New nationwide science-education standards are coming soon, and they'll include a lesson plan that should help the next generation of youngsters understand the world they will grow up in. These new standards will recommend that American students learn about climate change.
Some states already have climate change education plans, and national science literacy groups also publish lesson plans including climate change and what can be done to address it. But the new national guideline, under the purview of the Next Generation Science Standards, sets a course for schools across the country. It's the first major change to national science literacy policy in 15 years.
It may be just in time: Only 1 in 5 students says they understand climate change from what they've learned in school, according to an interview on NPR with Mark McCaffrey of the National Center for Science Education. Sometimes this is a result of students--or their school's curriculum--skipping Earth science in favor of biology, chemistry and physics. And sometimes this is the result of confusing lessons that try to teach both sides of the controversy. The problem is that there are not two sides. The scientific evidence is crystal clear. Climate change is real, it's happening now, and since kids in school today will eventually be adults who have to deal with it, they ought to learn about it.
The new standards are voluntary, but because they've been drafted by 26 states, educators hope that most states will adopt them. Tennessee and Louisiana are the only states to pass laws protecting teachers who question human-caused climate change, although climate deniers have lobbied lawmakers in many other states.
According to the National Research Council, which helped draft the new guidelines, the decision was always going one way. "There was never a debate about whether climate change would be in there," the NRC's Heidi Schweingruber told NPR. "It is a fundamental part of science, and so that's what our work is based on, the scientific consensus."
Yes, taking care of the environment and managing pollution is a great learning lesson, too!
Climate change wasn't kids planting trees and protecting the planet, it's a 27 year old CO2 death threat to them and billions of other helpless children all over the world. We have to threaten our kids just to make sure they stay environmentally aware? Even Bush would call that fear mongering.
If you love the planet then stop loving it with fear.
Former Climate Blame Believers Are Better Planet Lovers
Climate change is becoming the new evolution theory - but worse. Sure, we don't have any bloody proof for it and there is a lot of controversy inside and outside of the scientific community but we are going to ram it down your throat when you are too young to know better.
"The problem is that there are not two sides. The scientific evidence is crystal clear. Climate change is real, it’s happening now, and since kids in school today will eventually be adults who have to deal with it..."
No. Its not. There is no scientific evidence, only computer models using selective data and predictions made off of those models that have never come true. You have scientific evidence? Then bring it forward and let it be scrutinized like every other half-legitimate theory. Science is about critique, and you wouldn't have any of it. The entire thing is dogmatic, and the personal wishes of a few extremists don't take rank over the rights of American citizens.
We need a more competitive and less subjective education system. One that is controlled by the parents not the politicians <- lobbyists. Education is ABC's and 123's, this talk about Mama Earth is little more than indoctrination.
Next up: The Ether and Phrenology!
"The scientific evidence is crystal clear. Climate change is real, it’s happening now, and since kids in school today will eventually be adults who have to deal with it, they ought to learn about it."
It boggles my mind that somebody with marginal writing skills can actually be paid more that twenty five cents and two Wheaties box tops to recycle this vomit.
I told myself I wouldn't address you morons anymore, but your ignorance shows "crystal clearly" why we need this education in schools. We have faaaaar more evidence than just "computer models using selective data", and yes, it's been presented over and over and over and over again and again and again. It's literally EVERYWHERE for you to see. It's not science's fault you choose to blind yourself to reality. It's hard to get 97% of any group to agree on anything, so when 97% of scientists agree what the EVIDENCE is telling them, you know it's some pretty hard damn evidence. As a scientist, it disgusts me the way the poorly educated think of what we do, as if we're all just sitting around the lab making up crazy stuff to try and...well...I'm not exactly sure why you think there is this grand conspiracy created by 97% of scientists to save the planet, other than you've just been easily manipulated by the blatant lies of the conservative movement. This is what scientists do. This is what go to college to learn how to do. This is what we are paid to do. We theorize, experiment, then evaluate evidence. Sometimes our hypotheses are correct, sometimes they are wrong. If climate wasn't real, then you would have a split in the scientific community and more than half the scientists would have competing and compelling information that disproves anthropogenic climate change. The only opposing views are by non-scientists. There is absolutely no credible evidence to refute climate change. When you idiots think you have a "smoking gun", it's because you don't know the difference in weather and climate. I remember how ridiculous deniers like you were back in the 80s over acid rain, and we put you in your place then as well, and thank goodness we did, or things would be a lot worse now than they are.
I'm sorry that the only evidence of things like evolution and climate change you will accept is if someone can find it in the Bible, but those of us with education know the difference in "fact" and "belief".
Topics related to Climate Change are real and warrant utmost attention from all age groups. Deep understanding and realization of adverse impacts steaming out of now-a-days complicated climate change scenario can lead us to properly address this first order environmental issue and chalk out scientifically sound action plans to mitigate this problem. Bringing it to classroom setting is always a great idea and good citizenship activity. Students need to be scientifically aware of climate change education and properly trained to tackle this problem, which is not going to go away if we just sit and do nothing. There is no better solution other than creating well-informed student body for the future and making sure they use their conscientious and knowledge dealing with this crisis. We are all in it and let us not deprive our kids. I am 100% for an early involvement of K1-9 students pertaining to receiving global climate education and resources based on case studies and proven success.
Absurd. From NPR's website: "By the time today's K-12 students grow up, the challenges posed by climate change are expected to be severe and sweeping."
There is no indication whatsoever that the effects of global warming will be severe. The only place such an alarming prediction is found is in computer models that have repeatedly, consistently, and dramatically overestimated the amount of warming and its effects as measured against the real world.
Contrary to Rebecca Boyle's myopic opinion, there ARE two sides to the "climate change" debate and as surveys have shown, more people now think the claims of climate alarmists are overblown than just a few years ago. Why? Because more studies are being done, more criticisms of flawed studies are being published, and more data is being made available for public consumption on the Internet.
If you want to have a laugh, go over to climateaudit.org and wattsupwiththat.com and see the rapid and absolute debunking of the recently published Marcott graph that made news a few weeks ago, purporting to show that warming is indeed accelerating as Michael Mann's infamous "hockey stick" graph attempted to show years ago (which was also debunked).
Rebecca says, "The scientific evidence is crystal clear. Climate change is real, it’s happening now..."
Yes and no. Technically correct only because of the use of the slippery term "climate change," but that's not what she meant. Climate change has always been happening. It has never stopped. Have a look at the EPICA and Vostok ice cores to get an idea of climate history over the last 400,000 years:
What Rebecca and climate alarmists mean when they say "climate change is real" is that global warming is happening, it's accelerating, and it's caused by humans, all of which are demonstrably false.
In fact, the scientific evidences is anything but crystal clear on all 3 of those claims. Warming has stopped for the last 16 years. All the studies and graphs indicating accelerated warming have been thoroughly repudiated for their misuse of proxy temperature data and measured temperature data. The main theorized connection between human activity and warming is CO2 production, but as we've seen, CO2 saturation continues to increase but there is no associated warming; and ice core studies show that CO2 saturation increases AFTER the planet begins to warm (by several hundred years). In other words, warming causes CO2 increase, not the other way around.
So, no, we should definitely not have global warming alarmists teaching our children their hysterical version of climate science which has nothing to do with actual science. We should, however, teach them about the real state of climate science today, free of alarmist's fantastical interpretations.
syfyguy, if you take the time to examine the studies, data, and methods, you will be surprised to discover how slender a reed props up the claims of global warming alarmists.
As for the claim that 97% of scientists say global warming is real? Based on a flawed, selection-biased survey which is shredded here:
All of the evidence that claims to show global warming is real, is accelerating, and is caused by humans is based on exactly 2 things:
1. Statistical studies of proxy temperature data (Mann et al. 1999 and Marcott et al. 2012)
2. Computer models
That's it. All the rest of the evidence--ice sheet and glacier volumes, measured air and ocean temperatures, shows only natural climate variability.
The computer models have consistently overestimated warming as compared to real world temperature data. The Mann and Marcott studies have been debunked. Here are some samples:
in order to thank everyone, characteristic, novel style, varieties, low price and good quality, and the low sale price. Thank everyone
It looks like group-think in the climatologist community. This and the fact that it is easier to get a grant (the financial life-blood of the scientific community) for problems than for findings showing no problems bolsters the potential for bias. I am not questioning these scientists' ethics - only stating that there are moral hazards that do not seem to be addressed and mitigated. Also, if you want to reach a population, insulting their core beliefs is never a successful method; perhaps, try learning about their core beliefs and encoding your message in a way consistent with their beliefs you'll have better luck and less frustration.
I think that scientific thought needs to be taught in the class room - before scientific facts. Our kids need to be critical thinkers, and the notion of "facts" at a formative age is contrary to this goal. Remember, it was once a "fact" that the heavens circled the earth!
why dont they just teach both sides? Then the kids chose for themselves.
It says "according to an interview on NPR with Mark McCaffrey of the National Center for Science Education. Sometimes this is a result of students--or their school’s curriculum--skipping Earth science in favor of biology, chemistry and physics."
I think this is true.I have never seen a child like geology and Earth science.I think Earth science is boring as shit.
"Climate Change" is not science, it is political agenda. Schools should teach fundamental math, basic science and scientific process, and critical thinking. Then leave it up the students themselves to determine whether they accept the concept of AGW.
It doesn't matter what the issue is, if you say you are a scientist you should look at both arguments regardless of what it is. No argument is plain black and white. In the case of Climate Change everyone has suddenly jumped to one side without ever looking at the possibility that it might not be what exactly what people are telling us.
I am a scientist and I do not dismiss arguments because they disagree with my findings, nor do I write in a fashion, as PopSci does that is clearly biased and based on a political agenda.
I for one have looked at both sides in some serious depth and have yet to decide which side has more evidence to support the validity of their claims. I am now starting to side with the idea that Climate Change has been blown out of proportion and is now made up of sensationalists and fear mongers on a political tirade. This is mostly because of articles like this!
I want to hear the science of the matter! Not the Politics or the uneducated hippie drivel about trying to save the Earth by not taking showers or how amazing, safe and environmentally friendly 'Green Technologies' are. Stick to the science!
First of all american students should travel the world on some educational exchange programs to extend their views!
Syfyguy claims to be a scientist. roflmfao!!!
Today's magic is tomorrow's technology.
Thank You Mike,
for exemplifying scientific etiquette. I too have read many arguments for and against climate change and am yet to be convinced that it's man made. The strongest argument against it, in my opinion, is the fact that it's happened before, many times, without the help of man. And while man could be helping out this time, articles like this one - http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/08/the-effectiveness-of-co2-as-a-greenhouse-gas-becomes-ever-more-marginal-with-greater-concentration/ - make me skeptical on the efficacy of co2 specifically.
Today's magic is tomorrow's technology.