Students at every grade need to learn climate science, expert says

Posted: November 30, 2018 by oldbrew in alarmism, climate, Education, propaganda
Tags:


Brainwash them early and they’re brainwashed for life – is that it? It might be better to find out why climate models are so poor at predicting the present, before pumping youngsters full of shaky alarmist ideas. An obvious suspect would be their built-in assumptions about how the global climate system works, which are widely contested.

The National Climate Assessment, released the day after Thanksgiving, offers motivation and opportunity to bring climate topics into the classroom at every grade level, says Phys.org.

Even the youngest students are ready to learn about climate science, according to Michael Wysession, professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences in Arts & Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis and executive director of the Teaching Center.

Wysession, who has co-authored more than 30 textbooks, helped write a position statement on teaching climate science adopted by the board of directors of the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) in September 2018. The NSTA has a membership of more than 50,000 teachers and other educators at the K-12 grade levels.

It is extremely important to teach children about the science of climate and climate change, and the roles humans play in affecting them, the NSTA statement said.

Science education at the K-12 grade levels is undergoing a revolution, according to Wysession, with most states shifting to a new way of teaching based upon the National Academy of Sciences’ Framework for K–12 Science Education and the ensuing Next Generation Science Standards.

The framework identifies a small number of “Big Ideas” for the science standards to focus on, and one of these is global climate change.

“The Next Generation Science Standards emphasize children devising solutions to the challenges of global warming,” Wysession said. “But it will take study and understanding, and we need to do everything we can now to make sure that our students have the tools, interest and motivation they need to meet these challenges.”

Continued here.

Comments
  1. oldbrew says:

    It’s another way of spreading IPCC propaganda, as the statement confirms.

    NSTA Position Statement
    The Teaching of Climate Science

    The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) acknowledges that decades of research and overwhelming scientific consensus indicate with increasing certainty that Earth’s climate is changing, largely due to human-induced increases in the concentrations of heat-absorbing gases (IPCC 2014; Melillo, Richmond, and Yohe 2014). The scientific consensus on the occurrence, causes, and consequences of climate change is both broad and deep (Melillo, Richmond, and Yohe 2014).

    https://www.nsta.org/about/positions/climatescience.aspx
    – – –
    That’s just the start of it. And what is ‘increasing certainty’? If you’re certain, there’s nothing to increase, so that can only mean they’re not certain.

  2. ivan says:

    Typical of soft science thinking, or rather feeling. Not for them are hard verifiable facts, those are much too hard and require brain power, but rather they rely on how they ‘feel’ about the groupthink, consensus.

    Roll on global cooling – it might cause them to actually start thinking but I doubt it.

  3. Saighdear says:

    Snowflake generation got something to do with all this , perhaps ? Remember ” Vorsprung durch Technik” ….. an experiment in marketing psychology – it’s good to talk, innit?

  4. Curious George says:

    It is a great idea. Forget mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology. Teach just “climate science”, unopposed by any of these unworthy disciplines.

    Make no mistake, that’s where we are heading. Science is consensus of “experts”.

  5. oldbrew says:

    Note the first highlight below…

    Model falsifiability and climate slow modes
    Author links – -Christopher Essex, Anastasios A.Tsonisbc

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2018.02.090
    Highlights

    Climate models do not and cannot employ known physics fully. Thus, they are falsified, a priori.


    Incomplete physics and the finite representation of computers can induce false instabilities.


    Eliminating instability can lead to computational overstabilization or false stability.


    Models on ultra-long timescales are dubiously stable. This is referred to as the “climate state.” Is it real?


    Decadal variability is understandable in terms of a specific class of nonlinear dynamical systems.

    Abstract

    The most advanced climate models are actually modified meteorological models attempting to capture climate in meteorological terms. This seems a straightforward matter of raw computing power applied to large enough sources of current data. Some believe that models have succeeded in capturing climate in this manner. But have they? This paper outlines difficulties with this picture that derive from the finite representation of our computers, and the fundamental unavailability of future data instead. It suggests that alternative windows onto the multi-decadal timescales are necessary in order to overcome the issues raised for practical problems of prediction.

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378437118301766

  6. oldbrew says:

    Quiz for students: which one of these two is subject to convection?

  7. I have said this before there is no climate science. Thermodynamics, heat and mass transfer, and fluid dynamics (wind circulation, storms, cyclones, ocean current etc) are engineering subjects. If one is talking about global warming from radiation from the sun being absorbed mainly by the oceans (70% of the earths surface) and radiation lost from the earth’s surface to space that is engineering heat transfer (which includes evaporation and condensation of water) which scientists do not understand.. If the the sole claim to global warming is the collection of measurements of CO2 content of the atmosphere and temperature readings at various ground level sites (or measurements of proxy data from satellites) and then applying (or not) statistics for correlation, that too is engineering (see chapters in engineering handbooks on instrumentation & control (eg Chapter 8 in the Chemical Engineering handbook CEH) and on statistics (chapter 3 CEH). Most scientists do not understand statistic or how to handle errors. Most scientist know nothing of electronic and the circuits to average over time and take out background noise. Very few scientists even do not understand the various methods of measuring CO2 and temperature apart from knowing the accuracy and the measuring bias.
    The closest to understanding are geologists who study physical and proxy data of past climates. eg debris from glacier, location of swamps which formed coal deposits, deposits and wear at ocean shores, sediments on in lakes and ocean shares etc. But the AGW people do not want to listen to geologists who know the climate has changed in the past and present times are nothing new.

  8. dai davies says:

    Next Generation Science Standards
    released April 12, 2013, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis
    https://phys.org/news/2013-04-science-standards.html#nRlv

    “The move away from learning long lists of facts and toward assessing students on what they can do and not what they know is incredibly important in training the workforce for tomorrow and in giving all Americans a greater appreciation of science,” Wysession said. “The greater emphasis on societally relevant topics, in particular the high emphasis on earth science and climate, is a very important step forward in making science exciting and relevant to people’s lives.”
    “It’s a whole new vision of what it means to be scientifically literate,” said Victoria L. May, assistant dean of Arts & Sciences and executive director of the ISP. “We’re moving from standards that were very fact-based—telling students ‘here’s all the information you need to know’—to a much more conceptual approach because of the information age.”

    So we give up teaching science and just proagandise for more funding. That doesn’t bode well, but the changes aren’t new just a logical extension of less recent ones.

    In the course of my climate research over the past few years I’ve occasionally linked to physics undergraduate course notes, though never helpfully. What I’ve noticed is that they all teach cookbook physics. Paraphrasing: “If you have this problem then these are the equations to use.” I was taught, and I taught, physics from first principles. We were expected to understand, not just apply what might be an appropriate formula.

  9. oldbrew says:

    We’re moving from standards that were very fact-based

    Replacing facts with assertions aka propaganda?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s