really weird things about climate change research. For example, I've read comments alleging that climate scientists "tweak" their models to fit known weather patterns, but never verify those models on other data. This is such a patently ridiculous allegation that in any other field it would be laughed off the stage, but for some reason there is a group of people who are desperate to dis-believe in climate change no matter what the evidence.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Just give them the tools to discuss the matter... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this is a critical issue, but I'd rather not turn it into a situation where people are fighting over whether they get to teach the answer. Rather, I'd make it a mandate to produce students who are capable of intelligently discussing the questions.
Here's what I'd teach them:
Enough chemistry to understand what a compound is, and how atoms rearrange in order to make different molecules, and how energy is required and released in the process. One could teach this from a fairly young age, even without a full chemistry course. Just so they're conversant in the concepts and can know they want to learn more.
Enough math to know what exponents are and what the difference is between a straight line and non-linear curve is. Even if they blur the huge difference between squares and exponentials, the notion that one can't simply rely on knowing that if it took x years to do something, it will take x more years to do twice that, it would be good.
Also, again in the math front, enough math to understand simple optimization issues--nothing fancy. The ability to optimize the area of a rectangle is almost enough. They must be able to do simple things like know when it's good for a few people to do big things and when it's better for a lot of people to do little things and when neither of these will work and everyone has to do something big in order for anything to matter.
Enough math to be able to comprehend the sheer quantity of waste and pollution in the world.
Enough statistics and probabilities to be able to understand why something can happen one year, not happen another, and then happen again ... and yet still be a trend. That is, they must understand the
difference between a tendancy toward something and a promise that something
will occur.
Enough logic to understand what it takes to prove and disprove existential and universal quantifications.
Enough philosophy and morality to understand and discuss risk analysis and the general good.
Enough politics to understand how it's BOTH the case that an obviously good idea won't necessarily be adopted by the free market, and something that is forced by government won't necessarily fix a problem.
Enough economics to know how to calculate which investments are going to pay off and which are just boondoggles lining someone's pockets in the short term at the expense of the long-term good.
Enough history to revive the notion of sacrifice for the greater good and get people out of the "it's all about me" mode.
Enough biology to understand what an ecosystem is and how one thing affects another. There was a very good episode of the Wild Thornberrys where the ecosystem got upset by a small change and there was a big disaster. Required viewing of that would almost suffice in my eyes. Just enough to be able to understand the significance of the reefs going away or some plankton going away or polar bears going away in some sort of operational terms that didn't make it seems "distant and unrelated".
Enough common sense to understand that not all things labeled bio-degradable, green, or earth-friendly are actually saving people money. We don't have to teach which ones are, just that the question has to be asked and that the answers might be deliberately obscured.
And, just maybe, enough religion to understand that Noah didn't survive the Flood by sitting back and assuming it was God's will or that God would just take care of him.
And enough to know that the true meaning of Faith is that you have enough confidence in what you believe that you are not threatened by truth and science.
Bravo to the United Church of Christ for its recent "not mutually exclusive" [ucc.org] stance on science and technology. (I'm not a member of that church, by the way. I just saw notice of this and thought it was cool.)
Educational NASA Global Climate Model (Score:3, Informative)
Targeted to high school and undergraduate levels. Includes lesson plans, sample homework assignments, and documentation about how it meets the education standards.
Disclaimer: I'm the project developer.
Climate does nothing BUT change (Score:4, Insightful)
For the record I'm a member of the third group, that consider the hypothesis empirically reasonable, but badly supported (if at all). Most proponents of the "proven" view fail to adequately discuss critical data acquisition issues like how and where atmospheric concentrations are measured to name just one glaring fault. Another problem is the failure to consider climate on a long enough temporal base. Data selection has often censored periods that would "obscure" the conclusions of the analyst - believers debate the Medieval warm spell or the mid-Holocene event for example, using very poor arguments that ignore empirical facts. There are very clear geological and archaeological data records associated with both those events that "climatic" arguments to the contrary can neither explain nor deny.
Proponents of the "not real" tend to see human activity as ineffectual, not worth considering, ignoring the clear evidence from many different parts of the world that we are very much a part of what determines the "natural" environment at any given time and that civilizations may have more of an effect than tribal societies. So called "native " California grasslands vanished when autumnal burning was suppressed allowing the more quickly growing annual grass species that came in the coats of Spanish sheep to spread. The native grasses relied on human environmental effects. With curtailment of that human effect, the perennial grasses lost the environmental advantage. They were no more "natural" than the present state of affairs. In Britain a butterfly population was recently reported recovering after it was determined that they were dependent upon an ant, that in turn was dependent upon warm soil temperatures, that in turn were dependent upon grazing keeping grass short. The butterfly is DEPENDENT upon a human effect in the environment. We are very much a part of the environment and given our numbers and resource demands, we really should be interested in our interactions with it.
Unnecessary (Score:3, Informative)
curriculum, we already have much broader legislation addressing this: NEEA of 1990 [wikipedia.org]
Re:Aw shit... more of this? (Score:5, Insightful)
As someone who actually studied climate science I appreciate the attempt at raising public awareness of the issue. However, I fear it will suffer the same fate as evolution education and turn into a political minefield where neither side really "wins" and the real losers are the students who end up with a half-assed and confusing discussion of a very important issue.
The biggest problem with discussions of global warming is they have become so politicized (by both sides) that the actual science is getting lost in the noise. The "save the environment" types have probably caused as much harm in getting to a real solution as the "skeptics". It's all about soundbites and rarely does the science get laid out in a sane and understandable way to the general public.
Parent
Re:Aw shit... more of this? (Score:5, Insightful)
The fundamental problem I have with this whole thing is that it would seem to be teaching an element of valid science for a political cause rather than for educational merit alone.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The fundamental problem I have with this whole thing is that it would seem to be teaching an element of valid science for a political cause rather than for educational merit alone.
I agree with you... Science doesn't need to exist in law. I mean, just for the sake of argument, what happens if climate science collectively decides that global warming is NOT actually occurring? Then what do you do? Wait for the law to change, or continue to teach the old flawed science because the law says so?
(I'm not suggesting that this is a likely scenario - but I hope you see my point.)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4248062.html [popularmechanics.com]
I have no argument against actual global warming. In fact, there is very good evidence that we are warming from a control source outside our ecosphere: Mars Ice Caps.
They have been observed and recorded longer than our own, since Newton. The trend is that the ice caps are melting, therefore the temper
Teaching Science (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Aw shit... more of this? (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Public schools by-and-large are the last place you can expect worthwhile study of something controversial. One side or the other always receives more emphasis, depending on the political demographics of the school board in that area.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In any case, just because you have a good feel for "how the atmosphere works" doesn't mean that you are qualified to cast judgment on people in a field that relates to the history of the atmosphere. A car mechanic might know how an engine works, but that doesn't make him an expert in automotive history - nor does it make him qualified to predict the future of the auto industry.
Re:Great, that's all we needed... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, I'm not seeing any religion here. Unless you're referring to a religion involving summary dismissal.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually no, that's what is assumed. What actually happens is that you learn a lot of fanatical enviromental hyperbole in the name of science.
Re:Great, that's all we needed... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:No, that was Intelligent Design (Score:5, Informative)
Just read the fourth assessment report. Heck, if you're too lazy at least read the AR4 Synthesis Report.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's funny how some people only feel alive during a crisis, so they feel the need to invent a crisis when none such exists.