The National Science Education Standards clearly communicate that by the end of 8th grade, U.S. students are expected to have an understanding of the structure of the earth, lithospheric plates, and the theory of continental drift (plate tectonics).
As a result of activities in grades 5-8, all students should develop understanding of:
Structure of the Earth System
The solid earth is layered with a lithosphere; hot, convecting mantle; and dense, metallic core.
Lithospheric plates on the scales of continents and oceans constantly move at rates of centimeters per year in response to movements in the mantle. Major geological events, such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and mountain building, result from these plate motions.
Earth’s History
The earth processes we see today, including erosion, movement of lithospheric plates, and changes in atmospheric composition, are similar to those that occurred in the past. Earth history is also influenced by occasional catastrophes, such as the impact of an asteroid or comet.
As a science educator, I take these things seriously, so, imagine my shock when I saw a video of Rep Joe Barton (R-TX) and Dr. Steven Chu (physicist, Nobel Laureate, former director of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and current U.S. Secretary of Energy). Rep Barton’s office posted this video of Joe “stumping” Dr. Chu on a simple question (04/22/09).
Holy cow fart! The Secretary of Energy got stumped on a question about where the oil in Alaska comes from! What a moron! Oh, wait, perhaps the Nobel Laureate, a person who normally works with really smart people™ was surprised that a United States Congressman asked him a question basic to that Congressman’s oversight and creation of energy policy. Perhaps the former director of the Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory and expert on alternative energy, thought he was testifying at a Congressional energy committee hearing, not an 8th grade science classroom?
Rep Barton, your ignorance is appalling. Watching you revel in your ignorance disgusts me. Watching your smug #!@ make a fool of yourself - priceless. Our country deserves better leaders.
Yes, Rep Barton, it just drifted there. You might want to watch these two videos before your next committee hearing (Thanks Slick for sending these to me).
Science is a human endeavor to understand the world. What sets science apart from other ways of understanding is the critical assumption that the world can be understood by using natural evidence. Scientists can not use the supernatural, magic, or gremlins in their explanations. Without this assumption, advances in technology, medicine, and other sciences would be severely hampered.
Scientists have determined that the average temperature of the Earth has increased over the past 100 years. The rate of this increase is not consistent with normal Earth cycles. If science allowed supernatural explanations, we could simply state that Mr. Heat Miser was finally beating his brother, Mr. Snow Miser.
Thankfully, most people are not satisfied with that explanation. Over the past couple of decades, scientists have determined that human (we are part of the natural world) production of carbon dioxide (primarily through the increased use of fossil fuels as a result of industrialization) has increased the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which has increased the greenhouse effect.
Religion is another way of understanding the world. The core of religion is faith – the belief in a supernatural being (God) without evidence. Because of these different assumption, science and religion can come into conflict – primarily, when science conflicts with a specific religious belief (evolution vs. creation).
I assumed that there would not be too much conflict between religion and science when it came to climate change. Heck, Christians believe that humans are stewards of God’s creation. I guess I was wrong.
Rep Shimkus (R-IL) [of plant food fame] concludes that we shouldn’t worry about climate change because the Bible states, “The earth will end only when God declares its time to be over.” Shimkus says that we shouldn’t worry about the negative human impact on the Earth because the bible states, “Man will not destroy this earth.” And those Climate Change Alarmists’ cries that global warming will result in a rising sea-level? Don’t worry, God states, “This earth will not be destroyed by a flood.” So hey, pollute away –
But, but, but…the Bible doesn’t mention dinosaurs. Oh, and floods won’t destroy the Earth…but rising sea levels could pose some big problems for humans.
This reminds me of a story a priest told in a homily I heard many years ago.
A man was at his house during a flood. As the waters reached his doorstep, a policeman drove up and offered to help him evacuate. The man said, “No, I have faith and God will save me.” The policeman left for the next house.
A few hours later, the depth of the water had risen to the top of the first floor. The man had moved to his bedroom on the second floor. A rescue boat came by and offered to evacuate him. The man said, “No, I have faith and God will save me.” The boaters moved on to find others.
Another couple of hours past and the water had risen to the roofline. The man was desparately clinging to his chimney. A helicopter came by and the rescuers offeret to take him to safety. The man said, “No, I have faith and God will save me.” The rescuers shook their heads and moved on.
The water continued to rise. Eventually, the man drowned. He arrived at the gates of Heaven, where he met St. Peter. The man said, “St. Peter, I am a faithful man, why did God not save me?”
St. Peter replied, “Umm…we sent a car, a boat, and a helicopter.”
A couple of years ago, many of the “big energy” folks admitted that anthropogenic climate change is a real issue.
While the political debate over global warming continues, top executives at many of the nation’s largest energy companies have accepted the scientific consensus about climate change and see federal regulation to cut greenhouse gas emissions as inevitable.
The Democratic takeover of Congress makes it more likely that the federal government will attempt to regulate emissions. The companies have been hiring new lobbyists who they hope can help fashion a national approach that would avert a patchwork of state plans now in the works. They are also working to change some company practices in anticipation of the regulation.
“We have to deal with greenhouse gases,” John Hofmeister, president of Shell Oil Co., said in a recent speech at the National Press Club. “From Shell’s point of view, the debate is over. When 98 percent of scientists agree, who is Shell to say, ‘Let’s debate the science’?” (Washington Post 11/24/2006)
The train has left the station. Global warming is for real and it is only a matter of time before a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress takes action. Legislation has been introduced, public opinion is favorable, and the science is clear. Even Exxon Mobil knew the train was leaving the station and decided to get on board.
“I think that their (Exxon Mobil) position on the science of global warming has definitely changed,” said Dan Lashof, deputy director of climate at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “They found that it was untenable to be in a position of casting doubt on whether global warming is happening and whether pollution is responsible for that.”
–snip–
Cohen (VP Public Affairs, Exxon Mobil) said that with Congress’s sights set on greenhouse gases, the oil giant wants “to be part of those discussions.” (Washington Post, 02/10/2007)
Last week, The U.S. House of Representatives’ Energy and Commerce Subcommittee held a hearing on “The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009” – a Carbon cap and trade scheme proposed by Democrats.
Indeed, “When 98 percent of scientists agree, who is Shell to say, ‘Let’s debate the science’?”
Our government works best when we have an honest and vigorous debate on issues and solutions. Lately, Democrats have labeled Republicans as the “Party of No Ideas.” So, one would think that the Republicans would heed Hofmeister’s call to not argue the science and instead provide a credible alternative to their hated cap and trade scheme. Umm…nope.
They don’t even have any new arguments against the science. Instead, they rehashed this bizarre argument / commercial from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (A “think tank” funded with more than $2 million from Exxon Mobil between 1998 and 2005 - before Exxon Mobil got on the train.). [NOTE: For more about how these "think tanks" create doubt about the science of climate change read this.]
Yes, this is a real commercial, aired in 2006. It is not satire. It was not produced by The Onion. CEI tells you not to worry about climate change because Carbon Dioxide gives life.
The “New” 2009 Republican Climate Change meme – Carbon Dioxide is natural and necessary, so it can’t be bad. Seriously.
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) April 19, 2009:
Boehner: The idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical. Every time we exhale, we exhale carbon dioxide. Every cow in the world, you know when they do what they do you’ve got more carbon dioxide.
Rep Michele Bachman (R-MN) Earth Day - April 22, 2009:
Bachman: Carbon dioxide, Mister Speaker, is a natural byproduct of nature. Carbon dioxide is natural. It occurs in Earth. It is a part of the regular lifecycle of Earth. In fact, life on planet Earth can’t even exist without carbon dioxide. So necessary is it to human life, to animal life, to plant life, to the oceans, to the vegetation that’s on the Earth, to the, to the fowl that — that flies in the air, we need to have carbon dioxide as part of the fundamental lifecycle of Earth.
Note: Carbon Dioxide only makes up 0.03% of the atmosphere, not 3%.
Rep Shimkus (R-IL) March 25, 2009:
Shimkus: It’s plant food … So if we decrease the use of carbon dioxide, are we not taking away plant food from the atmosphere? … So all our good intentions could be for naught. In fact, we could be doing just the opposite of what the people who want to save the world are saying. (While questioning Lord Monckton)
It should also be noted that Lord Monkton backs this up by referencing the Cambrian period. A time when the Earth had no land plants.
“When 98 percent of scientists agree, who is Shell to say, ‘Let’s debate the science’?”
Well, apparently Boehner, Bachman, and Shimkus know better than 98% of scientists. Or, perhaps they just can’t admit that they have no alternatives to Cap and Trade, so they have to keep beating the Climate Change denier drum by making stuff up.
Rep Blumenauer (D-OR) Earth Day April 22, 2009 - responds Bachman and House Republicans [Look at that socialist treehugger – he even wears a green bicycle on his lapel]
Dear Republicans. You are correct. Carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth. But, as a good friend of mine said, “life can’t exist without water, but try living at the bottom of the ocean you stupid twit!”
Excessive Carbon Dioxide is harmful to our environment. Scientists know it, Big Energy gave up denying it, now it is your turn - swallow your pride, admit you were wrong and become part of an honest discussion about what to do about it.
Note: Although this was prompted by a conversation with a friend, it is not meant as an attack on him. He is a good guy. The purpose is to show an example of a common strategy used to attack science.
This week’s House Energy & Commerce Committee hearing on the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (introduced by Waxman, D-CA and Markey, D-MA) had its share of fireworks…not just in Congress, but on Facebook. I posted an update related to some comments made by a legislator. A friend of mine disagreed and said he wanted “an open and honest” debate” about climate change and then said that climate change is junk science.
The thing is, “an open and honest debate” is what defines science. A robust scientific argument is not created in isolation. Scientific arguments are vetted and vigorously debated by the science community. The scientific community is self-correcting. The science of climate has been subjected to an open and honest debate and consensus has been reached that humans are causing an unnatural increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases which is resulting in an increase in global temperatures (global warming). Scientists do not reach consensus by taking a vote. This doesn’t mean that 51% of scientists agree and 49% disagree. It means that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that points towards anthropogenic climate change (called “global warming” by the media).
For a primer on climate change, go here.
For a primer on how science works, go here.
Before we go further, it is important to realize that concern brought about by anthropogenic (human impact) climate change is due to human impacts interfering with natural phenomena and accelerating climate change. It does not imply that the climate wasn’t different (warmer or cooler) in the past. Human impacts are causing an unnatural rapid warming of the globe – an impact that may have devastating consequences.
So, if a consensus of science is directly opposed to your views, what do you do? Well, if you are well financed, you sow doubt. You realize that most people do not have the time to gain a deep understanding of an issue, so you persuade them that the science is in doubt and that the scientists are biased. I found it ironic that my friend referred to climate change as “junk science.” The term “junk science” was popularized in the early 1990’s by a PR firm funded by Phillip Morris as a way to sow doubt about the dangers of secondhand cigarette smoke. This firm, lead by Steven Milloy, now sows doubt about the dangers of obesity, breast implants, pesticides like DDT, and climate change – all issues where the ‘status quo’ protects big business.
The Earth’s climate is incredibly complex, so it is particularly easy to create doubt around the science of climate change. The first step is to fund “think tanks” to build the illusion of multiple sources that are at odds with climate change.
Since the late 1980s, this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change. Through advertisements, op-eds, lobbying and media attention, greenhouse doubters (they hate being called deniers) argued first that the world is not warming; measurements indicating otherwise are flawed, they said. Then they claimed that any warming is natural, not caused by human activities. Now they contend that the looming warming will be minuscule and harmless. “They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry,” says former senator Tim Wirth, who spearheaded environmental issues as an under secretary of State in the Clinton administration. “Both figured, sow enough doubt, call the science uncertain and in dispute. That’s had a huge impact on both the public and Congress.” (Newsweek 08/13/07).
The second step – Ignore the scientists that work for the think tanks that you fund.
For more than a decade the Global Climate Coalition, a group representing industries with profits tied to fossil fuels, led an aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign against the idea that emissions of heat-trapping gases could lead to global warming.
“The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood,” the coalition said in a scientific “backgrounder” provided to lawmakers and journalists through the early 1990s, adding that “scientists differ” on the issue.
But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.
“The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied,” the experts wrote in an internal report compiled for the coalition in 1995. (NYT, 4/23/09)
The third step – create and disseminate strawman argument after strawman argumetnt. Don’t worry if your arguments are absurd, just keep them coming. When they are debunked, say sarcastically, “oh, NOW you have a new explanation.”
This is where the need for a scientific literate population comes in. Strawman arguments rely on people not having a deep understanding of an issue, and in the case of scientific arguments, an understanding of the process of science. When someone makes a strawman argument about climate change, they first misrepresent a scientific finding (by distorting, only selecting portions of the data, or selectively ignoring evidence or rationales) – thus, creating a “strawman.” Next, you ridicule and discredit that strawman. Then, you claim that the science is obviously wrong because you defeated the strawman. Finally, repeat, repeat, repeat… Mission accomplished.
Here are two examples of the strawman arguments used by those that have a financial or ideological reason to deny anthropogenic climate change.
Although this shouldn’t come as a surprise, this article describes the process of creating a textbook. If a textbook is the curriculum in a classroom, what hope is there that students will have a rich learning environment?
Textbooks are a core part of the curriculum, as crucial to the teacher as a blueprint is to a carpenter, so one might assume they are conceived, researched, written, and published as unique contributions to advancing knowledge. In fact, most of these books fall far short of their important role in the educational scheme of things. They are processed into existence using the pulp of what already exists, rising like swamp things from the compost of the past. The mulch is turned and tended by many layers of editors who scrub it of anything possibly objectionable before it is fed into a government-run “adoption” system that provides mediocre material to students of all ages.
