And don't forget to balance out the geography classes by teaching them that the world is flat...

Evidently, about half of the American public believes in astrology. So the school board better make sure that instructors, who are spoutin' the usual astronomical factoids about gravity and such, pause in class and offer the astrological POV.
Gotto have "balance."
But seriously, folks, believing in scientific method--something that causes scientists to believe in global climate change--is neither liberal nor conservative. It is, however, a minority point of view.
This school board is an embarrassment.

Interesting issues handled fairly. Nice.

that board member certainly has little respect for teachers.
i doubt that he knows more than a few very well, yet feels he can "brand" them all.
quite a broad brush that he paints with.

by the way, the headline is pretty misleading.

The earth is round, smoking is linked to lung cancer, gravity makes things fall, and humans are warming the planet. Scientists strongly agree on all of these and there is certainly no real controversy about any.

For an easy to read and well-illustrated guide to the human fingerprints of global warming please see:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-Scientific-Guide-to-Global-Warming-Skepticism.html

Where is Al Gore when you need him?

In discussing the debate on climate change, Susan Jacoby, in her book "The Age of American Unreason" writes that: "The scientific consensus on global warming is a favorite target of right-wing purveyors of junk thought....Google the phrase 'junk science,' and what pops up is an endless succession of right-wing blogs devoted to the proposition that mainstream scientific consensus represents junk science and that brave dissidents, on issues ranging from vaccines to global warming, are being stifled by 'the elites.' Many of these blogs are financed by or have close ties to right-wing news organizations and corporations with interest in debunking scientific findings that suggest the need for government regulation."

Let's be clear: the quest for "balance" at Los Alamitos is based not on science, but on ideology, and the continued willingness of a few to swallow willingly whatever pablum is fed to them by their favorite news purveyors. This is not a problem unique to the right or the left, but in this particular case, I think it's fairly easy to see where the impulse for "balance" originates. To paraphrase Jacoby, disdain for logic and evidence defines a pervasive malaise fostered by the mass media, triumphalist religious fundamentalism, mediocre public education, a dearth of fair-minded public intellectuals on the right and the left, and, above all, a lazy and credulous public.

Not a pretty picture!

Well, Mr. Barke, as to "I’m not a big fan of global warming" -- neither am I. It threatens the future prospects of my and your school district's children.

Are you going to require science teachers to "balance" discussions of planetary history with discussing how some believe the Earth is only 6000 years old?

How about discussing how the moon landings were faked in the desert? After all, something like 7 percent of Americans believe this to be the case.

How about alternative geography since so many Americans don't know how to find Chechnya (or Russia or ...) on the map?

Sad that that you view your role as imposing anti-science dogma into the science curriculum.

Kropp said, “An unbalanced lesson would portray only one side. All we want is to have teachers teach the various scientific theories out there.”

It is beyond comprehension that a superintendent can be so uneducated. There are not "various scientific theories out there". No peer-reviewed scientific publications have proposed an alternative theory to human-caused climate change. "Beliefs" do not equate to scientific theory. This is absolutely frightening.

The <http://www.skepticalscience.com>; website that Scott Mandia refers to above emphasizes established, observed FACTS regarding global warming and human carbon dioxide emissions, as distinct from theory and models, with links to peer-reviewed scientific articles. It deals with over 100 global-warming-skeptic arguments, with writeups in 3 levels of detail -- one with no scientific terminology, an intermediate one with a moderate amount of that, and an advanced one with considerably more scientific detail and references. Also there is a large archive of posts on many topics. And it has free applications for downloading onto one's cell phone or i-pod, so that one can help raise up fellow citizens who may not know the important basic now-established facts that demonstrate damaging global warming (for example, 19% of coral reefs were functionally dead as of a 2008 worldwide survey, largely the result of "bleaching" caused by the rapid global warming now underway) and its human causation. US citizens who are stuck in skepticism or denial of human-caused global warming are having the effect of blocking global agreement on a treaty to curb destructive global warming, but facts now proven in recent scientific research articles can end their being such obstruction.

FACTS are not going to end the obstruction from denialists. They merely claim that "there is no conclusive scientific proof" of human-caused climate change and go on their merry way. The FACT that humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. The FACT is that there are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. The FACT that 97% of climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse human-caused climate change is irrelevant to these people.

If Los Alamitos parents, teachers and students don't rise up against this kind of stupidity, they might as well shut down the schools and let students get their entire education from Fox News. Come to think of it, that's probably on the Tea Party agenda.

See: http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/public/repository/ap-environmental-science-course-description.pdf

No, Tim, you're wrong. There is no opposing science. Look at Mr. Pilmer's credentials -- he has NONE in climate science. In fact, he is the director of three mining companies -- a slight conflict of interest. Furthermore, the UN body did not fabricate their research. Those E-mails were stolen and taken out of context. Five independent bodies, including the UK House of Commons, Penn State University, the InterAcademy Council, and the National Research Council, and the Inspector General of the Dept. of Commerce (as requested by Den. Inhofe, a denier himself) have determined that there was NO manipulation of data. This is not indoctrination, its settled science. In this day and age, anyone -- like Mr. Plimer -- can write what he or she wants to, but that does not make it factual. Every major academic institution in the world supports the science of human-caused climate change.

Show me! Show me a single INDEPENDENT SCIENTIFIC study that says global warming is not real.

THIS IS ALL ABOUT RELIGIOUS VIEWS, which have NO place in a science class.

MAYBE I would go with adding: "This is what science teaches us. Some people believe that Global Warming is not true."

please email this ideologue and tell him to keep his opinions out of the realm of facts. His email is jeffbarke@gmail.com which be found at the following public website, http://www.losal.org/1463101114192717217/site/default.asp

Really? So, the kids are going to get "college credit" for an AP course where they are taught junk science? They will be laughed out of higher learning. When will these ideologues learn that they harm more than they know when they insist that the most profitable (and prophetable) ideas be taught as "fact"? At least once a day I read of some ideologue who insists something that science has proven false. Starting with the "idea" that evolution is just a theory because it is called the "Theory of Evolution". We used to teach 8th grade students that in science, all is theory, as one never knows when new information will come along. With that caveat, it is clear evolution is FACT and we didn't play with our pet dinosaurs 7000 years ago. Honestly, we Americans end up looking so idiotic - I'm embarrassed.

Want to know more about Jeffrey Barke? Try these sites:
http://www.aapsonline.org/hallofshame/barke.htm
http://www.newcriminologist.com/article.asp?nid=283
http://www.mypersonalcarephysician.com/ (they refuse Medicare)

I can't believe it's taken people this long to realize that all these universities, environmentalists, ecologists, and other scientists were just making this stuff up, but I hope they don't forget to also teach other conservative theories like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster#Pirates_and_global_warming

Nice to know the Neanderthals didn't go extinct. But how did they get on the School Board?

Earle
Man made global warming indicates man can change our climate. Since some are saying now to call it "Climate change" due to some cooling recently then how much can we humans do to change things and what will it cost? Incentives to take us from fossil fuel would be a good investment for many reasons. But I just don't trust those who want to take tax payer money to plant a tree, taking his cut first of course, then saying that it will never be enough money, we're all doomed.

Well,

I believe that the downfall of civilization will be from Neo-conic far right bible wavers who are acctually racist and can't believe that a black man run s the country! All I can say is this:
Real soon here we are all going to see if the global warming issue is real or not as the time line for the eventual causality of gloabal warming will come clean! about ten years I would imagine...check out the movies "The Age of Stupid" (the age we are all living in now) and Collapse....I can't wait till I am hunkered down in some bunker in the middle of July with a bunch of Republicans because there is 4o ft. of snow on the ground and we are all eating cat food to stay alive! Cuz I will be the guy who told you so...we will probably eat them!

in a science class, for science credit, one should teach science; in a political science class one should teach politics. politics has no place in a science class.

If I were the teacher, I would take the opportunity to teach the class about both sides:

A: Some people realize that global warming exists and is a potential threat to ours and future generations, so they want to study and take steps to avoid the demise of the world;

and

B. Other people are just pseudo-christian idiots, bent on imposing their stupidity on the rest of the world, the future be damned.

I'm not from the Los Alamitos area, but perhaps you guys need some new blood on your school board, as this situation is surely embarrassing for your district. Don't you guys have cuts and layoffs to deal with like the rest of the state, or is yours a rich district, top-heavy in administration? Just sayin'/askin'.

Maybe I'm an old stick in the mud but shouldn't a school board member who cares about students be concerned that the teaching faculty be teaching facts, rather than his or her "point of view." Just show kids the data, have them analize it, and debate it. If a "point of view" has any merit the students will figure it out. Excuse me now as I am going sailing. 'hope I don't fall off the edge.

I presume they will also teach in History that the Holocaust didn't happen?

These people should be reported to the AP College Board for changing the AP Environmental Science curriculum. I've done it already, and I hope you will too. http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/Pageflows/ContactUs/ContactUsController.jpf

"“Most teachers are left to center, and if we leave it to teachers to impose their liberal views, then it would make for an unbalanced lesson,” Barke said."...hey, jeff...i think i see the problem here...it's you, dumbass...like colbert said, "truth has a liberal bias"...and as bug bunny said...."whatta maroon".....

What is the opposing view on massive net loss of permafrost and ice caps? This topic is about hard science not make belive! Can someone argue that electricty doees not exist because it can not be seen? NUTS!

As long as "the conservative view" is represented truthfully in the form of "some people have a vested interest in producing copious amounts of greenhouse gasses and other particulate pollutants and therefore like to pretend climate change doesn't exist and therefore would like me, as an educator, to tell you there is another side to the story," then, sure, go ahead.

I guess the board wants to balance intelligence with an equal dose of stupidity....

That someone like this actually make others bend to his delusions scary.

Totalitarian regimes always have a "political officer" present to insure that citizens are thinking straight. That's exactly the role that Mr. Barke is playing here. Is that what we want in our society, much less our public schools?

Stunning, embarrassing, and inappropriate. Schools teach content standards - we don't make it up as we go along. Why not delete or add anything you like in literature, physics, biology - whatever you say. The new superintendent wants an AP class with little or no math so she picks global warming? This content requires substantial knowledge of math and the scientific method or you can't read the studies, but maybe reading the studies on the topic is not as important as watching the politicians strut their stuff. I say it's time for a school board recall effort. This school district has been one of California's best.

It doesn't really matter if you are a liberal or a conservative when you are teaching the facts on global warming. Climatology is a SCIENCE on CLIMATE --- not a political stance. I think we can all agree that we "do not like" global warming. There is not much to like about it. However, it seems imperative that the reality of the situation should be taught, not what one "likes" or "dislikes" to believe. The argument of whether it's real or not is over... Just watch the weather channel, get over your delusions, and maybe, for once, start considering our future generations and that perhaps they might like to be able to see a blue sky.. an open field...a forest with giant trees and live animals other than rats... or a mountain that hasn't been chopped down for coal.... Hell... they may at some point even want a glass of clean water to drink!

.

If there was a widely held intelligent opposing view of climate change held by more than a handful of wing-nut scientists on the payroll of the oil industry, then this would make perfect sense, but human generated global warming is no longer controversial and is backed up by an overwhelming majority of scientists and should not be open to discussion other than how best to overcome it.

Great- They want to here from Religious leaders- i have several lists and its growing- of all faiths- that not only believe in climate change -the dangers of pollution- green technology are going around the country teaching and educating people- I am sure I can get several speakers from different faiths just to keep it fair that would talk about climate change- global warming and everyone's responsibility to do take care of this planet that God entrusted to us- They teach this with the use of scripture. This school is in the dark- There is a movement demanding change and young leaders that do want a future-

I suggest that the theory of gravity be tested by pushing the school board members out of an upper story window and seeing what happens. Oh no, we couldn't do that - apparently we're not supposed to look at real data - we're supposed to sit around and discuss ideas then vote on which one appeals most to us....

Whether or not global warming exists will not be decided in our lifetime, or that of our children. But we DO know, that we WANT clean water, clean air, natural resources, clean energy for future generations. Rather than argue who's right or wrong, let's educate kids on what they can do as conservationists.

And people think those of us who are teachers are simply exaggerating when we talk about why teachers need protection - in the form of strong, collectively-bargained contracts - from bad administrators and school boards. Ladies and gentleman, I give you exhibit A.

Please, tell me this is not so...OY...I am a retired teacher. And, I will tell you, we had some 'people' like this in our community who tried this crap (yes CRAP!) with another issue...It was totally disastrous. Do they not understand 'science is not a place for political balance or religious theory?...if you want that to be included, make it a social studies class. Good grief, what is this board member starved mentally? Does he not realize that well over 90% of the pertinent scientists (and I think now even the Catholic Church) recognize 'climate change'....and he is worried about it being 'politically level'...unreal...just totally unreal. Whatever that man's education was, I hope he is not a reflection of the faculties that helped educate him...UGH...awful...just plain awful....actually, 'insulting'.

"I'm not a big fan of global warming" says it all.

This is what you will get if you keep electing republicans - they aren't interesting in teaching children facts, only their ideology. The Koch Brothers recently donated a ton of money to a university in Florida so they can decide on who will teach economics and if they don't like what the teacher says, they can demand they get fired.

It's the dumbing down of America republican style. In the long run they can only win if they keep the electorate uneducated and uninformed.

Let's see... Doctors are regulated by other doctors; Lawyers and regulated by other lawyers; pilots are evaluated by other pilots; educators are led by any village idiot who can get elected to the school board.

Yut!! That's the American way!!

Since we seem to be able to legislate what teachers teach, then I think we shouldn't be able to take away their bargaining rights. How long until the 'teacher' becomes a less respectable position than the drive through (or is it thru, now?) cashier at a fast food restaurant.

If the government can tell teachers how and what to teach, when the teachers fail, then the government is to blame, not the teacher. Since the beginning of "No Child Left Behind" I have yet to see a teacher fail a child, and now they'll accept homework that is 6 months overdue because they have to in order to get a raise.

Politicians are not businessmen or teachers and they need to stop pretending to be. Just because you are wealthy and/or charismatic enough to get elected does not mean you are intelligent.

Politically balanced? Are they serious? The curriculum is now completely politically biased! How in the world did the State of California and the school district allow this to happen? This is very alarming.

As a retired teacher....sorry......education the only profession that is controlled by people who spent at least one year in third grade.

The Board seems to think that it's okay to use "politics" as a balance to "science". It's apples and oranges.

China is surging ahead in environmental science--showing a growth of 77% per year in green energy production.

This story shows why America will be a second and third rate country within 15 years. Our kids won't know how to think and they won't know science.

Lane

Pure idiocy!

This is a good example of how BIG Government operates. The Soviets did perfect this form of propaganda over what, 70 years, so I imagine the repubs will get it too.

I see great opportunity here for discussions about the skeptics and their reasons for their skepticism, and for the students to hone their skills to debate the issues. A good teacher will take advantage of this and use it as a teaching tool with the students becoming, in addition to learning about warming, more proficient in sharing the knowledge to others. I see it backfiring on the idiots.

Once again, historically and scientifically IGNORANT Conservative Republicans appear Hell bent on further destruction of the knowledge base of the populace. They always appear driven to create a populace as clueless and defeated intellectually as they are. Scary!....However, if these "school board" positions are elected slots, the parents who voted them in are responsible for the mess....I don't have an answer for this. But nature may provide an interesting intervention. If global warming denial citizens develop aggressive forms of skin cancer faster than the rest of us will. And their senseless breed dies off soon.

I can't believe that people like that are running Los Alamitos School District. Parents must remove them!

I am for political discussions to be included within the education of our children, and political discussions on controversial subjects should be handled in current events and other political-science related classes.
That the Earth is heating up is a documented observation from records kept for the last one hundred years. That's part of pure science and not part of political controversy and should be taught in pure science classes.
Separating the two -- science and politics -- in discussions about what to do about events will keep confusion and controversy out of it, as well as encourage discussion of ideas and also will not confuse the children about fact versus opinion.
It's wonderful that the Conservative community wants to have discussions with the Liberals and Progressives and should be invited and should be handled thoughtfully in the proper context of a current events class.

Global climate change, caused by humans, is a fact. There is no controversy about this among scientists.

If these were courses taught at colleges, i assume that the environmental science teachers would be allowed to teach about the difference between real science and the perversion of science disseminated by big oil companies which has fostered the fake "controversy" about "global warming".

It is very important for students to understand that political viewpoints HAVE NO PLACE in any science class. Period.

That we are even discussing this shows how effective the PR machinery of the oil companies has been in shaping public opinion on this issue.

The key word being "opinion".

As a scientist, i find it heart-breaking that dedicated professionals will be forced to lie to their students in order to satisfy the ignorance and fear of school board members. I pray that the teachers will have the fortitude and wisdom to somehow find a way to preserve their sense of ethics and their jobs.

The so-called-controversy is caused by a political movement that starts with a kind of fundamentalist pseudo-religion interpreting an almost 2000 year old book as literal truth - a pseudo-religion that espouses views diametrically opposite to the central character of the book whose mantra was "love one another". This group expands its influence when outraged that a black man dares to become President of this great country by inventing a purported grass roots movement harking back to revolutionary times when people really were more warm-hearted and community oriented. This movement is in fact bank-rolled by corporations and the aristocracy, and has real parallels with another apparently populist movement that started in Germany in the 1930s. Just as Jewish science was suppressed in favor of eugenics, they are now attempting to suppress modern science and replace it with pseudo-science and misinformation. The result would be a dumbing-down of America were it not that most of our kids can see through their BS. But as they spread their corporatism into all walks of life, as they create further social injustice beyond the already egregious inequities in this benighted society, they will engender the unrest that will lead to some sort of schism. As in 1930s Germany, democracy will be under threat. But collectively we face greater dangers due to climate change, environmental collapse, and the economic disruption that increased consumption and lack of resources will bring.

All sides should be taught, not just the science side. It's only fair.

http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2009/04/texas-education-opportunity-for-climate.html

Rather than go bonkers over the assault on science - which isn't going to stop any time soon, why not use this mandated presentation of "both sides" as an opportunity to compare the strengths of one position to the weaknesses of the other. For example, discuss the Conservative denial of global warming while comparing the size of the Arctic icecap from decade to decade for the past 50 years or so or the size of various glaciers (as was done so effectively by Gore in his movie). Done correctly such a presentation of "balance" would be devastating to the Conservative position and it would provide the ammunition that young people need to fight such ignorance.

I did not have the time to read everyone's comment, while valid, I am certain Jeffery Barke is missing one huge fact, NO ONE IS A FAN OF CLIMATE CHANGE. It is going to kill us! Seriously it is time to take you head out of your ass and realize just maybe god is not going to save us. It is like the mid-evil ages all over again with no one believing in science.

Keep voting for Republicans and Teabaggers and what do you get ?
Loss of " Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness " ...................

Considering the National Academy of Sciences late yesterday urged immediate action to curb the the threat of 'significant risks' to our environment by global warming- induced bu C02 Emissions-

Climate change is occurring, is very likely caused primarily by the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities, and poses significant risks for a range of human and natural systems. Emissions continue to increase, which will result in further change and greater risks. In the judgment of this report's authoring committee, the environmental, economic, and humanitarian risks posed by climate change indicate a pressing need for substantial action to limit the magnitude of climate change and to prepare for adapting to its impacts.

http://dels.nas.edu/Report/Americas-Climate-Choices/12781

It makes the decision of the board of education look like astrologers and soothsayers.

We should perhaps teach alternate theories on gravity, discuss the stork theory of sex, and the geocentric theory of astronomy...just to round things off.

The United States Department of Defense and the Insurance Industry both have recently identified Climate Change as the single biggest risk, neither of which is left nor liberal. Many politicians who 'question' climate change do so for their campaign donors, not out of sincere doubt.

This is why American students are far behind in science. School Boards are an outdated and stupid way to run a school. Education is the only field that I can think of where the highly educated and trained employees are overruled by the loudmouthed unemployed pest control specialist who somehow got on a friggin school board.
Next time you go to the doctors and he tells you something about your health, why don't you stop off at the janitors office and get a second opinion. That is the logic behind a school board. abolish them!

Both sides can provide links to support their positions because this is a huge issue.

Regardless, they should teach that humans do alter environment: good for some/ bad for others. These kidswill have to deal with ocean levels rising/ desalinating water and perhaps pumping it inland, especially living in Ca, .. There's not enough fresh clean water, dirty smelly oil and coal...etc to maintain current lifestyles and to continue playing with weapons, weapons that directly destroy (guns, missle) , and those weapons such as insectides ( endosulfin - one nasty compound), herbicides, and all pollution. Humans do alter the environment, there is no conservative side to this...

this is actually good news-the teachers can demonstrate how utterly fact-less the other view point on global warming is.
And on a serious note the best learning comes when their is a tension between two points of view-that can be argued.

When did the US make the tranision into becomming a religious fundamental country? What we are turning into is compleatly out of line from what our founding fathers recognized in regards to religion and seperation of church and State. As such, Republican fundamenatalists are clearly un American! Looks like things turned very strange starting in the 1980's. Take a look who is running for high office in the 2012 election! How pathetic are our options? There is no way we can compete globaly if this trend of ignorance continues!

In the UK such interest that ever existed in the conjecture of the existence catastrophic warming (or cooling) caused by or worsened by human behaviour has now been focussed on the resulting fraud and taxation hikes. The politicians and industrialists who eagerly eyed up large taxes or profits by scaring everybody are now frantically backpedalling for fear of being caught up in perpetrating the fraud. The remaining believers that CAGW is real are now marginalized as quasi-religious zealots shouting at passers-by in the manner of end-of-the-world preachers.

In the schools, the story is more complex. The government is still insisting that in state schools teachers teach CAGW as undisputed fact, based on the `overwhelming consensus of all international scientific bodies and peer-reviewed journals'. Teachers are assessed partly on observations that their classes adhere to this policy. In fee-paying schools the teachers have much greater freedom to teach exactly what they want, or at least the school governing body want, just like a religious school can. However, the examination boards still expect candidates to answer questions as though CAGW were real and beyond dispute. The children know how to put the "right" answer in the paper before going home to a high-carbon lifestyle as normal. This of course creates a whole generation of people, not for the first time in the UK, who for eminently pragmatic reasons declare one "religion" in public but practise another in private.

When you are going to teach lies, it doesn't hurt to balance it with some truth.

What ever happened to the coming Ice Age predications your so called environmentalist scientists were in peddling in the 70's? Guess what folks there is no global warming. Its only in your mind and dreams. live life, love and enjoy your days on it. Stop trying to impose your mother earth religion on us.

So, if the right wing pundits convince conservatives that the sun revolves around the earth, do teachers have teach that, too???? This is ridiculous. Science is science. Do the conservatives have an alternative "theory" to compare to climate change? NO! They just want to reinforce what the kids are hearing on Beck & Limbaugh, to try to give it an air of legitimacy. What's next, teaching children the "theory" that having an abortion causes cancer so they should be celibate versus teaching them about birth control?

Why do they say conservative? Right wing reactionary would be more like it.

Why do they say "conservative"? Right wing reactionary would be more appropriate.

Can we have them point out, after the Pledge of Allegiance and any moment of silent prayer, that lots of people do not think God exists. I mean lets be fair and balanced.

"I believe my role in the board is to represent the conservative voice of the community and I’m not a big fan of global warming."

No, sir. Your role on the board is to advocate for quality education for children.

I believe that the larger issues that are being lost in the environmental argument are of the gross over-reaching of the school board, and the role that an administration needs to play in the separation of powers/responsibilities. If a community member has an issue with what or how a subject or a student is being taught, the proper avenue for expression should lead to the building administration. Then the Principal, as the building's curricular leader, can take up the issue with a teacher or department, and make a thoughtful decision om the issue based on thorough research instead of on gut feeling and fear. Teachers and administrators are educational experts and need to be afforded the respect that their lifetime of study, and body of work commands. In this case, I feel that the Los Alamitos school board has hi-jacked the responsibility and credibility of the district's administration, in particular that of the Superintendent of Curriculum and the building Principal, by forcing the science department to present what will amount to nothing more than an annual tap dance recital.

There is very little debate on climate change, as temperature records are factual and undisputed. The real dispute is what percentage of the observed change is due to human activites. Most scientists who have studied the question believe the percentage of change due to humans is larger than zero. Of course, the controvery is not only over the percentage, but also over whether human-caused greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide can and should be reduced. Right-wingers say no, the rest of us say yes. When in 100 years the sea level rise starts to drown coastal towns, the ones who said "do nothing" will be long gone and thus never held up to direct ridicule. Only our children and grandchildren will ask: "How come they didn't act to stop this madness when it was first recognized as a problem?"

There are no "sides" to be taken here, these are FACTS. He says he's here to represent the conservative view - that ISN'T what his job is, it's to give the kids the best education possible. This guy should be fired - he's here to indoctrinate the kids with idealogical dogma instead of educating.

Oh, and I forgot to mention that the mean elevation of the City of Seal Beach is 13 feet. Kind of sad that the school board will not teach its very own children the reasons why much of the town will be underwater in a few hundred years.

Politics are based on getting your way, based on facts, fear, religion, lies, truths, whatever means possible. science is based on facts and a defined process based on observation and data points. They don't mix. Perhaps use science in politics to justify arguments, but not the other way around.

"Most teachers are left to center" - just goes to show where all the educated really go...??

Tim, wake up and smell the science! I challenge you to find ONE scientific article in a peer-reviewed journal that supports your statement that global warming/climate change in the past 100 years is not primarily due to man-made activities. Do you somehow know more than NOAA, NASA, the U.S. Navy, the National Science Foundation, and academic institutions from around the world?

I sent Mr. Barke the following email:

From: Scott Ward <scott5280gm@gmail.com>
Date: May 13, 2011 9:00:26 AM MDT
To: "jeffbarke@gmail.com" <jeffbarke@gmail.com>
Subject: Fair & Balanced

Dear Mr. Barke,

[I]n regards to presenting a "balanced study" of Global Warming by including your conservative views, that would be quite easy, actually.

In fact, it would require but one sentence:
"We hate everybody but the uber rich."

There you have it; you pathetic corporate shill - you could be a prime specimen in the Studies of Bovine Scatology!

("We have reached a point in our evolution in which we know a lot, we know a hell of a lot, but we understand very little."
—Manfred Max-Neef 
Chilean Economist)

To which he replied:

"and I own a gun, smoke cigars and believe in God."

—I think that sums it up well, don't you?

Yep, the Seal Beach area is one of the most at risk areas in California from sea level rise.
http://www.pacinst.org/reports/sea_level_rise/hazmaps/Seal_Beach.pdf

Board member Jeffrey Barke is clearly an idiot. Republicans want to deny global warming because it might impede their ability to profit from our misery. Our health from clean air and water means nothing to them - only the ability to make money. What fool would even doubt that there is global warming or that human behavior contributes to global warming. This is a grown man that is a fool, my 15 year old can even put 2 and 2 together in determining causes of global warming. I hope he realizes his own kids are breathing the same polluted air and drinking the same polluted water that the rest of us are. Fight back against fools like Jeffrey Barke!

Its not hard to see why America is falling behind and losing ground in this changing world. Our politics are slowly corroding and corrupting every aspect of American life. We used to be the best but with the worst politicians in our history we are sinking fast. Science is not a political discussion, it is a set of empirical facts which are proven. Facts - the worlds temperature is increasing, 1 degree in the last century - Temperature is going to rise further - The ice sheets are melting - The seas will rise 6 to 45 feet if not more depending how much ice melts.
We can argue about all of this endlessly or we can prepare for it. The longer we are led astray by these head in the sand conservatives the less prepared we will be for the changes which will come regardless of conservative approval of the facts.

I sit here in Vietnam, where i work as a consultant to the Education Systems of the country, and i decry the lack of academic freedom and the intrusion of Vietnamese Communist Party into the affairs of the educational systems of the country and then i read this and i am left speechless, unable in my training and workshops and discussions to hold my homeland up as the shinning example that should be followed.

Education should focus on what it is we know through our collective acceptance of science its methods and its findings. Would these people intrude upon clinical trails seeking cures for cancer to bring about a ideological balance to their approaches.

Somebody else said it better than me....Not a pretty picture!

Unfortunately, the scientific community in climate science is under the thumb of politics because it has everything to do with big $$ and keeping that flow at whatever the cost. This school boards' decision has nothing to do with being guided by science -which takes no sides in politics. Regrettably, politics is a part of this, so rather than teach a science class, it should be a political/social studies class, not science. The science is well beyond the scope of a K-12 classroom, but it doesn't mean that youngters be discouraged in exploring scientific fields. In a classroom, debating what can be done to best address the issue of man-made global warming is beneficial and should be a part of every curriculum, because it's perhaps the most important issue we are facing.

Tim, keep hiding your head in the sand and refusing to believe real data, real research, and real scientists. FIVE independent institutions determined that there was no impropriety on the part of the IPCC. Every major academic institution in the world disagrees with you. Plimer has a serious conflict of interest and benefits from denying global warming. The WSJ article is OLD, and there are many updates to the story since then. You believe what you want, while the rest of us try to protect the planet from people like you and Jeffrey Barke.

We need to teach the youth about green technologi­es so we can evolve as a human race here is some contact informatio­n if you would like to make a difference­.

We need to contact every school board and city counsel across the county.
Teach the kids real science and how to invent things we don't have yet so we can over come the long term dangers to the human race.

Lets start here spread the word.

Sherry Kropp, Ed.D.
Assistant Superinten­dent
Educationa­l Services

(562) 799-4700, extension 80415
(562) 972-3514 - cell
(562) 799-4725 - fax
skropp@los­al.org

Administra­tive Assistant II
Educationa­l Services
Sandy Fenoglio
(562) 799-4700, extension 80414
(562) 799-4725 - fax
sfenoglio@­losal.org

Administra­tive Assistant I
Assessment and Special Projects
Jeanine Peterson
(562) 799-4700, extension 80463
(562) 799-4725 - fax
jpeterson@­losal.org

Program and Assessment Specialist
Ondrea Reed
(562) 799-4700, extension 80278
(562) 799-4725 - fax
oreed@losa­l.org

Gregory A. Franklin, Ed.D.
Superinten­dent

Ph: (562) 799-4700 ext. 80401
Fax: (562) 799-4730
Email: gfranklin@­losal.org

I must say that it is heartwarming to see so many educated people (minus a few) participating in this discussion. We cannot let these corporate interests destroy our planet, our country's educational system, and the middle class in America. Please get involved -- vote, volunteer, write letters, and march!

I am embarrassed to be an alumni of this great school. I learned the foundations of science from the best teachers I ever had at Los Alamitos High. For the past ten years, I have put those foundations to work developing sound scientific approaches to help protect us, our children and theirs against the turbulent, catastrophic, and expensive effects of climate change. This is a disgrace and needs to be fixed if we want the students of Los Al High to continue being the best and brightest future leaders of our community and our country.

“I believe my role in the board is to represent the conservative voice of the community and I’m not a big fan of global warming,” said board member Jeffrey Barke, who led the effort. “The teachers wanted [the class], and we want a review of how they are teaching it.”

There is a high probability, based on good current scientific evidence and trend analysis that there will be a mutifoot rise in sea level by 2100 as a result of climate change. This would displace 10 to 30 million peoplle along the southern coast of Banladesh. Overall it is predicted again based on good sound science that there is a high probability that 250 million people could be displaced as "climate refugees" by rising sea levels by the middle of the century, many of these from poor, low-lying countries.

I would hazard a guess that most of these people are also “not big fans of global warming”

People will be displaced here in the US as well. To make matters worse, there are a lot of sites that contain toxic materials along the California coast that will be inundated under the projected sea level rise.

The "conservative voice" are planning to leave this to future generations to deal with.

Katie, good for you!

If this Boob considers himself a Conservative I wonder what he is conserving? Is it the continuation of ecologically foolish industries? is it the conservation of the bio systems that support life? It sounds like this bozo moved from Texas to bring educational inefficiencies to California. To learn science on has to listen to scientists, not the Koch Bros. or Fox News.

Science is not about being "politically balanced". It is not about what people think, be they "conservative" or "socialist" or whatever. Science is about empirical evidence.

Real science is the practice of questioning everything. What is your proof? Where is your data? The last thing "conservatives" would want is for their cherished beliefs to be examined scientifically.

And if teaching children to challenge everything they thought was true is not the way science is being taught in this school district, then they are not being taught real science.

Tim said,
"Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center, suggested to climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University that skeptics' research was unwelcome: We "will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
#####

Tim,

Jones was expressing his frustration about the fact that junior-college c-student-quality papers somehow got published in otherwise respectable journals. Compounding Jones' frustration is the fact that those lousy papers were then used as political weapons against him and his colleagues. Having read a couple of those papers myself, I completely sympathize with Jones.

One particularly bad paper can be found by googling up "Soon Baliunas 2003". Download a copy of that paper and read through its methodology. If you have a lower-division undergraduate-level understanding of basic statistics and Earth science, you should be able to identify at least a couple of "show-stopper" blunders in that paper.

The real scandal isn't the fact that Jones and others were complaining about lousy papers; it's that those lousy papers even got published in the first place.

Last I checked science is not based on consensus. I love the statement in the article: "Although there is a consensus among scientists, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, that global climate change exists, the board of education said the topic is controversial enough to require a change in the district's policy. " There is actually millions of years of scientific evidence that global climate change exists. What is in debate is whether and how much global warming is cause by human activities, specifically CO2 emissions. The "science" on this is derived from highly complex and obtuse formulas that purport to take mathematical account of every conceivable influence on warming and cooling of the earth. It is a projection based on assumptions. The assumptions purport to be scientifically based on data that exists today, and from that there is extrapolation. See? Projections, assumptions and extrapolation. Then add in some very clear political agendas from many sides. This is why there are skeptics. I think it is great that a school actually thinks it is important for kids to delve into these questions. Kudos! And by the way, why do I never see articles like "Liberals want there agendas at least exposedin schools- for shame!!!"?

Maybe it's just me, but I see the main point here not being about whether global warming/climate change exists -- that's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt; the planet is warming and climate and weather is changing -- but rather, to what degree mankind is playing a role in accelerating a process that is already impacting crops, habitat, health, economies and livlihoods.

Is that what they want the teachers to clarify in Los Alamitos? They're not still seriously questioning whether or not this is happening, right? Right?? RIGHT?!?!

I think the board's policy is a reasonable one given the large numbers of pressure groups and vested interests (such as carbon traders, and alternative energy providers) who have explicitly targeted young people as a lever for influencing their parents. Turning children into such 'little climate activists' is deliberate indoctrination, and all school boards should be on the alert for it.

To: J Baigent, who stated, "Last I checked science is not based on consensus."

J, you are absolutely misinformed. There absolutely is such a thing as scientific consensus, particularly with respect to human-caused climate change. Scientific consensus is clearly spelled out in the IPCC reports, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), to name a few, all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling .

The science isn't based on complex formulas, however future changes are predicted based on computer and mathematical models. There is plenty of hard and fast climate science that isn't based on complex formulas. I suggest that you check out the following website to familiarize yourself with the scientific data: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

The so-called liberals want the real science to be taught, not some non-facts based on a conservative political agenda.

What kind of a society do we live in where we are required to teach lies to appease the ignorant?

Outrageous.

Monday's Washington Post has an interesting editoral on the climate change/ global warming debate: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/climate-change-denial-becomes-harder-to-justify/2011/05/13/AF44QQ4G_story.html?wpisrc=nl_cuzheads .

In case anyone is still reading this, I wanted to give some insights. I went to Los Alamitos HS and I had the teacher who is going to teach the new class. He is a wonderful, passionate teacher who makes learning exciting and I feel lucky to have had him. I know for a fact that he believes whole-heartedly in teaching his students about global warming, and always, always, always reminded us that it is our generations duty to do something about it. He will obviously follow the new rules, but I can't imagine the students will walk away having any doubts about the real issues, the real theories, and what they need to do to help fix the problem.

Wow, good luck to the students trying to get a "3" or better on the AP Exam. The class is already very demanding. Adding conservative views to the curiculum, especially when most naysayer "scientific reports" have been retracted (see Wegman retration: http://usat.ly/k7pY1o), is really going to hurt the students. Sad also that many on the school board smoke, but then science has never proven that cigarettes cause lung cancer, heart disease, strokes.

The story continues...

http://losalamitos.patch.com/articles/school-board-reacts-to-global-warming-dust-up

Watch as Dr. Barke digs himself into a deeper hole.

It's not a matter of whether climate change occurs...It's pretty obvious that the planet has warmed and cooled many many many times over hundreds of millions of years (without the presence of humans). The real question is whether mankind has caused global warming. It has been stated many times in previous posts that the overwhelming majority of scientists believe in climate change (global warming). That has never been in doubt, however, it is not true that an overwhelming majority of scientists believe in man-caused Global Warming. Nothing could be further from the truth. I always find it amusing that lay-people and some bought and paid for "scientists" claim that the science is settled. A true scientist does not stop their quest for the truth after plugging manipulated and incomplete data into a computer and calling it settled. Anyone who claims this to be the truth, you can be sure, has succumbed to the lure of the grant, the promise of a big payout on a carbon exchange, their own lack of objectivity or just plain ignorance. If some of you are really as "progressive" as you think then use your brain and don't stop at what has been spoon fed to you. Ask questions about any research. Climate change related or not. Here are a couple questions off the top of my head. What is the statistical error of the climate change models? The model builders don't know. How can they? There are too many unknown variables. What is the Earth's optimum Temperature? What caused pr

Those darn "heretics" and "non-scientists" at NOAA, NASA, NSF, AGU, EPA, AAAS, AGU academies of sciences from all around the world who claim that global climate change caused by human activities!

SWC, of course modelers know their statistical errors. There are some unknown variables, but there are numerous known variables. I'd love to know where you obtain your scientific, peer-reviewed information -- perhaps from BP or the Kock Brothers...

@met,

It is funny that you can't seem to debate "the facts" without hurling insults. How pathetic you are.

Also, did you not learn (in 8th grade) to cite sources, and provide a link, when you reference a statistic.

I'll "believe" my creation myth, you "believe" your big-bang/evolution myth. To date, neither has been proven, or disproven.

Or, have you provided the; goo to man lineage?

Planet Lover,

I am happy to engage in adult conversation with you. No one wants to destroy the planet. Historically, we've had significantly higher rates of CO2 without man's participation. CO2 is measured in parts per million. While I accept that "man" has some negative effect on the planet, it is not as extreme as "social justice" activists are attempting to portray.

Regarding Oil company taxes, from your article.

"The American Petroleum Institute, an industry advocacy group, argues that even with subsidies, oil producers paid or incurred $280 billion in American income taxes from 2006 to 2008, and pay a higher percentage of their earnings in taxes than most other American corporations."

The subsidies that you (the article) cites refers to small to medium sized oil companies, and to specific "capital investments to include; oil field leases and drilling equipment."

Also, Oil Companies pay state and excise taxes, on top of their Federal Income taxes. Now, legitimately, we need to reform the tax code (lower corporate taxes) to keep companies from setting up overseas.

Met,

I'm happy to engage you in juvenile conversation as well.

You referenced your facts, but provided no CITATION. You were asked to cite your statistics, and yet nothing. No worries. Maybe Jon Stewart will offer you some direction to your sources.

Here's some "facts" for you Met00

http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2011/02/25/taking-a-look-at-our-10-k/

"In 2010, our total taxes and duties to the U.S. government and its subdivisions exceeded $9.8 billion, including more than $1.6 billion in income tax expense.

Over the past five years, we’ve incurred a total U.S. tax expense of almost $59 billion. To help put that in perspective, consider the fact that our five-year tax expense exceeded our U.S. operating earnings during that time by $18 billion. That means that for every $1 of earnings in the United States, we paid $1.45 in taxes to federal, state and local governments.

Despite the fact that U.S. oil and gas companies shoulder a significantly higher tax burden than other industries, lawmakers have continued to target our industry for tax hikes."

met00,

Did you read the article. lol

From YOUR citation.

"Mind you, not all global megacorps enjoy such low tax rates. Try to muster some pity for Big Oil. ExxonMobil ( XOM - news - people ) in its 2009 annual report to the SEC, recorded a larger income tax expense than any other U.S. company last year, some $17.6 billion, or 47% of pretax earnings. Exxon's peers Chevron ( CVX - news - people ) and ConocoPhillips ( COP - news - people ) likewise recorded similarly high effective tax rates."

"Larger income tax expense than any other U.S. company." Isn't that what I said.

Thanks for playin. Let me know if you need SCHOOLED on any other topic.

Out.

lol

Effective Tax Rate - Actual income tax paid divided by net taxable income before taxes, expressed as a percentage.

$17.6 Billion.

I'm with met00 on this issue. Oil companies are doing just fine.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/28/business/la-fi-oil-refineries-20110429

Earick, you state that, "Historically, we've had significantly higher rates of CO2 without man's participation. CO2 is measured in parts per million. While I accept that "man" has some negative effect on the planet, it is not as extreme as "social justice" activists are attempting to portray."

You are correct that there is evidence for higher rates of CO2, however conditions were entirely different. An important factor to consider during that time is the sun. During the Ordovician, it would have been several percent dimmer according to established nuclear models of main sequence stars. Surprisingly, this raises the CO2 threshold for glaciation to a staggering 3000 ppmv or so. This also explains (along with the logarithmic forcing effect of CO2) why a runaway greenhouse didn't occur: with a dimmer sun, high CO2 is necessary to stop the Earth freezing over. Conditions are very different today.

There isn't enough space here to go into all of the evidence for human-caused global climate change, but the evidence is very strong. Here's one resource: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/.

Earick, there are also direct links between increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and increases in human mortality, and the absorption of atmospheric CO2 has resulted in changes to the chemical balance of the oceans, causing them to become more acidic. We have already lost 40% of the ocean's phytoplankton, and ocean acidification leads to disruptions to large components of the marine food source, in particular those calcifying species, such as foraminifera, pteropods, coccolithophores, mussels, oysters, shrimps, crabs and lobsters, which rely on calcium to grow.

And remember that there may be little green men on Mars. We should include that too

Who is John Galt?

Patrick, those species are a vital part of our ocean ecosystem, and their loss isn't funny. Marine biodiversity loss is increasingly impairing the ocean's capacity to provide food, maintain water quality, and recover from perturbations. I hope you don't like to eat seafood, which will be a huge loss to food production.

A good article on oil company subsidies:

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/07/03/oil-companies-billions-subsidies-tax-breaks/

Drilling at home isn't the answer! Offshore we've seen major problems with the Deepwater Horizon spill, and on land can destroy habitats and animal migration, not to mention the public health impacts from fossil fuels.

See full article from DailyFinance: http://srph.it/ib6MGl

We need to reduce our energy use and put money into R & D on good alternatives. Currently the green alternatives aren't very green, but they have fewer impacts on public health than fossil fuels do. We cannot continue to use fossil fuels if we want humans and the species that we depend on to survive.

Audit the fed, support HR 459 Paul

Stop using GM corn fuel ethanol in my gas.

Will GM corn affect the beef?

Big oil refiners and Government motors $6billion corporate welfare just supports more cars on the road.

http://radiolibertyarchives.gsradio.net:8080/072711a.mp3

NOTICE:

3 pm (pacific time) Wednesday July 27 2011

Radio Liberty hosted by
Dr. Stan Monteith

(831) 475-6651
Fax: (831) 464 8427

With guest Charlie Peters
Clean Air Performance Professionals
(An award winning coalition of motorists)

Conversation about the use of Corn Fuel Ethanol in Gasoline
Listen Online

http://radiolibertyarchives.gsradio.net:8080/072711a.mp3

The board needs to go back to school. Those board members are idiots. Heck, let's just forget school altogether if we teach superstition and craziness. Who needs to go to school for that? We'll love working for the Chinese in 2040.

No, let's instead "have faith" that science will find the answer to the creation of the universe and of man.

Do you have the answer of the "something from nothing" hypothosis?
Or, the mapping of the "millions" of life forms that exist?

As to working for the chinese, that could only come about if we continue to borrow, to serve the "looter class" of American society.

Los Alamitos School Board reverses it's controversial topics policy, backing off stance on global warming. Science teachers won't have to automatically appear before the board to present a politically balanced curriculum: http://losalamitos.patch.com/articles/school-board-to-tackle-controversial-global-warming-policy

The truth is, we don't know much about Global Warming yet. It's still a relatively new study within science, and to be honest it's not a very exact science. Let's just stick to real proven stuff like maths and chemistry. Global warming discussions belong in academic circles where the debate is still going on strongly. Why introduce such an unstable and erratic subject in high school classes anyway? Everybody is shouting something different. At www.documentaryz.com for example, a website to watch free documentaries online, there are lots of independent filmmakers who are on the conservative side, and what they're telling me seems logical enough, even though they lack all credentials real scientists have. I don't know who or what to trust anymore.

Relatively new science? Do you really believe that the foundational work performed by Joseph Fourier, John Tyndall and Svante Arrhenius is "relatively new"?

And when you say, "we don't know much about global warming yet", let me correct that. You really should say, "*I* don't know much about global warming yet".