ADVERTISEMENT

Science Teachers’ Grasp of Climate Change Is Found Lacking

cigaretteman

HB King
May 29, 2001
79,640
63,041
113
No wonder there remain so many proudly, willfully ignorant denialists. It's a tragedy for the planet and humanity that so many are taught misinformation, and are therefore incapable of making educated choices in the future. The politicization of the is this issue in the wake of the overwhelming scientific evidence is a truly despicable action for which future generations will pay a heavy price:


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.

Continue reading the main story
Short Answers to Hard Questions About Climate Change
The issue can be overwhelming. The science is complicated. We get it. This is your cheat sheet.



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.

Professor Plutzer, who is the academic director of Pennsylvania State’s survey research center, said that he and his colleagues were surprised by the level of ignorance the teachers showed in the survey, especially in describing the current state of scientific consensus on the topic.

More than 95 percent of climate scientists agree that recent global warming is caused mostly by human activity, but only 30 percent of middle schoolteachers and 45 percent of high school teachers correctly identified the degree of consensus as 81 percent to 100 percent.

The research team, which collaborated on the project with the National Center for Science Education, surveyed 1,500 teachers from high schools and middle schools in all 50 states.

Josh Rosenau, the programs and policy director for the science education center, said that he found it “encouraging” to see how many teachers were spending at least some time on climate change. “Coming into it, we expected the number to be a lot lower than it was,” he said. And while the teachers might not be reporting a great deal of overt pressure, he said, “The broader environment that they are living in is shaping how willing they are to be forthright about the science.”

Bertha Vazquez, a teacher in Miami who incorporates climate change into all her courses, said the pressure was real. “Every year, I get the email from a father who says, ‘This is garbage,’ and why am I teaching this?” she said. The fear of that kind of response might dissuade other teachers, she said, even though climate change is included in Florida’s education standards.

“If you’re not as confident in the subject area, you’re going to avoid it,” Ms. Vazquez said. “It’s no fun to field those phone calls.” An advocate for climate education, Ms. Vazquez has persuaded colleagues, including those teaching German and art, to incorporate climate issues into their courses.

The lack of knowledge of the science is understandable, Professor Plutzer said, because “very few current teachers had much exposure to climate science when they were in college.”

Climate change is still not often part of a formal curriculum, so the instruction in one year rarely can add to the previous year’s work, Professor Plutzer added. And teachers feel pressured to focus more intensely on topics that appear on “high-stakes tests” that define much of today’s educational process, he said.

The evolving nature of climate science means continuing teacher education is essential, said Mr. Rosenau of the science education center.

“If you graduated college in the 1990s and are teaching evolution the way it was taught when you were in school, you’re not doing anything wrong,” he said. “If you’re teaching climate change the way you learned it in the 1990s,” when the role of human activities and burning of fossil fuels was less clear, “you’re kind of teaching climate change denialism.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/12/s...lacking.html&eventName=Watching-article-click
 
I thought putting "An Inconvenient Truth" in every school was supposed to solve this issue.
 
The Earth is warming. The climate is changing. Man is responsible for the vast majority of that warming, at the very least. That's the science. Calling it a "religion" doesn't change that.
Spoken like a true zealot. No matter how many times the lie is repeated, there is no consensus on man contributing "the vast majority" of a catastrophic warming. Also climate science is a rleaively young field and far too many shortcuts are being taken with the scientific method. Both sides are acting like religious zealots and alarmist seem to be more upset with the reasonable, informed and intelligent people in the middle than they are with the deniers.
 
Not positing one side or the other, but I always, always see this -

"The evidence that human activity is a major cause of recent climate change is overwhelming,"

-but I keep reading and never am presented with any overwhelming evidence. A chart showing the last 100 years is not evidence when taken out of context form the last 10,000 years which shows similar trends.
 
Spoken like a true zealot. No matter how many times the lie is repeated, there is no consensus on man contributing "the vast majority" of a catastrophic warming. Also climate science is a rleaively young field and far too many shortcuts are being taken with the scientific method. Both sides are acting like religious zealots and alarmist seem to be more upset with the reasonable, informed and intelligent people in the middle than they are with the deniers.

What do you consider "catastrophic"? Did I use that term? I'm fairly sure I didn't. Maybe you could copy and paste the quote.

(Neat trick, though)
 
What do you consider "catastrophic"? Did I use that term? I'm fairly sure I didn't. Maybe you could copy and paste the quote.

(Neat trick, though)
No, you didn't, but it's normally part of the claim you made, along with the claim that man is causing the "vast majority" of climate change. Your side tends to take a truth and then embellish it with a false statement and imply more to bolster your argument, and denigrate those not only who disagree with you, but also those who only agree partially with you.

Now if I'm mistaken, and you aren't in that camp then I apologize, but there are certainly people who fit that bill.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SDHN2013
I admit I dont know too much on the subject I would just like to know two things.
1. Will spending our country into massive debt (moreso than we already are) actually help.
2. How is teaching our kids in grade school going to help.
 
With the NGSS (Next Generation Science Standards), climate change is addressed with part of the Earth Science curriculum. It doesn't surprise me that a physics or chemistry teacher might not know a whole lot about the specific science behind climate change.

Of course, most college prep students never actually take earth science as it has traditionally been part of a lower achieving student track. NGSS suggests that pathway should change, but I will be surprised if it actually ever does.

Then again, only 12 states have fully adopted the NGSS so states that haven't probably don't have it as part of the curriculum anywhere in their standards.
 
The real problem is a political science prof is trying to act like he knows something about climate change. Do meteorologists teach politics?


Climate change has been around since the beginning of time. It is very easily explained by the Milankovitch Theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

The earth's orbit is not a circle. It is actually a slight ellipse. The earth's axis is not constant. It can vary by a few degrees. This is important. When the axis changes the parts of the earth that are closer to the sun get WARMER. The parts of the earth that get farther from the sun actually get colder. That explains why some places are having extreme winters while other places are getting warmer.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: starbrown
Spoken like a true zealot. No matter how many times the lie is repeated, there is no consensus on man contributing "the vast majority" of a catastrophic warming. Also climate science is a rleaively young field and far too many shortcuts are being taken with the scientific method. Both sides are acting like religious zealots and alarmist seem to be more upset with the reasonable, informed and intelligent people in the middle than they are with the deniers.

If you think there are 'natural causes' behind the recent warming, WHAT ARE THEY?

THAT is a 'religious mantra'-like belief - making a judgement/assumption bereft of any actual facts. The science is clear on CO2 emissions driving the warming; namecalling doesn't change that.
 
The real problem is a political science prof is trying to act like he knows something about climate change. Do meteorologists teach politics?


Climate change has been around since the beginning of time. It is very easily explained by the Milankovitch Theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

The earth's orbit is not a circle. It is actually a slight ellipse. The earth's axis is not constant. It can vary by a few degrees. This is important. When the axis changes the parts of the earth that are closer to the sun get WARMER. The parts of the earth that get farther from the sun actually get colder. That explains why some places are having extreme winters while other places are getting warmer.

Ummmm....swing-and-a-miss.

We are currently heading DOWN the Milankovitch cycle curve, and should be heading for an Ice Age withing 25,000-50,000 years or so.

And there are not 'parts of the Earth' that get warmer vs. parts that get colder at the same time, due to Milankovitch cycles. You are referring to SEASONS in the northern/southern hemispheres with that association.

Milankovitch cycles are variations in the Earth's orbit that impact the WHOLE Earth at once, not certain parts, and they occur on the order of 100,000 years or more.
 
Not positing one side or the other, but I always, always see this -

"The evidence that human activity is a major cause of recent climate change is overwhelming,"

-but I keep reading and never am presented with any overwhelming evidence. A chart showing the last 100 years is not evidence when taken out of context form the last 10,000 years which shows similar trends.

Hint: the last 10,000 years does NOT show 'similar trends'. The Earth's temperature is going up faster than anything observed in the recent paleo record. It took >1000 years for Ice Ages to set in and return to normal. As you've admitted, we are talking about <1/10th that time.
 
The real problem is a political science prof is trying to act like he knows something about climate change. Do meteorologists teach politics?


Climate change has been around since the beginning of time. It is very easily explained by the Milankovitch Theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

The earth's orbit is not a circle. It is actually a slight ellipse. The earth's axis is not constant. It can vary by a few degrees. This is important. When the axis changes the parts of the earth that are closer to the sun get WARMER. The parts of the earth that get farther from the sun actually get colder. That explains why some places are having extreme winters while other places are getting warmer.

Ouch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BelemNole
The real problem is a political science prof is trying to act like he knows something about climate change. Do meteorologists teach politics?


Climate change has been around since the beginning of time. It is very easily explained by the Milankovitch Theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

The earth's orbit is not a circle. It is actually a slight ellipse. The earth's axis is not constant. It can vary by a few degrees. This is important. When the axis changes the parts of the earth that are closer to the sun get WARMER. The parts of the earth that get farther from the sun actually get colder. That explains why some places are having extreme winters while other places are getting warmer.

And another willfully ignorant denialists can't resist the urge to demonstrate his ignorance by putting forth this long ago debunked idea for the 40,000th time on this board although it's already been debunked 39,999 times. Gee, did you really think that every one of the most knowledgeable people on climate science and paleoclimatology in the world would have totally forgotten about those cycles while completing their studies, and reaching their conclusions, and that only you or some other denialist would have been the only one to think of them?
 
  • Like
Reactions: PCBHAWK
If you think there are 'natural causes' behind the recent warming, WHAT ARE THEY?

THAT is a 'religious mantra'-like belief - making a judgement/assumption bereft of any actual facts. The science is clear on CO2 emissions driving the warming; namecalling doesn't change that.
OK, your eminence.
 
If you think there are 'natural causes' behind the recent warming, WHAT ARE THEY?

THAT is a 'religious mantra'-like belief - making a judgement/assumption bereft of any actual facts. The science is clear on CO2 emissions driving the warming; namecalling doesn't change that.
You can't propose a theory and then demand that the opposition disprove it.

Well, you can.. but you'd look pretty foolish.

Can we expect concrete evidence towards man-made global warming/climate change in 3.. 2.. 1..?
 
Ummmm....swing-and-a-miss.

We are currently heading DOWN the Milankovitch cycle curve, and should be heading for an Ice Age withing 25,000-50,000 years or so.

And there are not 'parts of the Earth' that get warmer vs. parts that get colder at the same time, due to Milankovitch cycles. You are referring to SEASONS in the northern/southern hemispheres with that association.

Milankovitch cycles are variations in the Earth's orbit that impact the WHOLE Earth at once, not certain parts, and they occur on the order of 100,000 years or more.


Yes there are parts that get warmer and parts that get colder. When the axis changes the seasons change. Parts of the earth gets closer to the sun and part gets farther away. If we change the axis enough then the North Pole will be warm and Equador will be cold.

Milankovitch cycles do impact the whole earth at once. That explains why Texas was getting snow while other parts of the USA were unusually warm. Liberal poly sci profs ignore Texas was getting snow when they were doing their global warming lectures.
 
You can't propose a theory and then demand that the opposition disprove it.

Well, you can.. but you'd look pretty foolish.

Can we expect concrete evidence towards man-made global warming/climate change in 3.. 2.. 1..?

Ummm...what? The scientific theory behind global warming and climate change is pretty clear. Not sure how you missed it. And to disprove it you have to propose another mechanism that can account for the current warming. Here's the hard part...it can't be any of the factors we're already aware of. They've all been investigated and eliminated...including Zwick's Milankovitch cycle (that was almost painful to read).

So YOU have to come up with some unknown-to-science factor to explain the warming that science has already explained. Until you can do that, you have absolutely nothing to say worth listening to on the subject.
 
Yes there are parts that get warmer and parts that get colder. When the axis changes the seasons change. Parts of the earth gets closer to the sun and part gets farther away. If we change the axis enough then the North Pole will be warm and Equador will be cold.

Milankovitch cycles do impact the whole earth at once. That explains why Texas was getting snow while other parts of the USA were unusually warm. Liberal poly sci profs ignore Texas was getting snow when they were doing their global warming lectures.

Holy shyte...just stop. I think you might be drunk.
 
And another willfully ignorant denialists can't resist the urge to demonstrate his ignorance by putting forth this long ago debunked idea for the 40,000th time on this board although it's already been debunked 39,999 times. Gee, did you really think that every one of the most knowledgeable people on climate science and paleoclimatology in the world would have totally forgotten about those cycles while completing their studies, and reaching their conclusions, and that only you or some other denialist would have been the only one to think of them?


The climate experts did not forget the cycles. The POLITICIANS like Al Gore and the poly sci profs who are crying about global warming never knew about the cycles to begin with.
 
The climate experts did not forget the cycles. The POLITICIANS like Al Gore and the poly sci profs who are crying about global warming never knew about the cycles to begin with.

OK...you must be drunk. Please actually research the Milankovitch cycle before you post about it again.
 
Yes there are parts that get warmer and parts that get colder. When the axis changes the seasons change. Parts of the earth gets closer to the sun and part gets farther away. If we change the axis enough then the North Pole will be warm and Equador will be cold.

Milankovitch cycles do impact the whole earth at once. That explains why Texas was getting snow while other parts of the USA were unusually warm. Liberal poly sci profs ignore Texas was getting snow when they were doing their global warming lectures.

This is the face of climate change deniers. This is how you all sound to the informed. This is why I no longer argue the issue on these boards, there is no fixing stupid.
 
The climate experts did not forget the cycles. The POLITICIANS like Al Gore and the poly sci profs who are crying about global warming never knew about the cycles to begin with.

And Al Gore has nothing to do with the thoroughly researched scientific consensus on global warming.
 
You can't propose a theory and then demand that the opposition disprove it.

Well, you can.. but you'd look pretty foolish.

Can we expect concrete evidence towards man-made global warming/climate change in 3.. 2.. 1..?

Where did I 'propose a theory'?

I asked the OTHER POSTER to 'propose a theory' based upon the 'natural forcings' behind the warming we are seeing.
I DID NOT ask the other poster to 'disprove' anything; I asked him to point out the ALTERNATIVE theory or forcing that can displace the CO2 emissions as the present driver of recent climate change.

I don't think you understand the difference between a HYPOTHESIS and a THEORY, or anything in between. You're in well over your head with people who actually understand science here.
 
Where did I 'propose a theory'?

I asked the OTHER POSTER to 'propose a theory' based upon the 'natural forcings' behind the warming we are seeing.
I DID NOT ask the other poster to 'disprove' anything; I asked him to point out the ALTERNATIVE theory or forcing that can displace the CO2 emissions as the present driver of recent climate change.

I don't think you understand the difference between a HYPOTHESIS and a THEORY, or anything in between. You're in well over your head with people who actually understand science here.
Your yelling indicates that you're mad some doubt your theory.
 
I don't think you understand the difference between a HYPOTHESIS and a THEORY, or anything in between. You're in well over your head with people who actually understand science here.

It is impossible to argue with a climate change denier because they are too stupid to understand the basic concepts scientists use to provide evidence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joes Place
Translation: I don't have anything, so I'll just post insults.

True colors exposed.:cool:
Whatever dude. Think what you want. You've shown to be hardheaded and dishonest in these discussions in the past, unable to admit it even when proven wrong beyond any reasonable doubt . Now you are trying to say that natural causes have nothing at all to do with Global Warming? The fact is that you are claiming to have knowledge beyond that which currently exists. You claim a consensus that is a huge embellishment on a hack survey that doesn't even claim to be what you and others claim it is.

You call it a win if you want. I call it being smart enough not to argue with a wall. I don't agree with any of y'all that are so solidly perched on either side of the debate that you resort to pulling out stupid examples that aren't pertinent and ignoring real examples that are when in most cases neither of you understand what your even talking about. It's even dumber when one side claims intellectual superiority when demonstrating a complete lack of it.

I'm out, enjoy your holy war.
 
Your yelling indicates that you're mad some doubt your theory.
Nope. It's simply to emphasize to another poster who doesn't seem to grasp even the most rudimentary elements of what a hypothesis or theory is, yet still thinks he is somehow calling me out on something.
 
Whatever dude. Think what you want. You've shown to be hardheaded and dishonest in these discussions in the past, unable to admit it even when proven wrong beyond any reasonable doubt . Now you are trying to say that natural causes have nothing at all to do with Global Warming? The fact is that you are claiming to have knowledge beyond that which currently exists. You claim a consensus that is a huge embellishment on a hack survey that doesn't even claim to be what you and others claim it is.

You call it a win if you want. I call it being smart enough not to argue with a wall. I don't agree with any of y'all that are so solidly perched on either side of the debate that you resort to pulling out stupid examples that aren't pertinent and ignoring real examples that are. It's even dumber when one side claims intellectual superiority when demonstrating a complete lack of it.

I'm out, enjoy your holy war.

More babble. No alternative theories posed by you.
Yep, you're 'out' all right.:cool:
 
Your yelling indicates that you're mad some doubt your theory.

Okay, moron. Let me Google this for you...

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

For example, the theory of gravity. Gravity cannot be directly observed (well, not until a couple days ago). That doesn't mean it's a vague idea like I have a theory I might get laid tonight. A scientific theory is tested, proven, and accepted as fact.
 
Okay, moron. Let me Google this for you...

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

For example, the theory of gravity. Gravity cannot be directly observed (well, not until a couple days ago). That doesn't mean it's a vague idea like I have a theory I might get laid tonight. A scientific theory is tested, proven, and accepted as fact.
I really wasn't trying to get you so mad about your theory.
 
Okie dokey Monsignor.

Still waiting for you to explain global warming through some factor previously unknown to science...or are you going to deny the warming now?

And for God's sake, don't mention the Milankovitch cycle. One confirmed idiot in this thread is more than enough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joes Place
Still waiting for you to explain global warming through some factor previously unknown to science...or are you going to deny the warming now?

And for God's sake, don't mention the Milankovitch cycle. One confirmed idiot in this thread is more than enough.

I keep holding out hope that Zwick is just a troll and not the racist idiot that he appears to be. I'd rather not believe such people still exist in our society.
 
I keep holding out hope that Zwick is just a troll and not the racist idiot that he appears to be. I'd rather not believe such people still exist in our society.

I have bad news for you.
2MRYUkU.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT