California Lawmaker Seeks Climate Change as part of Public Education 313
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.'"
Correlation != Causation. (Score:3, Insightful)
Or, in general:
Correlation != Causation.
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.
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.
Teach an opposing view? (Score:1, Insightful)
The climate has always changed and will always change.
The disputes are over man-made causes and if we could actually do anything about it.
Climate changing is not in dispute.
Re:Aw shit... more of this? (Score:3, Insightful)
What I'm saying is it doesn't matter what valid climate change data there is, it will be distorted and mistaught in our schools to support yet another draconian measure that Al Gore or whoever else will want to push upon us and that's why I'm against it. Scientists are free to do the climate control studies they want, just stop pushing it on us through the schools because the schools from my experience are the last place you can expect any worthwhile study of it.
Ok?
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:the guy is a politician so .... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
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.
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.)
Re:Aw shit... more of this? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Great, that's all we needed... (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:Correlation != Causation. (Score:3, Insightful)
No, that was Intelligent Design (Score:2, Insightful)
Personally, even if they are over-reacting, polluting the environment is a very bad thing. Since we have only one planet that can sustain human life, I think we should err on the side of caution. If it means you have to spend more on fuel and new energy technology, well, we had it pretty good for a while.
Re:Correlation != Causation. (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, how can we be sure that our global temperature measurements are even accurate [blogspot.com] to a degree over the last century.
I am not trying to say that I don't think global warming exists, just that we need tons more research into various things: measuring the global temperature accurately, getting the temperature from now to the distant past, to establish trends, the effect of our pollution on the temperature, the effect of changes we have made to the environment in other ways.
Certainly, reducing sources of smog near big cities is a very good thing, so there are things we should do to help the environment. That is one thing where correlation be expanded to show causation with some experimentation/data. For example, if you have enough data showing that dumping particulate matter into the air in a specific location creates smog.
Re:No, that was Intelligent Design (Score:1, Insightful)
No, all that has been agreed upon is the planet is getting
Re:In before global warming deniers (Score:4, Insightful)
The Most Instructive Bits (Score:2, Insightful)
* politicians will sensationalize for votes
* scientists will overstate for grants
* media will embellish for attention
* countries will argue for/against for power
and, really, the science of the matter - ie., the FACTS
And, just to be clear, I was also one of those climate change research types that got involved before it was fashionable and when Gore was still in Congress looking to make a mark. I was disgusted then; I'm disgusted now.
The best thing you can take away from the study is a healthy measure of skepticism.
Re:Correlation != Causation. (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:Correlation != Causation. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:The slippery slope creationists help wet.... (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 some politician.
I'm sure there's some car analogy I could use here...
Climate change is a fact; global warming is bullsh (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, teach climate change, but teaching global warming is as bad as teaching creationism. They're both faith-based education.
Re:Great, that's all we needed... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Great, that's all we needed... (Score:2, Insightful)
This is secondary curriculum so we'll try to stick to well-established notions. So we teach that, based on past records earth has been warming up for a while now, and if it gets warmer, things could be painful. And then what? Full stop? Won't discuss possible causes, possible scenarios, and resulting damages? These subsequent topics are still mired in so much politics due to their policy implication that no matter how the presentation goes accusation of bias/political agenda will start shooting around before you can say "hot".
They are not fit for secondary school curriculum - if you think them fit, you're not much different from the ID evangelists.
Re:In before global warming deniers (Score:2, Insightful)
I also have a problem with all the popular attention directed at the difference between a Hummer and Prius when there are uncontrollable underground coal fires in China producing just as much CO2:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal#Coal_fires [wikipedia.org]
Or plastic grocery bags -- if they are disposed of properly, (for most people) they represent much less consumption than the fuel used to drive to the store(burning 1 gallon of gasoline consumes about 8 pounds of hydrocarbons, that's 100's of bags). It doesn't bother me that people are trying to do the right thing, but the seemingly self re-enforcing combination of inanity and volume that comes from a lot of people is really tiresome.
Regarding politicians and education curricula, who exactly do you think is setting them right now?
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.
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.
Re:Aw shit... more of this? (Score:1, Insightful)
You can't compare a planet with basically no atmosphere (Mercury) and a planet with an incredibly dense (compared to Earth) atmosphere (Venus) and say that it's the CO2 just because Venus' atmosphere is CO2.
The most you can reliably say with a 'simple look' at Mercury, Venus, and Earth is that it appears that planets with atmospheres retain heat.
(This is not to say that an atmosphere as dense as Venus' with less CO2 wouldn't retain less heat than Venus, just that you can't say that with a 'simple look' at Venus vs. Mercury)
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 wealthy to said Priesthood and their cronies; a vaguely mystical component ("mother earth" "gaia"); the stern, self-righteous demands from on-high for sacrifice and penitence (while priesthood and cronies fly about in their gulf streams); 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.
Global Warming not a religion? Dude, in two hundred years, the same schools being forced to teach it today as "science" will be teaching it as social studies alongside Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. Unless it becomes a state religion in the US and EU, in which case all mention of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism might be expunged from the curriculum (religions hate competition).
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.
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.
Re:The slippery slope creationists help wet.... (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:In before global warming deniers (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Aw shit... more of this? (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:Aw shit... more of this? (Score:3, Insightful)
(I'm not suggesting that this is a likely scenario - but I hope you see my point.)
Teaching Science (Score:3, Insightful)
Including global warming is science curriculum is a very good idea. For one thing it is topical, it gets in the news quite a bit. This helps with engagement in science. Further, it seems like a pretty practical matter for the generation now in school. To avoid catastrophe, they may need to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere [carbonequity.info]. This would be a pretty big undertaking. If this is the case, not only would this be a good science subject to learn, but it would also be a survival skill. Finally, this is a subject where there has been intentional dishonesty on the part of fossil fuel companies to attempt to muddy the waters. Teaching the actual science can help students to understand that it is not just the case that not everything you hear is true but that some of it is intentionally deceptive. They can also learn about this in history when they study the tobacco settlement but seeing it in actual operation is also helpful.
Re:Hostility to Science, and Avoiding Indoctrinati (Score:3, Insightful)
The reason why so many people are so credulous, so ready to gobble the propaganda of the various interest groups is BECAUSE they have no idea of the actual science. When the population does not understand the science, then they are malleable to anyone who cares to manipulate them. It is only when science is widely known that people make proper decisions as to the best directions to lead society. Democracy itself depends on widespread knowledge. Your seeming acquiescence to widespread scientific ignorance does not bode well for American democracy. If the public is ignorant of most important issues affecting society, then democracy is a hollow shell, and voting is mostly meaningless.