A Classroom View of Climate Deniers

ABOUT

Posted by Caitlin Grey on March 19, 2010 at 02:25pm

As a high school senior and an ardent environmentalist, I have mixed feelings about new legislation in various states that would change science curricula to include "other views" on climate change, the way some school districts have tried to open the theory of evolution up for debate. I know the goal of such legislation--to downplay the severity of climate change and to cast doubt on its manmade causes--is against everything I stand for as an advocate for all things green. And yet there's something pretty convincing about how lawmakers have framed these bills: as catalysts for "open discussion" and "intellectual freedom." I mean, who's against that?

Indeed, often the most memorable parts of my classes are the fiery debates about contentious topics. It's when I learn the most. Like when my environmental science teacher led my class in a discussion about the pros and cons of nuclear energy. I've always been against building nuclear power plants, which got me into ideological tiffs with some classmates. But being forced to use facts and data I had read in my textbook to hold my own is probably the only reason I remember so much about something I was once so opposed to.

More after the jump

The wording of the latest of these bills, Kentucky's "Science Education and Intellectual Freedom Act," seems to be a perfect setup for such in-class intellectual throwdowns: "Teachers, principals, and other school administrators are encouraged to create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of scientific theories being studied."

But how would this mandate to discuss the 'disadvantages' of climate change play out in a real classroom? Would teachers hand out articles about James Hansen's hacked emails? Would students learn about the Hockey Stick Controversy alongside the Kyoto Protocol? Would the objections of a few wayward scientists play down the consensus scientists have built over the last fifteen years?

At my school, teachers grade classroom debates by giving one point to students who voice an opinion and two points to students who back up their arguments with facts. It's a good system - the winners are usually the students who have studied up the most.

If students could support their arguments against anthropogenic climate change with just as much evidence as the arguments for it, then here-here! But I would guess, given the dearth of credible data that goes against the scientific consensus on global warming, student climate deniers wouldn't get the best grades. And it wouldn't really be their fault.

Underneath a mask of seemingly benevolent requests for more discussion and view points lie political, religious, and corporate agendas that will ultimately hurt our nation's next generation, my generation. All it takes is one teacher to gloss over textbook science and overemphasize controversy, and more students will leave the classroom feeling confused about why polar ice caps are melting. These bills would let teachers get away with that.

"Open discussion" may sound like unicorns and rainbows, but underestimating the effects of climate change is going to bite our country in the butt--if not in time for today's lawmakers to notice, definitely by the time today's students are in charge of the country.

Previously:

* Our Own Caitlin Grey On COP 15
* Youth Radio at COP 15
* Fighting People You Love For Climate Change

(2) comments | permalink

Comments

Response to Science Bills Likely to Confuse Students

Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 03/29/2010 - 12:12.

Caitlin, after reading your article in this weekend's SF Chronicle, I felt compelled to offer to you my perspective on this issue regarding climate change and critical thinking. First, keep an open mind because things are often not always as they seem and appear to be. Truth depends on where a person's starting point begins, and when we don't go to the beginning and the root of the problem, whatever we do will always be flawed. Second, the criteria that determines whether something is true, isn't based on the amount of time we have applied to it, or how many people are in agreement, or how loud their voices are. People tend seldom reveal what their true motives are (I sure you can see this tendency occurring in various ways with the people you know). Because scientists are human beings too, do not think that they are without political bias and cannot be influenced by money (they are constantly trying to secure grant money as a way to pay for their research projects). Third, given that the deepest bore hole we have ever drilled (Kola) barely scratched the earth crust, and 73% of the earth is underwater and less than 5% of the ocean floor has actually been mapped, no matter how smart we think we are, the vast majority of the knowledge we have amassed so far pertains primarily to things at, near the surface, or above it. Doesn't this make the knowledge that we have (to formulate and base a solution for climate change) so skewed and unbalanced, that it is too unreliable? Fourth, Einstein famously stated that "The formulation of a problem is far more essential than its solution, which may be merely a matter of mathematical or experimental skills. To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle require creative imagination and marks real advances in science." What did he mean by this? I believe that if we applied his statement to this subject, doesn't this mean we should try to understand how earth's natural process works before proceeding onward towards a solution? After all, how would it even be possible to come up with a solution to be sustainable with nature when we still have never learned how earth's natural process functions? In our haste to do something, we have gotten ourselves completely confused because we are already trying to implement solution(s) before actually knowing what the actual problem is? Therefore, let us not make the mistake of interpreting "activity" as a sign of progress. Fifth, there was a time when Copernicus' viewpoint was suppressed and politically incorrect. And yet, in the end, he was found to be right. Therefore, to advance humanity we must separate what is real from the things that are myths. Critical thinking requires us to: seek the truth above all else; welcome all viewpoints; and avoid the temptation of never putting ourselves in a position where we can be exposed as being wrong. Open debate is that process and is how paradigm shifts occur and how humanity advances. Good luck, Terry R. Gong P.S. If you would like to debate this further, just let me know.

Why Does Scientific Controversy Get All the Glory?

Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 03/25/2010 - 08:52.

What I alsways find interesting is that the public considers evolution and climate change as “scientific controversy” yet does not worry that science classes do not discuss real controversies such as quantum gravity or historical ones such as continental drift. Somehow political or economic controversies are considered not as valid as scientific controversies. There are many ways to address climate change and such solutions have strong economic, political, and social components.