Science Teachers’ Grasp of Climate Change Is Found Lacking

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

Wow that's very illuminating! I like how it shows their funding contributions from oil industries below each industry. VERY telling. These two are constantly linked to on ATS:

Heartland Institute

While claiming to stand up for “sound science,” the Heartland Institute has routinely spread misinformation about climate science, including deliberate attacks on climate scientists. [37]

Popular outcry forced the Heartland Institute to pull down a controversial billboard that compared supporters of global warming facts to Unabomber Ted Kaczynski [38], bringing an early end to a planned campaign first announced in an essay by Heartland President Joseph Bast, which claimed “… the most prominent advocates of global warming aren’t scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen.” [39]

Heartland even once marked Earth Day by mailing out 100,000 free copies of a book claiming that “climate science has been corrupted” [40] – despite acknowledging that “…all major scientific organizations of the world have taken the official position that humankind is causing global warming.”

Heartland received more than $675,000 from ExxonMobil from 1997-2006 [41]. Heartland also raked in millions from the Koch-funded organization Donors Trust through 2011. [42, 43]

Heritage Foundation

While maintaining that “Science should be used as one tool to guide climate policy,” the Heritage Foundation often uses rhetoric such as “far from settled” to sow doubt about climate science. [44, 45, 46, 47] One Heritage report even claimed that “The only consensus over the threat of climate change that seems to exist these days is that there is no consensus.” [48]

Vocal climate contrarians, meanwhile, are described as “the world’s best scientists when it comes to the climate change study” in the words of one Heritage policy analyst. [49]

Heritage received more than $4.5 million from Koch foundations from 1997-2011. [50] ExxonMobil contributed $780,000 to the Heritage Foundation from 2001-2012. ExxonMobil continues to provide annual contributions to the Heritage Foundation, despite making a public pledge in 2007 to stop funding climate contrarian groups. [51, 52]

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
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.

I said teachers should teach the science, and I said nothing about teaching the solutions. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Seriously, why is the go to response to try to debunk climate science, to bring politics into the picture? Then when I dismiss that I'm told that I'm not analyzing evidence. That isn't evidence, it's just a logical fallacy that wastes our time.

a reply to: DBCowboy

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

This is a sore point with me, personally. When I was president og my co-op board I proposed planting turf on our roof. Unfortunately the building I live in is a designated architectural landmark and we cannot alter its appearance that way.

As for expanding light rail, you would have thought that would have been one of those "shovel ready" projects that could have benefited from the stimulus package. With the one or two exceptions, no city had even tentative plans to implement. Even local government cannot be trusted to do its job.

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
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.

It sure does start to sound like some religion with a "If you are not with us you are paid" attitude.

Westborough climate change organisation anyone?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
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.

I said teachers should teach the science, and I said nothing about teaching the solutions. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Seriously, why is the go to response to try to debunk climate science, to bring politics into the picture? Then when I dismiss that I'm told that I'm not analyzing evidence. That isn't evidence, it's just a logical fallacy that wastes our time.

Simply because climate change is a political issue. We have to ensure that all the Governments of the World are working on solutions to address it.

Can you not see the correlation between Cliamte Change and the increase in Green Taxes? Yet our Governments fly in the face of what they have been preaching and turn to Shale because we are sitting on a fortune.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
You'd argue that based on...?

The science that shows that the major drivers of climate change have little to do with human activity. But I think your question was a passive-aggressive attempt at pretending that type of science doesn't exist...hopefully I'm wrong about that.

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.

No, I'm stating that it's a political opinion bases on science that is often faulty (at best) and is over-simplified without often taking into account the truth about how much we don't understand about the engine(s) that drive climate change.

So, read my post again--I advocate teaching the science behind it, but only the science and not the opinions that man is the major driver and treating that as fact.

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.

Ha...assuming I'm a conservative. I can see your grasp on assuming things based on those who differ in your opinion is well-cultivated.

Climate science is a branch of science, for sure. AGW is a theory that distorts it for monetary (and, often, political) gain, IMO. But I'm intelligent enough to say that we really don't know enough about the entire climate system to know for sure, and if enough evidence ever comes to light that the climate changes that have happened in a relatively predictable pattern for millions of years are proven to all be because of the burning of fossil fuels and the destruction of vegetation, I'll get on board with the AGW theory. But as it stands now, sure, we've increased the minute traces of CO2 in the atmosphere by a measurable amount, amongst other greenhouse gasses. But other drivers increase that amount, too, so to even claim that it is all because of us is laughable.

But why can't you just leave the pre-college education to the facts, and let the theories and other parts of science that are controversial be left to the relatively adult brains of collegiate-level students? Afraid most will dismiss it as fantasy by that point? Afraid they might be able to look at it with more constructive criticism at that age?

Why so concerned with getting them while they're young and impressionable in regard to a controversial theory?

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
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.

I said teachers should teach the science, and I said nothing about teaching the solutions. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Seriously, why is the go to response to try to debunk climate science, to bring politics into the picture? Then when I dismiss that I'm told that I'm not analyzing evidence. That isn't evidence, it's just a logical fallacy that wastes our time.

Simply because climate change is a political issue. We have to ensure that all the Governments of the World are working on solutions to address it.

It is a science topic FIRST. Political issue second. Teach the science, debate the politics.

Can you not see the correlation between Cliamte Change and the increase in Green Taxes? Yet our Governments fly in the face of what they have been preaching and turn to Shale because we are sitting on a fortune.

Can you not just look at scientific evidence to prove or disprove science? Is that too hard for you?

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
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.

Climatic economics 101- it could work.

'Okay kids, If the sea level rises at Vanuatu and the tourism stops, what effect would that have on their national GDP?'

'I know-low battery?'

'Milhouse you are in the wrong class again. But low battery is the closest answer- I would've accepted 'what Pacific Islands?' or 'who cares about Florida' but I just don't care anymore. Class dismissed'

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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.

What are you talking about?
They have yet to come up with any solutions that are feasible. Taxing coal out of existence doesn't replace the energy that is lost.
Solar and wind are pipe dreams with current technology. Rolling blackouts are in the near future.

a reply to: Bluntone22

So? That doesn't mean the science isn't sound.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's not surprising. The format wars were never this ugly but the fossil fuel industry reels in crazy amounts of money each and every year-money that would be better spent on making the transition to renewables instead of funding smear campaigns. If they realized that the sun will last for billions of years (but for some bizarre reason they believe rotten flora and fauna will) then they could use those billions upon billions of dollars to put solar panels on roofs and look at geothermal or tidal power then charge people a modest amount for their services.

They get clean money. We get clean energy. The world lasts a little bit longer.

a reply to: Bluntone22

What are you talking about?
They have yet to come up with any solutions that are feasible. Taxing coal out of existence doesn't replace the energy that is lost.
Solar and wind are pipe dreams with current technology. Rolling blackouts are in the near future.

What are you talking about? I provided you with a short list:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

Well that's the thing, internally these companies ARE accepting and even implementing changes in response to climate change. However, publicly they are still pushing the same propaganda. They know the writing is on the wall, and the fact that they are purposely muddying the waters in order to milk the current system for as long as possible is just down right disgusting. I'm glad California noticed and is starting to do something about it.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
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.

I said teachers should teach the science, and I said nothing about teaching the solutions. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Seriously, why is the go to response to try to debunk climate science, to bring politics into the picture? Then when I dismiss that I'm told that I'm not analyzing evidence. That isn't evidence, it's just a logical fallacy that wastes our time.

Simply because climate change is a political issue. We have to ensure that all the Governments of the World are working on solutions to address it.

It is a science topic FIRST. Political issue second. Teach the science, debate the politics.

Can you not see the correlation between Cliamte Change and the increase in Green Taxes? Yet our Governments fly in the face of what they have been preaching and turn to Shale because we are sitting on a fortune.

Can you not just look at scientific evidence to prove or disprove science? Is that too hard for you?

Teaching the science to grade school and high school students is beyond the capabilities of the teachers and the students. This is why the topic is covered in a few lessons. "Climate Science" isn't a science unto itself; it is derived from the physics and chemistry that are being taught at various levels in public schools. Necessary concepts for rudimentary understanding of the problem and solutions include IR vibrational frequencies, sorption-desorption, hydrate decomposition, liquid-vapor equilibria, chemical reactions of CO2, solubility of CO2 in water of varying salinity at various temperatures and pressures, supercritical fluids, brine fields, meteorology, oceanography, solar cycles, biological interactions with CO2, methane emissions, and water phase changes.

Anthropogenic Climate Change is cult-like and is defended by its adherents with Orwellian arguments. Senator Whitehouse [D-RI] wants to prosecute non-believers; Bernie Sanders agrees. See my previous post that you were unable to respond to.

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
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.

I said teachers should teach the science, and I said nothing about teaching the solutions. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Seriously, why is the go to response to try to debunk climate science, to bring politics into the picture? Then when I dismiss that I'm told that I'm not analyzing evidence. That isn't evidence, it's just a logical fallacy that wastes our time.

Simply because climate change is a political issue. We have to ensure that all the Governments of the World are working on solutions to address it.

It is a science topic FIRST. Political issue second. Teach the science, debate the politics.

Can you not see the correlation between Cliamte Change and the increase in Green Taxes? Yet our Governments fly in the face of what they have been preaching and turn to Shale because we are sitting on a fortune.

Can you not just look at scientific evidence to prove or disprove science? Is that too hard for you?

Teaching the science to grade school and high school students is beyond the capabilities of the teachers and the students. This is why the topic is covered in a few lessons. "Climate Science" isn't a science unto itself; it is derived from the physics and chemistry that are being taught at various levels in public schools. Necessary concepts for rudimentary understanding of the problem and solutions include IR vibrational frequencies, sorption-desorption, hydrate decomposition, liquid-vapor equilibria, chemical reactions of CO2, solubility of CO2 in water of varying salinity at various temperatures and pressures, supercritical fluids, brine fields, meteorology, oceanography, solar cycles, biological interactions with CO2, methane emissions, and water phase changes.

Oh please! If they can dumb down other sciences enough to fit them in a high school curriculum, they can do the same to climate science. Don't try this complexity argument with me. All science is super complex and grade school students don't get a good understanding of any of it without further study.

Anthropogenic Climate Change is cult-like and is defended by its adherents with Orwellian arguments. Senator Whitehouse [D-RI] wants to prosecute non-believers; Bernie Sanders agrees. See my previous post that you were unable to respond to.

Irrelevant to if the science is true or not. Maybe that's why I ignored your post?

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Intelligent people often miss the salient points about global warming because they mistake the political controversies for reasoned analysis. There is no "correct" global temperature, it bounces rhythmically from glaciation to hot house over aeons due to natural factors beyond human control. The issue is that over the past 500 years, humanity has created a global civilization based on a limited range of climatic parameters. Major cities are built on the coast. Agriculture is based on predictable growing seasons and access to water. As the climate changes, civilization will need to adapt. In the past, this was easy. As the water level rose or fell you could move your wooden huts. New York, London, San Francisco and Hong Kong are not going anywhere. Since we cannot control all of the factors that influence long term climate change, we have to make an economic choice: Do we exercise what control we have by regulating carbon emissions (and other measures, like increasing urban albedo, cultivating more woodland, etc.) at relatively low cost now, or do we allow the warming trend to continue and apply technological fixes later?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The way i see it is we need to encourage everyone to become amateur meterologists so we gauge the changes in the weather and prove people wrong. And there is the obvious question that the deniers conveniently dodge-if climate change is natural, then is all this smog natural by proxy?

'b-b-but the volcanoes and the earths axis and...' Tambora caused a year without a summer by itself. So if volcanoes can (and do) lower global temperatures then why is there record heats being recorded? We have seen Pinatubo, St. Helens and the unpronounceable Volcano in Iceland erupt in the last 30 odd years-why hasn't the global temperature dropped? The thing is that Tambora erupted in 1815-long before the combustion engine arrived.

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

Climate denial is all about looking at as little evidence as possible or only looking at evidence in your bubble then pretending nothing else exists besides that. Or if they have a poor grasp of science, they'll just go the political route and do something like bring up Al Gore or talk about Climategate.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
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.

I said teachers should teach the science, and I said nothing about teaching the solutions. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Seriously, why is the go to response to try to debunk climate science, to bring politics into the picture? Then when I dismiss that I'm told that I'm not analyzing evidence. That isn't evidence, it's just a logical fallacy that wastes our time.

Simply because climate change is a political issue. We have to ensure that all the Governments of the World are working on solutions to address it.

It is a science topic FIRST. Political issue second. Teach the science, debate the politics.

Can you not see the correlation between Cliamte Change and the increase in Green Taxes? Yet our Governments fly in the face of what they have been preaching and turn to Shale because we are sitting on a fortune.

Can you not just look at scientific evidence to prove or disprove science? Is that too hard for you?

Teaching the science to grade school and high school students is beyond the capabilities of the teachers and the students. This is why the topic is covered in a few lessons. "Climate Science" isn't a science unto itself; it is derived from the physics and chemistry that are being taught at various levels in public schools. Necessary concepts for rudimentary understanding of the problem and solutions include IR vibrational frequencies, sorption-desorption, hydrate decomposition, liquid-vapor equilibria, chemical reactions of CO2, solubility of CO2 in water of varying salinity at various temperatures and pressures, supercritical fluids, brine fields, meteorology, oceanography, solar cycles, biological interactions with CO2, methane emissions, and water phase changes.

Oh please! If they can dumb down other sciences enough to fit them in a high school curriculum, they can do the same to climate science. Don't try this complexity argument with me. All science is super complex and grade school students don't get a good understanding of any of it without further study.

Anthropogenic Climate Change is cult-like and is defended by its adherents with Orwellian arguments. Senator Whitehouse [D-RI] wants to prosecute non-believers; Bernie Sanders agrees. See my previous post that you were unable to respond to.

Irrelevant to if the science is true or not. Maybe that's why I ignored your post?

Your gripe was that there wasn't enough teaching about it. After a few lessons of dumbed down CC, what is there to teach?
I'm sure you are used to dumbed-down science and can come up with better lesson plans. Be careful, because if you stray from the correct version, you may be prosecuted.

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
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.

I said teachers should teach the science, and I said nothing about teaching the solutions. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Seriously, why is the go to response to try to debunk climate science, to bring politics into the picture? Then when I dismiss that I'm told that I'm not analyzing evidence. That isn't evidence, it's just a logical fallacy that wastes our time.

Simply because climate change is a political issue. We have to ensure that all the Governments of the World are working on solutions to address it.

It is a science topic FIRST. Political issue second. Teach the science, debate the politics.

Can you not see the correlation between Cliamte Change and the increase in Green Taxes? Yet our Governments fly in the face of what they have been preaching and turn to Shale because we are sitting on a fortune.

Can you not just look at scientific evidence to prove or disprove science? Is that too hard for you?

Teaching the science to grade school and high school students is beyond the capabilities of the teachers and the students. This is why the topic is covered in a few lessons. "Climate Science" isn't a science unto itself; it is derived from the physics and chemistry that are being taught at various levels in public schools. Necessary concepts for rudimentary understanding of the problem and solutions include IR vibrational frequencies, sorption-desorption, hydrate decomposition, liquid-vapor equilibria, chemical reactions of CO2, solubility of CO2 in water of varying salinity at various temperatures and pressures, supercritical fluids, brine fields, meteorology, oceanography, solar cycles, biological interactions with CO2, methane emissions, and water phase changes.

Oh please! If they can dumb down other sciences enough to fit them in a high school curriculum, they can do the same to climate science. Don't try this complexity argument with me. All science is super complex and grade school students don't get a good understanding of any of it without further study.

Anthropogenic Climate Change is cult-like and is defended by its adherents with Orwellian arguments. Senator Whitehouse [D-RI] wants to prosecute non-believers; Bernie Sanders agrees. See my previous post that you were unable to respond to.

Irrelevant to if the science is true or not. Maybe that's why I ignored your post?

Your gripe was that there wasn't enough teaching about it. After a few lessons of dumbed down CC, what is there to teach?
I'm sure you are used to dumbed-down science and can come up with better lesson plans. Be careful, because if you stray from the correct version, you may be prosecuted.

Don't be coy. It's possible to present a watered down version of AGW that goes over the core ideas. CO2, greenhouse gases, the heating cycle, etc without getting into the nitty gritty. That isn't the problem in the OP. The problem in the OP is the misrepresentation of what is known and accepted by scientists by saying things like, "there is no scientific consensus on AGW," or, "only natural climate change is happening."