It was billed as an innocuous, routine item on the Los Alamitos school board's May 10 agenda. “That’s not a story,” outgoing Superintendent Gregory Franklin assured a reporter when asked about the proposed revisions to Board Policy 213.
But after the item passed, and Patch broke the news that , a firestorm erupted. Los Alamitos became a focal point in the national debate over how to teach global climate change.
Science blogs and Patch's sister publication HuffingtonPost.com linked to the story, and school board members were soon besieged by hundreds of scathing emails and snarky blog comments from around the U.S.
By injecting politics into science lessons, Los Alamitos threatens to "out-dumb" Texas as "the laughing-stock of education," wrote Bill Allen, a former editor-in-chief for National Geographic.
Others asked: Why not teach "both sides" of the moon landing or Holocaust, since some folks doubt those were real too.
In response, district officials suggested critics were "politicizing" and misinterpreting Los Alamitos Unified's policy on teaching "controversial issues."
"We are not trying to micromanage teachers," board member Diana Hill said Saturday morning.
Board President Karen Russell, a former science teacher, said she "absolutely believes in global warming," but nevertheless thinks it's important to challenge students and teach them “another side” of the issue.
Under longstanding school district policy, a "controversial issue" is defined as any topic "on which opposing points of view have been promulgated by responsible opinion" and which is "likely to arouse both support and opposition in the community."
Last week, the school board revised the policy to require that teachers include "a balance of viewpoints" on all controversial issues and come before the board once a year to prove their lesson plans are unbiased (see the PDF accompanying this story). At the time, no parents or teachers commented on the policy change, but one parent told Patch of plans to speak out against the revision at the next meeting, on May 23.
The catalyst for the policy change was a new Los Alamitos High School Advanced Placement science class that covers global warming.
Board member Jeffrey Barke, a doctor, led the charge, saying he thought climate change was a crock and didn't want "liberal" teachers indoctrinating young minds.
His remarks made him a lightning rod for this week's backlash.
“I should’ve chosen my words better," Barke said Saturday, "but I don’t think I deserve having people question my medical license and sending me derogatory comments or personal attacks."
Barke described some of the criticism as “silly” and “offensive,” including suggestions that skepticism toward climate change is akin to denying the moon landing or the Holocaust.
“There are flaws in the data that concern global warming and I respectfully disagree that more than 90 percent of scientists believe global warming exists,” he said. “There are hundreds of reputable scientists such as Bjorn Lomborg and Ian Plimer who deny the causes and concerns of global warming.”
Actually, Lomborg thinks global warming "is real and man-made" and "will have a serious impact on humans and the environment toward the end of this century." Lomborg simply argues it would be more beneficial to focus on wiping out malaria and contaminated water supplies. But he isn't a scientist; he teaches at a business school in Denmark.
Plimer is an Australian geology professor and author whose climate change critique has been lambasted by other scientists.
It's unclear how Los Alamitos Unified's new policy will play out. If the board doesn't like the lesson plan presented by science faculty, will it dictate class content?
“Right now, we just want to see a presentation,” Russell said.
Barke said he would require teachers to present different views on whether global warming exists, whether it is caused primarily by human activity and whether its effects would be disastrous.
Incoming Superintendent Sherry Kropp sought to downplay any prospect of trouble for the new class curriculum. "The course itself is not controversial, just the global warming topic," she said Saturday.
In a written statement emailed to Patch later, she added, "We want our students to develop into complex, critical thinkers who are able to discern fact, opinion, science, etc. The board’s interest is that courses present a balanced curriculum that represents multiple perspectives of controversial issues. ... The course outline and topics for study are dictated by the College Board."
Kropp, who has been with Los Alamitos Unified since the mid-1980s and has spent the past six years as assistant superintendent, said she could recall no other instance of a class being deemed controversial under district policy.
Barke agreed that "99 percent of subjects are not controversial in the classroom--there is nothing controversial about teaching math, reading or writing," but he acknowledged the revised policy opens the door to scrutiny of other course content.
“Sex education can be a topic that we may want to have a presentation on,” he said. “But we haven’t discussed this yet. ... With the passing of this policy, we set a precedent to allow upcoming boards to also review courses as they deem necessary."
Barke said he was stunned by the number and tone of the emails he's received about his desire to have global warming lessons include a "conservative" view.
“This policy affects a minimum number of Los Alamitos students and people have become so emotional,” he said. He added that it wasn't his intent to have politics play a part in his role as board member. “I would have the same concerns if we were talking about a conservative teacher teaching purely conservative views," he said.
1) The Protocols of the Elders of Zion [AP world history] 2) The usurping of the United States Presidency by the SCOTUS in 2000 [AP US History] 3) Creationism [AP Bio] Now while I believe that two out of three of these are absolute bullcrap (1, 3) these three are all controversial and would "teach the students to think". And two out of three have absolutely no evidence to support them, just like the global climate change deniers have no evidence to support them. As for the JFK reference, it should be taught in AP Physics. There the Warren Report can be reviewed so that students can see how the Senate determined that a bullet in travel along a straight line can suddenly take a hard left, ignoring all the laws in the physical universe.
"Fig. 16 shows sea level change in the period of global satellite observations (Nerem et al., 2006). Sea level increased at an average rate 3.0 ± 0.4 mm/year during 1993-2010. In the six year period of the most accurate Argo data, 2005-2010, sea level increased 2.3 ± 0.5 mm/year. The slower recent rate of sea level rise may be due in part to the strong La Nina in 2010." - James Hansen May 2011 Hansen calls 2010 a La Nina year but the reality is that only the last half of 2010 was La Nina and it's silly to think that the multi-year trend for ARGO from 2005-2010, was only effected by 6 months worth of La Nina in 2010 and then totally overlook the full year effect of the 2009-2010 El Nino which was the strongest since 1998. So good luck finding sea level rise acceleration supporting the AGU's summary when even James Hansen can't.
Did you walk and swim to all these forests and reefs around the world (in order to protect the planet). Do you have wings or did you use fossil fueled transportation? Some planet lover you turned out to be. You have about as much credibility as a drunk preaching to me about the hazards of drinking. lol
Let's not be exclusive on that, I mean, I want them to think of the relative importance of the effects of global warming and mating habits of the tropical iguana. So, it is kinda important that we do teach them *what* to think about, as well. @Ned "Don't fill their heads with a bunch of scientific "facts" that will be inaccurate before they get out of college." OK, explain how you divine that a "bunch of scientific *facts*" will be inaccurate? Also explain, how is it that you think science works if you are to simply wait for *facts* to become accurate in the first place? Global warming has been studied for at least a couple of decades, and peer-reviewed science literature overwhelmingly shows observations trending the same way. How long do you suggest we wait until we expose this matter?
As far as "preaching" goes, you need to learn the difference between a debate and delivering a sermon. Once again, you choose to hurl accusations and resort to name-calling in order to disguise real science.
I have seen multiple references to "97% of scientists" agreeing that man-made global warming is a problem. While man-made global warming may very well be a problem, this statistic is both mis-leading and erroneous (as far as I can tell in the mere 5 min. it took me to find that data point). It appears that a 2006 University of Illinois survey of 3100 scientists across various disciplines included a question of whether man has had an impact on the observed increase in global temperatures over last century. One of the subsets, climatologists, answered affirmative to that question, 97% of them. Now that subset has grown to "all scientists" on these comment pages. I deal in a statistics based business (not science) where numbers and studies are constantly manipulated for headlines and wow factor. It is this type of hyperbole that should be minimized in education, which is why both sides of a developing topic need to be studied. Remember, roughly 90% of all people make up 75% of all statistics in 65% of all arguments.
But, notwithstanding the debate on the facts, the details of the studies are published, so you can see how those numbers were achieved. Remember that in any self selected group that participates in a voluntary polling what you generally see in the respondents are those that have deeper feelings on either side of the issue (not a statistic, just a fact). So, when you have a group of 10,000 and you voluntarily poll and get 1000 to participate, these will generally, through the process of self-selection, be those closest to the extremes of the center point. It is why there is a statistical probability curve (+/- a standard deviation) that allows a confidence level index to be associated to the outcome as to the established accuracy of the data. So, is the 97% one that can be stated with 100% confidence? No. But, after looking at how the data was gathered, one can say that there is a high confidence level that over 90% is VERY accurate, and over 95% is most likely accurate, and the 97 is somewhat accurate.
So, sticks and stones, Sundance....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html Calling others deniers is truly ignorant especially since it was the German Green Party that helped alienate the Jews in Germany in much the same manner you are chosing to alianate those that disagree with you. The German Green party blamed the Jews for embracing industrialization and being against nature. There are several books available on the issue but here is an article to get you started on recognizing your fascist roots. ROTFLMAO http://www.aim.org/aim-report/hitlers-green-killing-machine/ And finally here is George Carlin showing the true nature of those who want to save the planet. LOL http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c
The fact is that I am not even trying to address policy; how to address climate change is for others to decide. I am merely supporting the prevailing and overwhelming science. I am not going to participate in a name-calling fest with you any longer. It is not worth my time and energy. You are the one who is ignorant.
Acidification will lead to release of carbonate which leads to a return to alkalinity, and increase CO2 absorption. How did ocean life manage 4000 ppm of CO2? "Leaving aside direct biological effects, it is expected that ocean acidification in the future will lead to a significant decrease in the burial of carbonate sediments for several centuries, and even the dissolution of existing carbonate sediments.[52] This will cause an elevation of ocean alkalinity, leading to the enhancement of the ocean as a reservoir for CO2 with moderate (and potentially beneficial) implications for climate change as more CO2 leaves the atmosphere for the ocean.[53]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification The NASA/GISS modeled radiative forcing in the oceans of .6wM2 is wrong. Based on the the physics of the Earth's radiation budget and the problem of model divergence a recalculation needs to be done and ARGO measurements of the radiative forcing in the oceans (considered the most accurate) gives us a value closer to .23wM2 including the accounting for the deep ocean heat. Sea level rise is decelerating so stop the lies. There are now multiple sourced data sets to confirm deceleration so start telling the scientific truth. I hope for our children's sake that you're not a teacher.
Have a few scientific facts: http://www.ucar.edu/communications/Final_acidification.pdf http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=phytoplankton-population But then, you don't buy scientific facts, do you? When our ecosystem services completely fall apart, you will be one of the people to blame.
http://www.aaas.org/spp/cstc/docs/11-6-01_los_alamitos_usd_climate_science.pdf http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2011/0606alamitos_letter.shtml?sa_campaign=Internal_Ads/AAAS/RSS_News/2011-06-06/
97% of scientists do NOT believe that global warming is occurring. The fact is that 97% of Climatologists (and only climatologists) answered affirmative to a single question in a survey agreeing that "man had an impact on global temperatures." Eliminating the other genres of scientists (geologists, astrophysicists, etc), many of whom disagreed, is a typical tool of both sides of this argument: selective use of data. Making a comment that the other scientists have a "financial connection" is misleading. The funding for the study of global warming has escalated by 9400% since 1990-with the majority of that going to climatologists who are studying the hypothesis that man is having an impact on global temperatures. Which way do you think that research will be biased? Given your comment that scientists only make their conclusions based upon funding, that answer seems obvious. Again, let's try and rise above the politics and try and focus on the facts. Everyone here has an opinion, which is great, but let's try and keep our discussion to the topic at hand-should we be teaching both sides of controversial subjects to our children or not? I say we should.
The Koshland Museum link uses NASA and Hadley data, but conveniently cuts off at year 2000; even so, some of the recent decline since 1996 can be seen: http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/historical06.jsp I note they also use the poster-child of catastrophic warming in their online exhibition, Micheal Mann's discredited hockey-stick: http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/historical03.jsp http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf Last year, we could say there had been no significant warming for fifteen years 1995-2009. That is according to University of East Anglia Hadley Centre's Phil Jones. Since late 2010 he changed that to significant - a claim that the climate science moderates, the so-called "lukewarmers", question: http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/statistical-significance-since-1995-not-with-hadcrut/ Regardless, in mid-2011, it looks like any significance won't hold. The "lack of warming" (to quote Kevin Trenberth) failed to realize the IPCC's climate model predictions. Shouldn't we be celebrating?
argued for a separation of science and State, and for parents "being able to determine the ideological context of their children's education, instead of having limited options because of scientific standards". In a nutshell, his two points are that all science (and this would include catastrophic anthropogenic global warming theory) is inherently ideological and contestible, and that parents deserve more say. And that is the beauty of the U.S. system of local school boards which other Western countries such as the UK and Australia lack, and also the context in which I read Doctor Barke's approach.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm You are quite correct about the 2000s being the warmest decade, and Jones may be right about a lack of warming from 1995 to 2009 if not later. They are mutually compatible statements as described here by Dr. Don Easterbrook: http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4646 Along with a few really hot summers, some cold spells were also recorded in the US over the past decade: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_wave#Modern_cold_waves_.282001-date.29 But according to alarmist doctrine, any weather phenomenon, hot, cold, calm or stormy can be construed as "climate change" or "extreme weather" and thus bolster the waning scare.
Also update them on the CERN experiment which demonstrates a direct relationship between galactic cosmic rays and and nucleation needed for cloud formation. If continuing research at CERN shows that nucleation of droplets at 100nm can be formed bt GCRs then clouds would have to be changed from a feedback to a forcing in the arth's energy budget. Further strength of GCRs influence on Earth's radiation budget is occurring in Europe as evidence of dineural temperature variation associated with GCRs has just been published. While such evidence existed for measurement over oceans this is the first evidence of occurrence over any continent. You can teach children that CO2 is a forcing for Earth's energy budget, and you can teach them that in a lab under controlled environment, a doubling of CO2 leads to about 1 degC of warming, but you still can't tell them how much warming will occur from a doubling of CO2 in the open system of Earth's atmosphere because we are still uncertain about feedback from clouds and aerosols. Alot has already changed since last May when this article was written.
Muller didn’t reject climate science per se, but he was a skeptic, and a convenient one for big polluters and conservative anti-environmentalists — until Muller put their money where his mouth was, and launched the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, in part with a grant from the Charles G. Koch foundation." http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/climate-change-deniers-abandon-befuddled-warmist-physicist-who-came-around-on-global-warming.php?ref=fpa Another one bites the dust.
In the context of what schools should teach, it should be to teach children to examine the evidence for themselves without a political filter. Recently a private school in Atlanta approached the climate topic by introducing differing views of climate science to its students and then promoting open discussion followed by individual review. These children learned how to listen to arguments, apply critical thinking to assess those arguments and then draw their own conclusions. Of more interest than Muller is taht the solar industry has announced shocking news this week that they will soon offer an option for clean energy at a competitive price, without the need for cap and trade, carbon taxes, government subsidies, feed-in tarriffs,etc. It is a capitalistic solution which allows people to install solar collectors with a 3 to 5 year payback on their investment. This would mean that homeowners would then be paying themselves to generate power, instead of some utility company, for 20 years after they recoup investment costs. Even deniers will want solar on their roofs if it means they would pay $1,000.00/year less in utility bills. :-)