Science Teachers’ Grasp of Climate Change Is Found Lacking

Science Teachers’ Grasp of Climate Change Is Found Lacking

Most science teachers in the United States spend some time on climate change in their courses, but their insufficient grasp of the science as well as political factors “may hinder effective teaching,” according to a nationwide survey of the profession.

The survey, described in the current issue of the journal Science, found that teachers spent little time on the topic — just one to two hours on average over an academic year.

“It’s clearly not enough time to really provide students with a good scientific understanding,” said Eric Plutzer, the lead author of the paper and a professor of political science at Pennsylvania State University.

Many teachers also provide misinformation about climate change, the survey found. The evidence that human activity is a major cause of recent climate change is overwhelming, but 30 percent of the 1,500 teachers surveyed said they emphasized that recent global warming “is likely due to natural causes,” while 12 percent said they did not emphasize human causes. Half of that 12 percent said they did not discuss any causes at all.

Close to a third of the teachers also reported conveying messages that are contradictory, emphasizing the scientific consensus on human causation and the idea that many scientists believe the changes have natural causes.

The authors of the paper suggested that those teachers “may wish to teach ‘both sides’ to accommodate values and perspectives that students bring to the classroom.” The survey also found, however, that only 4.4 percent of teachers said that they had faced overt pressure from parents, school administrators or the community to teach about climate change.

This is depressing. No wonder so many Americans are so vastly misinformed on this topic. They aren't teaching it in schools, and when they are teaching it, the information is often wrong or contradictory. How are students supposed to learn that way?

Also this report pretty much dispels the idea that students are being brainwashed to accept climate change in schools. Clearly that isn't the case if the teachers aren't teaching the correct material. So even if you believe that climate change is all propaganda (you are wrong), you cannot honestly say that students are being indoctrinated with this message.

What's really happening is that millennials with good heads on their shoulders are researching this information and coming to the conclusion its true. Mostly because this is going to effect us going into our old ages. Older people will die off without seeing what havoc they wrought.

These standards need to change. We need better education on this valid science so that students know what is happening in the world and we can work on adequate solutions to either slow or halt the problems altogether. After all, the effects we've wrought so far are projected to last at least for the next 10,000 years.

Heck the recent Zika outbreak (which I'm surprised barely anyone is talking about on ATS) is very likely being aided by climate change.

More reading:
10 Signs Climate Change Is Already Happening
‘Vanishing Ice’ Makes Beautiful Bid For Action on Climate Change
Climate change: How do we know?
Cimate Hot Map
16 Irrefutable Signs That Climate Change Is Real

Many teachers also provide misinformation about climate change, the survey found.

As far as I can tell , they omitted much needed information. Who's survey ? I am so sure the survey was conducted by a non-biased group....NOT

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You're right, the Global Warming Propaganda has to be stronger...

We should also ban the phrase "The Sun has an affect on Climate" as we all know the only cause to any global Warming are cars and anyone who dares talk about "there were ice ages and Global Warming before humans existed" should be labeled as racist!

originally posted by: Gothmog

Many teachers also provide misinformation about climate change, the survey found.

As far as I can tell , they omitted much needed information. Who's survey ? I am so sure the survey was conducted by a non-biased group....NOT

This one:

The survey, described in the current issue of the journal Science

link

Try actually clicking on the link in the OP and reading the content in the article presented for a change. Your baseless snipes were answered already.

a reply to: PsychoEmperor

Thanks for the hyperbole and strawmans, but no one is saying that there aren't natural factors at work as well. And CERTAINLY no one is talking about banning any phrases.

originally posted by: PsychoEmperor
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You're right, the Global Warming Propaganda has to be stronger...

We should also ban the phrase "The Sun has an affect on Climate" as we all know the only cause to any global Warming are cars and anyone who dares talk about "there were ice ages and Global Warming before humans existed" should be labeled as racist!

Yeah, and we should round up all the scientists who are spreading the lie that the Earth is over 6,000 years old and burn them at the stake!

a reply to: Krazysh0t

From your article

www.theguardian.com...

Whenever the planet has faced a major climate change event, man-made or not, species have moved around and their pathogens have come into contact with species with no resistance.

maybe thats why teachers aren't on board with pushing a religious belief onto their students, because the more I look the more I see the debate of climate change displaying elements of religious fervour.

and when they are teaching it, the information is often wrong or contradictory. How are students supposed to learn that way?

You have anything to show how they are teaching it, and what information is wrong...maybe a study or something, otherwise all I see in your op is emotionally charged rhetoric

eg

This is depressing

is all propaganda (you are wrong)

is very likely being aided by climate change

very very emotional

Unfortunately, industrialists have discovered that they can use the right of self expression and freedom to debate to confuse the public. The tobacco industry disputed the self evident fact that smoking is hazardous to health for decades by producing bogus studies, and finally claiming that people had a right to choose for themselves. Big Coal and Big Oil are doing the same thing now. They started out by denying the facts (the mean global temperature has been rising), then they produced their own bogus studies, and now they are invoking the right to have the "controversy" taught. There is no controversy over the fact of climate change, only denial.

Is reducing humanity's carbon footprint the only solution? No, we can just adapt, you know, build higher dykes around New Orleans, put locks across the Golden Gate, that sort of thing. And then there's always geo-engineering. Personally, I think building more light rail is a less expensive solution.

Maybe you're looking at this the wrong way.
Science teachers have a science degree from a college. They should be able to make an informed decision on climate change. Maybe that's exactly what they are doing.

I was pretty sure we'd already past the "point of no return" with Global Warming or wait, it's Climate Change now.

Guess the science is still out on the name. Maybe they need to work that out before they start teaching it in schools as if it were fact.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

maybe thats why teachers aren't on board with pushing a religious belief onto their students, because the more I look the more I see the debate of climate change displaying elements of religious fervour.

So wanting to stop the spread of pathogens is a religion now?

originally posted by: Bluntone22
Maybe you're looking at this the wrong way.
Science teachers have a science degree from a college. They should be able to make an informed decision on climate change. Maybe that's exactly what they are doing.

You would be surprised and dismayed by how little many teachers actually know about their subject matter.

a reply to: DJW001

So listen to the people with science degrees.....just not the ones who don't say what we want them to say...got it.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Bluntone22
Maybe you're looking at this the wrong way.
Science teachers have a science degree from a college. They should be able to make an informed decision on climate change. Maybe that's exactly what they are doing.

You would be surprised and dismayed by how little many teachers actually know about their subject matter.

Not really. I know several teachers very well and am not impressed with their grasp of the world. I was only pointing out that these people are supposed to be educated. I teach my kid the things that are important and the school just worries about standardized test scores.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: PsychoEmperor

Thanks for the hyperbole and strawmans, but no one is saying that there aren't natural factors at work as well. And CERTAINLY no one is talking about banning any phrases.

Clearly if you believe humans are affecting the climate, you're a God-hating progressive science worshiper which means you're probably not a bigot and as we all know, if you're not a bigot, you're a politically correct, word-banning freedom hating Communist collectivist authoritarian who wants to give the country over to the Muslims, enact Sharia law, take the guns, kill whitey and force good Christian conservatives to bake gay cakes in hell with the abortionists and the sluts expecting birth control to be covered by health insurance.

The only question left is why are you trying to destroy America bro?

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Krazysh0t
maybe thats why teachers aren't on board with pushing a religious belief onto their students, because the more I look the more I see the debate of climate change displaying elements of religious fervour.

That has nothing to do with not teaching correct science.

You have anything to show how they are teaching it, and what information is wrong...maybe a study or something, otherwise all I see in your op is emotionally charged rhetoric

Yeah, I do have a study. That's the point of this OP. Did you happen to read it?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Wonder how much class time is dedicated to environmental pollution… (?)

My guess is a big fat 0

a reply to: DJW001

Yea. They are using the same tactics and the same people.

originally posted by: Bennyzilla
I was pretty sure we'd already past the "point of no return" with Global Warming or wait, it's Climate Change now.

Guess the science is still out on the name. Maybe they need to work that out before they start teaching it in schools as if it were fact.

It's "climate change" now because Frank Luntz advised the Bush administration to use the term but you knew that, right?

EDIT:

The Guardian - Memo exposes Bush's new green strategy (March 3, 2003):

The US Republican party is changing tactics on the environment, avoiding "frightening" phrases such as global warming, after a confidential party memo warned that it is the domestic issue on which George Bush is most vulnerable.

The memo, by the leading Republican consultant Frank Luntz, concedes the party has "lost the environmental communications battle" and urges its politicians to encourage the public in the view that there is no scientific consensus on the dangers of greenhouse gases.

"The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science," Mr Luntz writes in the memo, obtained by the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based campaigning organisation.

"Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.

"Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate."

Clear evidence that conservatives under Bush not only knew that the scientific consensus was against their PURELY POLITICAL position but that they coordinated their efforts to manipulate suckers into believing that there was far greater uncertainty than there actually was.

I guess it worked.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
Maybe you're looking at this the wrong way.
Science teachers have a science degree from a college. They should be able to make an informed decision on climate change. Maybe that's exactly what they are doing.

No, they have curriculums and they are supposed to teach that, not their personal biases.