Image: flickr/Jon Sullivan
BERLIN, Md.—Fifth grader Aman Shahzad looked closely at the level attached to the plumb line. "Lower, lower," she called out. "OK! The bubble is in the middle." Her classmate, holding the wooden surveyor's pole, read the measurement: 14 centimeters.
The two students were from Pemberton Elementary School in nearby Salisbury, Md., the first to participate in a new, three-month interdisciplinary unit called "Investigating Climate Science" that spans science, math, economics and government. On this spring day on Maryland's eastern shore, they were on a field trip to Assateague Island, measuring the slope of the beach as the first step in a lesson on sea-level rise.
The unit represents the vanguard of a nationwide effort, pushed by education and science groups, to broaden climate change education into a variety of physical and social science classes in public school curricula.
Yet even here, in one the most sophisticated climate change education units in the nation, teachers still feel the need to balance what the world's scientific bodies know about climate change with what is represented in the public dialogue: avoiding terms like "global warming" and including a lesson questioning humanity's impact on the problem.
The three-month unit is designed for middle school and high-achieving elementary students. It was developed by four teachers in the Wicomico County Public Schools' gifted and talented program with help from environmental educator Carrie Samis of the Maryland Coastal Bays Program. Lessons focus on climate science and hone critical thinking skills.
- In one lesson, students examined and analyzed editorial cartoons related to the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, and discussed the advantages and disadvantages of building a pipeline to ferry crude oil from Alberta's tarsands to the United States.
- Another lesson examined the possible causes of changing climates, differentiating between anthropogenic and natural ones. Students studied greenhouse gases, climate indicators, and carbon footprints, then predicted positive and negative effects climate change may have on agriculture, the economy, infrastructure and wildlife.
- The full-day field trip to Assateague Island showed students how vulnerable the barrier island is to sea-level rise. They conducted a mock debate, acting as local stakeholders, on the impacts of salt marsh migration.
- One lesson, called "the controversy," probes "both sides of the story." It examines uncertainties in historic data, fossil records, ice core samples and tree rings, posing the questions, "How do we know?" and "Where is the proof?"
- Several lessons are devoted to developing climate action plans and deciding what – if anything – students should do about climate change.
The diversified approach reaches and engages students via a number of different avenues. Gabe Dunn, a fifth grader at Westside Intermediate School, in Hebron, Md., liked the unit's hands-on science and civics activities, especially debating the viability of land development amid marsh migration and sea-level rise. Cade Stone, a fifth grader at Pemberton Elementary, found the editorial cartoons appealing.
The unit has generated controversy.
Months before the lessons began, parents voiced concern over the contents and stressed a need for "balance." Virtually every scientist studying atmospheric and earth sciences says climate change is real and that humans are the cause. But some parents sought inclusion of opposing theories, such as other causes and doubts that climate change is occurring.
In response, Nancy Rowe, one of four teachers developing the unit, devised lessons to show that climate change is not all caused by humans. "We want to be balanced," Rowe said.
See what we're tweeting about
16 Comments
Add Comment" "We don't ask students in science class to make up their own minds over whether they believe in photosynthesis or if the earth is round," she said. "Why would we be doing that here?" "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSeriously? The arrogance of scientists like Buhr continues to amaze. What we do, or at least should, ask students in science class is to prove, by experiment and observation, that photosynthesis occurs and that the Earth is round. The scientists that disproved the existence of phlogisten and the aether, or demonstrated that the atom was not the smallest conceivable particle, were clearly not educated to believe that if a lot of scientists say something is true it necessarily is. God help us if those who may one day blow Susan Buhr's assumptions out of the water are!
Amazing how they have attempted to make it seem like students are doing experiments that imply the warmist theory is wrong, except all of the experiments shown are straw men, set up to lead to the conclusion they want the kids to derive. Or we have totally statistical and opinionated projects involving impossible to define and measure concepts like "carbon foot print" which is given as if it is something real and the students will again be lead down the path of the warmist religion. They we get comments like virtually all scientists agree, which is ridiculous because it is not true and even if it was, who care because at one point virtually all scientists agreed the earth was the center of the universe and they were proven wrong. Or more recently, Clovis first has finally been debunked after decades of virtually all scientists agreeing to it. Then we have unproven nonsense like human activity is the only driver of climate change. the warmists cant even prove there is such a thing as average global temperature nor what it should be as well as how much CO2 should exist, considering it has been far far higher in the past.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow about explaining to students the way the 18th and 19th century temperature data and CO2 information was cherry picked. Basically, any temp/CO2 data from those centuries was compared to the pet theory of global warming and if the data seemed to prove the theory, it was considered valid but any data not supporting the theory was considered flawed and not used. I suppose this would not come out in a classroom because it is so obviously not science, the children might actually question the entire theory.
The article doesn't really go into much on the outcomes either. I am not sure what is more ridiculous, the warmist theory that all warming today is caused by humans only by CO2 production or the universally conflicted results of drought, blizzards, mega storms, extra earthquakes and somehow all possible food production will end and humans will simply go to war. I suppose it is too hard to have children think about something like both burning and freezing at the same time.
"the warmists cant even prove there is such a thing as average global temperature" LOL. Math major?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"sea level at any particular location is more likely to be effected by changes in land height than by a change in sea level. " LOL.
Come on guys... at least make arguments that aren't inherently contradictory.
1. Science DOES NOT understand what warming will result from an increase in CO2 levels with any reasonable degree of accuracy. There are to many variables in the real earth system that are currently not understood.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLike what variable have not been accounted for?
2. Science also does not understand the impacts of a warmer world on any particular location around the world. We have no even reasonably accurate to determine if any location will get less or more rainfall or any other changes that would impact human life. Science can not accurately state that a warmer world will not be better for humans overall over the long term.
Uhh yes you can, if the world gets up to say 200 F then it will be bad for humans period. No one is claiming what you are putting in their mouths. All they are saying is the atmosphere is changing, adapts or don't btch when you town is flooded, or it doesn't rain for 6 months.
3. In the real world actions to mitigate a rise in CO2 are completely non cost effective and take away from more effective efforts to adapt to whatever the future holds. CO2 will continue to rise for decades since developing nations want and need low cost energy.
How do you know what the future holds?
How do you know they will take away efforts to adapt to what the future holds? Of which you seem to be the only one privy to see the future.
It won't continue to rise if we find another means of equivilent power that doesn't create it now will it, you know "Future" and what it holds. However if we all just sit down and ignore it all as you and those above you are suggesting, then you are absolutely right, nothing will change and CO2 will continue to rise.
There is no truth in you claiming to know the future, nor in you making accusations without data to back them up.
It appears as though you did not read this article carefully enough.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"What we do, or at least should, ask students in science class is to prove, by experiment and observation, that photosynthesis occurs and that the Earth is round."
Like taking them out of field trips (like the one to the island in the story that people complained about) to perform experiments?
By asking them to "by experiment and observation" understand the idea's behind the mainstream theories. IE: By not "asking students in science class to make up their own mind over whether they believe or not". This is EXACTLY what they are doing. They're not telling them opinions, and INSTEAD making them do the experiments and explain the data they are gathering. Do you know how phlogisten was disproved? By people doing experiments just as these kids are and finding data that was contradictory to the currently held model. Science does not EVER say something is true, to the extent of unquestionable. The thing is though, no one is taken seriously if the question the theory with no supporting evidence to back their supposition, which is generally how these climate debates go, "I don't believe you cause you can't know everything.", beyond which point debate is worthless.
"Amazing how they have attempted to make it seem like students are doing experiments that imply the warmist theory is wrong, except all of the experiments shown are straw men, set up to lead to the conclusion they want the kids to derive."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd EXACTLY what kind of experiments would YOU have ELEMENTARY students do on climate science?
"involving impossible to define and measure concepts like "carbon foot print" "
Carbon foot print is FAR from impossible to measure. If a car puts out 2 grams of carbon for each hour run, one can calculate it's foot print based on it's run time. This same metric can be expanded to ANY kind of exhaust or chemical output system. Do you have any data or reports that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's impossible, or is it you who are stuck in the dogma you are putting on this curriculum. Believing something to be impossible, or the belief there's no experiments they can do to prove it's all fake.
"They we get comments like virtually all scientists agree, which is ridiculous because it is not true"
Where is your list of dissenting climatologists? The point about believing the scientist these days is that they're the ones who study this stuff day in and day out. Back in the day when every thought the world was flat, there was no way for them to carry out the necessary experiments to test their hypothesis, which we DO have today. IE: One was a theory based on an inability to gather relevant data, the other is a theory based on decades of data and the ability to adjust and run NEW experiments to either confirm or deny newer idea's or postulates.
Who EVER SAID "human activity is the only driver of climate change."? I anxiously await a response to this OBVIOUS lie.
"the warmists cant even prove there is such a thing as average global temperature"
Don't know ANYTHING about statistics or any kind of advanced math do you:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
I would post more links but suffice it to say, there are hundreds and you wouldn't read the data no matter how many I posted.
cont:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"nor what it should be as well as how much CO2 should exist"
It shouldn't be any one number, it fluctuates. But we should be prepared to accept the consequence or a fluctuation and be ready to fix our stuff when nature breaks it, like flooding cities, or towns wiped out by 3 or 4 tornados in a single night. The same goes with CO2. How about we just stop burning everything we lay our hands on and see where the Earth settles? Instead of cutting down continents worth of forests and burning oceans worth of oil and thinking it doesn't matter what we do the earth will still be here. Yeah that is true the earth won't go anywhere, but we'll die pretty easily, as will all the knowledge and technology that's taken us nearly 10,000 years to develop.
"How about explaining to students the way the 18th and 19th century temperature data and CO2 information was cherry picked."
Because that is NOT what the class is about. You just want them to do something like thise so you can have something to complain about, kind of like the parents in the article that complained about their kids doing an experiment. Complaining about nothing, or perhaps complaining that their kids are being introduced to new idea's by that households standards.
I would continue to pick apart your rant fest, but suffice it to say the rest is really just reitterations of "I don't understand any of the methods used to collect the data, so I'm not going to listen to anything they say".
Lol, math? I think you missed the point entirely. Just because you can add a bunch of numbers together does not mean the result has any sort of meaning. Considering the volume of the atmosphere and its wide variance of local conditions, the idea some global average has any meaning at all is questionable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen we get to the data that feeds this number. Even today humans collect temperature information on a very small percentage of the total volume of the atmosphere. Worse though is when you warmists take the 9 thermometers in the 18th century in paris, London and New York and claim that somehow is enough to calculate a global average. Or you get information from ice cores, which is totally speculative since that data can only be local temperature. The speculative part is making the assumption of tropical temperatures based on polar region ice cores.
Your data is flawed, making your math irrelevant and you people still cant demonstrate a global average temperature is a number with any relevant meaning at all.
Perhaps you should try looking at reality and using logic instead of swallowing the warmist religion koolaid.
Wow you really are into your computer model generated dogma. I have just commented on the so called average global temperature. yes fool, any moron with a calculator can take the limited temperature data and calculate an average number. Big, deal that does not mean the number has any sort of relevance at all. You warmists are so caught up in your ridiculous theory that you wont even question something as basic as that. The same is with the so called measure of the "correct" amount of CO2 that should be in the atmosphere. And even if we take these two numbers are remotely useful, by what set of rules are used to determine which average temperature from what century of the last billion or two years is the temperature we should have.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you really going to make the claim that all scientists buy into your dogma? Every single one? I know I know, you people have qualified it to only scientists you like are legitimate and have rules like only climatologists who government grants are legitimate. So no, I cant produce a list because you would ignore it anyway.
Carbon foot print is a totally ridiculous number no better than stupid concepts like Gini numbers to supposedly measure the gap between rich and poor. The way you people define it basically living at all is a 5000 acre carbon foot print. This is just as pointless as the so called long term effects like 1000 more people a year will die 5 years yearly 100 years from now because of global warming. The data for this so called carbon foot print is totally biased to show that the evil capitalist countries vehicles are horrendous yet the 3 billion people who burn wood and coal for cook fires in undeveloped countries has no carbon foot print. Other biases are somehow the 3 billion people in those 3rd world countries are somehow less of an impact on the land even though America has been producing on the same arable land for a hundred years and we dont slash and burn down forests to do it. So not only is a Carbon Foot print a number entirely defined to make it seem like humans are evil polluters it is entirely statistical and there is a point where you have to use real data not statistically manufactured data.
And since you decided to extend this to two posts, yeah it is about the 18th and 19th century. Your entire warmist theory is based on the belief that pre-industrial temperature and CO2 levels were significantly lower and somehow the change between then and now is a dramatic increase. The problem is, you simply do not have the data to prove that, you invented it. So if you told those kids to do research on 19th century temperatures and provided them the raw data as a lesson on how to take data and make use of it, those kids will likely find the total flaw in your theory, which is why you wont put it in the classroom.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI could write 1000 pages of information to easily debunk your ridiculous climate science and prophecies as written by your computer models. Though many scientists have done this already. But what would be the point, you warmists only consider scientists who have received government grants and follow your theory unquestioned as legitimate.
The worst part of all of this is your so called solutions. Everything from carbon permits and taxation, which does nothing buy get you people money and power to insanity like CO2 sequestering in the ground, effectively burying Oxygen we all likely need. Ideas where the solution itself is likely worse than the initial problem, exacerbated by the next 100 years of you people stacking solutions. Today it will be sequester carbon and oxygen in the ground, in 30 years to make up for the lost oxygen, you people will separate H20 to free up oxygen to replace what was buried, this reduces the water on the planet, so you will do who knows what.
Worse of all is the climate does appear to be getting warmer naturally and you people are wasting time and money on your fantasy instead of working on mitigation of what will likely happen.
Mention climate and change in the same sentence and out they come....STOP shooting the messenger! If you don't like the SCIENCE then disprove it with SCIENCE. Stop dribbling rubbish.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisObviously not all opinions count the same. You would not ask your mechanic about a medical problem or your doctor about a problem with your car. But somehow highly opinionated and self-serving outsiders have conned people in thinking that what they think is the equivalent to that of people who have been studying the problem for decades. What really needs to be taught here is to show the kids who is saying what and why. Not to mention that those who are fighting the scientists hide behind false fronts rather than do so openly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBeautifully put
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf there was any science being done by the warmists, then there would be something to disprove. So far they have a computer model fantasy planet, plugged numbers, totally missing data like effects of clouds and predictions that are not coming true. Such as the predicted last decade of warming. Instead of admitting they were wrong, they changed to model so it would say the missing heat is in the deep ocean instead of the atmosphere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou warmists have nothing here but faith, and like any religion it cant be proven or disproven. Hey, the universe is here and so complex, it must have been a god that created us. Hey it seems like the blizzards of the late 70s are gone and now it is warmer, it must be global warming.
In continuation, the warmists need to prove something like an average global temperature has any meaning at all and if it is proven, then they have to prove what the number should be. NOT declare the global average temperature has meaning then plug in the temperatre they want as normal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you insane? It is not that hard to tell if a mechanic is cheating you with false information of faked problems if you have a little bit of knowledge about cars. And with some thought and reason, most people can tell if they are talking to a Quack doctor. Just because some idiot has PhD after his name does not actually make him capable or an expert. It only means he paid a load of money to some pointless school and convinced his professors he paid attention to them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy experience in life, especially with computer models and statistics in real world application gives me more than enough mental capacity to see the global warming religion is in fact a load of of BS, total fantasy at this point. The only thing real here is the planet seems warming in my lifetime and there is likely some effect from the 7 billion people on this planet independent of their industry but also that industry is likely contributing something to the ecosystem.
The assumptions that this warming is not natural has no proof, the assumption the warming is detrimental also has no proof. The assumption that human industry is 100% detrimental has no proof. The effects of 7 billion people, their body heat, the heat from their livestock, the heat from their cooking and heating homes and the heat they generate from all that is done from operating a computer to smelting metal has NOT been measured or accounted for at all.
So no friend, there is no possible way to can make the arrogant claim that your so called experts have done anything real. Decades of bad science is still bad science.
As far as hiding, are you insane? Who the heck is hiding? It seems we "deniers" are all over the place for all that you think we don't exist. SA has my real name and number and can contact me anytime.
I wont make any accusations about you personally but for all that I am a denier, I still have 85% of my electric powered by the solar panels on my roof. Why, because it is in general a bad idea to pollute unnecessarily. While I totally do not buy your fantasy CO2 is a pollutant and going to turn earth into a furnace, the other pollutants from fuel use do have an effect.
I could go on about your mitigation, such as the insane idea that taxing breathing will somehow magically make CO2 go away but I am running out of space.