Clearly, you have not examined the uncertainty of the claim that human CO2 emission is the primary forcing that has caused the warming that has been going on since the end of the little ice age. Yet, you offer no uncertainty in your position whatsoever and with all due respect – as an educator you err in that regard. Thus, your eloquent post only provides a direct insight into the reason why outfits like the Heartland Institute feel the pressing need to educate our young children on this uncertainty. And also you offer me yet another direct reason why my wife and I chose to educate our own children at home rather than subject them to the orthodoxy of the American classroom. PS: I am NOT a creationist and not even religious either. But I would be willing to bet that was who you imagined I was immediately after I said “home schooled” – right?
Comment on Teaching (?) the controversy by patrioticduo
↧
↧
Comment on Teaching (?) the controversy by alfanerd
The ERBE satellite readings (Lindzen and Choi), the very strong correlation between GCR and climate on pretty much all time scales, the 800 year lag between temp and CO2 in ice core data, the absence of a tropospheric hotspot, the plateaued temps of the last 15 years, …
↧
Comment on Teaching (?) the controversy by curryja
Kim, I have NEVER called into question the existence of anthropogenic climate change. Cite one statement that I have made in a paper or on this blog that says that. Disagreeing with the IPCC, or saying that is possible that solar or natural internal variability could be larger influences than CO2, is VERY different from saying that there is no IR warming of the planet from additional CO2. Read what I write, not what others say about me.
And I’m delighted to hear that you have solved the problem of solar radiation, please tell that to Judith Lean and Leif Svalgaard (see my post on Solar Radiation discussion thread). http://judithcurry.com/2012/02/09/aq/
↧
Comment on Gleick’s ‘integrity’ by timg56
People who come up with crap like the PI’s mission statement, or believe in it are what scare me. Their end goal is to eliminate half to two-thirds of the worlds population. Personally I think it is hypocracy to call for reducing the burden caused by humanity, it you don’t immediately kill yourself, thus doing your part to reeduce that burden.
↧
Comment on Teaching (?) the controversy by andrew adams
Rob,
I think you have to distinguish between “controversies” and “uncertainties”. All of the things you mention are uncertain (in both directions) and this uncertainty should be made clear in the classroom, but portraying it as “controverst” injects unnecessary heat into the subject.
↧
↧
Comment on Teaching (?) the controversy by patrioticduo
Take a look at the “science” curriculum across America today and the sections on pollution, urban development, endangered species and global warming are all right in there already. Teachers guides recommend emphasizing the calamity of human influence over the Earth. No debate is ever acknowledged. The children a fine little lemmings that are being indoctrinated before they even have any critical thinking ability. Their parents are absent in the process or are apathetic about it.
↧
Comment on Teaching (?) the controversy by GaryM
Good thing green advocacy groups are staying out of primary and secondary education unlike that evil Heartland.
“Oxfam and Think Global* submitted our views to this process. We see it as a great opportunity to strengthen the role of active global citizenship within schools, by enabling teachers to use their professional autonomy to teach in creative and critical ways, embed learning about sustainability and interdependence within and across subjects, and strengthening the role of citizenship to support young people engaging in civic participation locally and globally.
You can download our full submission below. We recommended that:
The National Curriculum should incorporate learning about interdependence and sustainability into its core aims, reflecting the desire or pupils, teachers, parents and wider society
….”
http://www.oxfam.org.uk/education/gc/curriculum_review/
For detail, see:
http://www.oxfam.org.uk/education/gc/links/
I like these in particular:
“Global Education Derby – aims to help schools in Derby and Derbyshrie to integrate global perspectives and education for sustainable development into their policy and practice.”
“Reading International Solidarity Centre (RISC) – aims to raise the profile of international issues and promote action for sustainable development, equality and social justice throughout the world. The site includes information on educational resources available to buy or hire, and a list of their events.”
“The UN Works – The UN Works website puts a human face on serious issues(Business, Children, Development, Education, Emergencies, Environment,Health, HIV/AIDS, Human Rights Labour, Peace and Women) by telling stories about real people.
These stories are filled with resource links for teachers and students who want to learn more about the issues and get involved. ”
“World Bank’s Development Education Programme – includes sustainable development learning resources.”
From the RISC website:
“Global Citizenship means taking action for social justice and sustainability, locally and globally
RISC’s Education Team promotes Global Citizenship in schools and ITE through:
• Tailor made training at your school or at RISC
• Global Citizenship Advocates training courses for teachers and educators
• Training for ITE institutions across the region
• Global Schools, RISC’s Global Citizenship partnership with local schools
• Innovative work with schools measuring attitudinal change
…”
http://www.risc.org.uk/education/
From the World Bank site:
“Overview and Objectives: Severn Suzuki is an environmental youth activist from Canada who delivered a powerful and passionate speech before delegates at the UN Earth Summit in Rio at the age of 12. Students will view an eight minute video of this speech, made before delegates at the UN Earth Summit, in order to gain a greater understanding of the central and crucial role young people can play and are playing in the fight to prevent climate disaster. Students will develop their writing, public speaking, and advocacy skills by drafting and presenting a speech, similar in purpose, organization, and length to Severn’s, intended for delivery at the upcoming UNFCCC COP meeting in Copenhagen or a subsequent UNFCCC COP meeting. ”
http://youthink.worldbank.org/4teachers/learning-module/meet-severn-suzuki
David Wojick and heartland are pikers.
↧
Comment on Teaching (?) the controversy by Don B
Anteros, your fake fooled me – I thought it was completely credible.
↧
Comment on Gleick’s ‘integrity’ by ivp0
Sorry, my bad. The prior mission statement was just a Glieckover of the original which appears below. It is obviously fake but accurate 
My apologies to anyone who might have been misled.
The genuine mission statement for The Pacific Institute reads:
“The Pacific Institute works to create a healthier planet and sustainable communities. We conduct interdisciplinary research and partner with stakeholders to produce solutions that advance environmental protection, economic development, and social equity—in California, nationally, and internationally.”
So sorry for any inconvenience.
↧
↧
Comment on Teaching (?) the controversy by David Springer
DocMartyn | February 22, 2012 at 8:00 pm |
“Specifically on the implication of nuclear winter Judy. Don’t you think it odd that while the RAF/USAAF were burning German and Japanese cities (and their inhabitants), that there was not a massive crash in temperature?”
Whether you can call it “massive” or not is arguable but the northern hemisphere experienced a period of cooling from 1940-1980 which is rather well known. Climate boffins, at least at one point, attributed it to airborne particulates and they’re probably at least somewhat correct.
↧
Comment on Teaching (?) the controversy by Tom
Do you mean mt?
↧
Comment on Teaching (?) the controversy by manacker
The analogy of the “chain” of evidence is not a bad one.
We all know that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
The “weak link” of the IPCC’s CAGW hypothesis today is that it is not supported by empirical scientific evidence (based on reproducible experimentation or real-time physical observations).
This “weak link” is critical to the whole chain and is the basis for the “controversy”
As long as this “weak link” is emphasized when teaching the IPCC “consensus” CAGW premise, teachers are presenting a balanced viewpoint.
If this is omitted in the teaching, they are simply brainwashing their pupils with a one-sided position.
Max
↧
Comment on Teaching (?) the controversy by pokerguy
I’m delighted they’d go so far as to invite you Judith. I doubt they’d have done this a year ago. I see this as a positive development. Heretofore, it’s been wall to wall hockey team members on NPR. Slowly, surely, the idea that there is an actual debate going on seems to be sinking in.
↧
↧
Comment on Teaching (?) the controversy by manacker
OK.
Let’s look at this 1960s video clip more closely.
Is the serious-looking long-haired little girl on the left Martha?
And the cute little girl with the pig-tails on the far right, could it be…?
The mind boggles.
Max
↧
Comment on Teaching (?) the controversy by Michael Larkin
Will a recording be available? If so, might I ask where? TIA
↧
Comment on Teaching (?) the controversy by manacker
Moderator is “Larry”?
Will “Moe” and “Curly” also be there?
↧
Comment on Teaching (?) the controversy by pokerguy
Not finding it. Boston area…WBUR and WGBH…Assumed it would be on Talk of the Nation on WBUR
↧
↧
Comment on Teaching (?) the controversy by Bob K.
We’d be doing well by teaching K-12 students basic reasoning skills instead of scientific controversies for which they don’t have the tools to make reasoned decisions. Perhaps non-U.S. posters here are unaware of how badly our K-12 students perform in math and science relative to other countries? We’re currently duking it out with Mexico—I expect that we’ll lose that one, too, and sink even lower. And teachers of these subjects are not much better. We have smart scientists, but over a long period of time the myriad reasons to avoid teaching careers (low pay, running the gauntlet of useless administrators, dealing with helicopter parents, etc.) have driven all but the most dedicated of the bright ones away. So how will students be taught about global warming that won’t amount to teachers who are barely scientifically literate opening a holy book and reciting scripture?
↧
Comment on Teaching (?) the controversy by Willis Eschenbach
No joy on the left coast either, San Francisco KQED has Talk of the Nation but no Judith … dang.
↧
Comment on Teaching (?) the controversy by manacker
CNP
You start off with a good observation on the use of question marks in headlines, but then blow it all with a silly conclusion of why our host here frequently does this..
A question mark denotes “uncertainty”.
There is a great deal of uncertainty regarding the quantifiable science supporting the IPCC “mainstrean consensus” CAGW claim, and the various related topics, which our host has brought up here.
And, yes, the question mark gets everyone’s attention.
A question for you: Why are there no question marks in IPCC AR4 ?
(Is it because “the science is settled?”)
Max
↧
