Science Teachers’ Grasp of Climate Change Is Found Lacking

a reply to: DBCowboy

What changes need to be made?

Does it take a population of "following sheep" to enact the plan?

Less reliance on coal and petroleum as energy sources. This can be done by increasing access to mass transit, upgrading inter-city rail to make it more competitive with air travel (re-privatizing the railroads and granting them eminent domain and tax breaks would result in bullet trains that are faster and more convenient than air travel), developing more reliable alternative energy sources (thorium reactors, transparent solar cells as an architectural element), finding a way to store energy generated by contingent alternate energy sources (solar, wind) so that it can be utilized later....

In addition, more greenery should be planted. Tarmac parking lots are a heat guzzling abomination. Parking structures should have a roof covered in grass. More parkland should be set aside in urban areas. Logging in wilderness areas like the Amazon should be done sustainably.

All this can be done without anyone taking your guns away.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
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.

So because they do not agree with the theory that you believe in (which is exactly what it is) and there for they are 100% wrong ? I have so far never seen any irrefutable proof that climate change is indeed man made. the fact that so many science teachers reject the material in school is rather telling and calling them ignorant or missinformed on the matter because it does not agree with some other existing theory is the real ignorant thing to do imo.

It would seem more intelligent to come here and ask why there are so many science teachers not agreeing with it instead of condeming them for their thoughts. Especially since people like G.W Bush and Al Gore and friends are pushing the agenda, because we all know how much they really care about tree's and human life right?

a reply to: DJW001

Then go plant some shrubs and make it economically beneficial to take the train.

Still don't see why you need the population to follow the man made bandwagon.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Bennyzilla

Oh damn you got the list of all the paid shill teachers and scientists???? Can I see it?!

Here you go:

www.heartland.org...

You can even by a poster to hang on your wall and cherish:

That p[oster is not big enough. There are many more scientists outside of science teachers who do not agree with the man made climate change theory.

store.heartland.org...

Give me a break...even if "science" teachers (I'd argue that title should be discarded if they're promoting humans as the main drivers of climate change) only spend a few hours per year on the topic, that's plenty. There are other things that should be taught that will allow students to better review the data pro- and anti-AGW and let them make their own informed decision instead of pretending they need it spoonfed to them in massive quantities at young ages.

What is they say? Oh yeah...get 'em while they're young.

I'd prefer that science teachers teach about science, and leave the determination as to whether or not said science backs up modern climate theories to the students. It's that whole give-a-fish,-teach-to-fish mentality. I prefer to learn to fish, and I prefer our children be taught to fish.

I don't think anybody is opposed to a cleaner environment.
Nobody is against clean energy.
The problem is that my electric bill doubling or worse does not achieve these goals.
Most of the alternative energy sources are unreliable.

a reply to: SlapMonkey



Absolutely right!
Teachers should be teaching the kids how to read and understand these studies, not just accept them at face value.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Perhaps you didn't understand my post. What you said makes no sense considering what I posted.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Still don't see why you need the population to follow the man made bandwagon.

Even if you get to keep your guns? Are you one of those people who resents being forced to use funny looking light bulbs that save you money?

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Give me a break...even if "science" teachers (I'd argue that title should be discarded if they're promoting humans as the main drivers of climate change) only spend a few hours per year on the topic, that's plenty. There are other things that should be taught that will allow students to better review the data pro- and anti-AGW and let them make their own informed decision instead of pretending they need it spoonfed to them in massive quantities at young ages.

You'd argue that based on...?

What is they say? Oh yeah...get 'em while they're young.

You could say that about any academic instruction. What's that they say about English lit!? GET 'EM WHILE THEY'RE YOUNG! What you're implying is that AGW is a political position and not prevailing scientific opinion.

I'd prefer that science teachers teach about science, and leave the determination as to whether or not said science backs up modern climate theories to the students. It's that whole give-a-fish,-teach-to-fish mentality. I prefer to learn to fish, and I prefer our children be taught to fish.

Do you realize how little actual sense that makes? Climate science is as much science as any other science that could be taught. What you're really saying is "teach children to fish as long as you don't teach them how to catch fish that politicians don't approve of."

Welcome to conservative political correctness.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
The fact that Climate Change [CC] has not been given more attention at the Grade school and high school levels is that the actual science is beyond the scope of those students. Knowing that there is a controversy and what the various positions are is about what can be handled by those students. Some of the actual science is beyond the scope of the research professors doing the research. The CC models suffer from incomplete understanding of the biggest greenhouse gas, water vapor. The problem is in handling the liquid-vapor equilibrium; clouds and vapor behave differently. Note that there is no such problem with CO2 and methane under ambient conditions. In fact, the leakage rates of natural gas systems contribute significantly more to Anthropogenic Climate Change [ACC] than the natural-gas-is-our-savior folks would like you to know.
Given the evidence, ACC does seem to be a cult or at least a mutual admiration society that works to assure continued funding. A group of scientists supporting ACC have written a letter to the Obama Administration supporting the concept of prosecuting 'deniers' of ACC as per Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), who wants to prosecute those who disagree under RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act). www.newsweek.com... Maybe he is afraid of losing voters if RI land surface area shrinks.
Bernie Sanders also wants to prosecute those who disagree: www.akdart.com... The climate change issues section of his website berniesanders.com... reads, "Bring climate deniers to justice so we can aggressively tackle climate change. It is an embarrassment that Republican politicians, with few exceptions, refuse to even recognize the reality of climate change, let alone are prepared to do anything about it. The reality is that the fossil fuel industry is to blame for much of the climate change skepticism in America. Bernie recently called for the Department of Justice to investigate Exxon Mobil, which may have not only known about the dangers of climate change, but has spent millions of dollars to spread doubt about the causes and impacts of burning fossil fuels." Sounds like an Orwellian solution to me.

Questionable tactics: www.theguardian.com...

Coal saves the day: www.bbc.com...

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Oh really? Let's post our sources. I'd bet that the scientists I produce would be paid FAR more than the scientists you can produce.

Here's one:
Work of prominent climate change denier was funded by energy industry

Over the last 14 years Willie Soon, a researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, received a total of $1.25m from Exxon Mobil, Southern Company, the American Petroleum Institute (API) and a foundation run by the ultra-conservative Koch brothers

So I hope you have scientists getting pay checks in the millions from special interests.

so this somehow proves he is a liar ?

It shows that he is corrupt. He is literally the textbook definition of what Climate Change skeptics accuse climate change supporter scientists of being and somehow that isn't evidence of corruption, but vague allegations of supporters taking millions of money somehow IS evidence of corruption...

originally posted by: everyone
So because they do not agree with the theory that you believe in (which is exactly what it is) and there for they are 100% wrong ? I have so far never seen any irrefutable proof that climate change is indeed man made. the fact that so many science teachers reject the material in school is rather telling and calling them ignorant or missinformed on the matter because it does not agree with some other existing theory is the real ignorant thing to do imo.

First, learn the difference between the layman definition of theory and the scientific definition of theory. Second, you aren't looking for evidence so you won't find it. Third, teachers aren't scientists for the most part and can be just as misinformed about things as you or I.

It would seem more intelligent to come here and ask why there are so many science teachers not agreeing with it instead of condeming them for their thoughts. Especially since people like G.W Bush and Al Gore and friends are pushing the agenda, because we all know how much they really care about tree's and human life right?

Stop bringing politics into a discussion about the veracity of a scientific theory. It is a red herring.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Teach good science in schools and the bad science will be weeded out.

This Tit for tat argument of who is paying who should not filter down into the school rooms. Kids need to learn science and science is based on facts, figures and field work-Not this 'climate change is bogus' argument from vested interests who are not taking ice cores from the polar regions, they are not monitoring the increased thawing of Peruvian Glaciers, They are getting paid to oppose. Big oil is scrambling to ensure that the move to renewable energy is quashed but when was the last time BP took an ice core sample? when was the last time Mobil investigated the Melting glaciers?

Maybe it's because they are paying folk to say that it all is bogus.

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

Want to hear some nonsense? BP is adjusting its business practices over climate change while trying to tell the public it isn't real.

Our programme of action to manage climate change risk

Exxon is being investigated for the same thing.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

What scumbags...

originally posted by: Bluntone22
I don't think anybody is opposed to a cleaner environment.
Nobody is against clean energy.
The problem is that my electric bill doubling or worse does not achieve these goals.
Most of the alternative energy sources are unreliable.

Stop using the solutions that have been worked out to treat climate change as proof that climate change isn't real. It is terrible reasoning.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: DBCowboy

Still don't see why you need the population to follow the man made bandwagon.

Even if you get to keep your guns? Are you one of those people who resents being forced to use funny looking light bulbs that save you money?

Why are you bringing up guns and light bulbs?

Why MUST I become a true believer?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

This might interest you...

The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) has routinely tried to undermine the credibility of climate science, despite at times affirming that the “weight of the evidence” justifies “prudent action” on climate change.

For years, AEI played a role in propagating misinformation about a manufactured controversy over emails stolen from climate scientists with one AEI research fellow even claiming, “There was no consensus about the extent and causes of global warming.” A resident scholar at AEI went so far as to state that the profession of climate scientist “threatens to overtake all” on the list of “most distrusted occupations.”

Apparently they aren't above taking donations either...

AEI received $3,615,000 from Exxon Mobil from 1998-2012, and more than $1 million in funding from Koch foundations from 2004-2011.

USCUSA

a reply to: 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.

Oh come now ,..we can all get on board and decide that they must have been bought out by big oil . /sarc

Or they must be stealthy deniers :>)

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Eh, you've discovered a niche in the market. Why don't you devise your own training programme for academia to ensure they get the message across that Man has created Global Warming and now THEY must pay for it, through taxation.