Teaching Science 2.0

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.

Climate Denial Crock of the Week (includes video explanation of strawman arguments)

George Will and Arctic Ice (Washington Post Contributor and Conservative Pundit)

Over the past few weeks, George Will has written two opinion pieces in the Washinton Post lambasting Global Warming alarmists. At its core, the controversy surrounds Will’s claims that arctic ice is about the same as it was in 1979.

Climate Science in A Tornado

By George F. Will, Washington Post
Friday, February 27, 2009; A17

Citing data from the University of Illinois’ Arctic Climate Research Center, as interpreted on Jan. 1 by Daily Tech, a technology and science news blog, the column said that since September “the increase in sea ice has been the fastest change, either up or down, since 1979, when satellite record-keeping began.” According to the center, global sea ice levels at the end of 2008 were “near or slightly lower than” those of 1979. The center generally does not make its statistics available, but in a Jan. 12 statement the center confirmed that global sea ice levels were within a difference of less than 3 percent of the 1980 level.

This statement plays on a common theme amongst most climate change naysayers.  A scientist makes a short-term climate prediction that doesn’t come true, so therefore climate change must be wrong. This year, one scientist predicted that 2008 may be the first that we have NO arctic ice.  He was wrong…so Global Warming nay-sayers now say that man made global warming must be wrong (I find it failry disturbing that they celebrate their ignorance with a picture of a polar bear jumping from one piece of ice to another).

What George Will fails to include is that this year’s fall increase was predictable - it always increases in the fall.  What is important to focus on is the minima for ice covereage.   We still had arctic ice this year.  In fact, it wasn’t even the lowest ice level on record.  It was the second lowest since 1979. The lowest was during 2007. The third lowest was 2005.  Over the last 30 years, the ice cover is trending downwards, with three of the the last four years being the worst on record. Trends are more important than looking at a single year because there are other influences (like increased cloud cover, which reflects sunlight and therefore has a cooling effect) that have short-term impacts.

NSIDC Research Scientist Julienne Stroeve said, “I find it incredible that we came so close to beating the 2007 record—without the especially warm and clear conditions we saw last summer. I hate to think what 2008 might have looked like if weather patterns had set up in a more extreme way (source). ”

seaice_2008_climatology_lr.mov

So, why did ice form at such a fast rate this year? In the fall, atmospheric conditions in the arctic quickly fall below freezing. In order for ocean ice to form, ocean water must release energy into the atmosphere to cool off.  This causes an increase in near-surface atmospheric temperature (still below freezing) as the ocean cools and ice forms.  This is anti-intuitive. Ice formation occurs as the near-surface temperature increases.  When there is less ice cover, more water is exposed.  More water exposure leads to a faster transfer of energy between the ocean and atmosphere. A faster transfer of energy leads to a higher rate of ice formation.

It is also important to note that 2008 marked the largest loss of ice ever recorded.

However, if we look at the total extent of ice lost between the March maximum and the September minimum, 2008 set a new record for total ice loss over an entire melt season.

2007 had the lowest recorded arctic ice level since 1979. This left a greater expanse of open water, which lead to a larger region of thin ice.  Not surprisingly, thin ice disappears faster than thick ice (source). This will happen again in 2009 as thicker multi-year ice is replaced by thin single-year ice.

Figure 4 shows an animation of ice age in the Arctic from 1981 through 2007. The colors indicate the age of the sea ice in years; light blue is open water (OW). Areas in red are locations where the ice is five years or older, whereas the dark blue areas are first-year ice. The overall reduction in ice age over the past twenty-six years becomes evident as the animation runs through the years. The animation also shows seasonal variations in the ice cover as the first-year ice melts in the summer and regrows in the winter (source).

A few weeks ago, I attended a conference attended by hundreds of inspiring teachers.  During a panel on “The Purpose of Schoola,” Steven Squyres made a fantastic comment.  He said that one purpose of schooling should be to “open students eyes to what is possible.”

Tonight’s NBC Nightly News had a great story about a teacher who is doing just that.  It is a story about a teacher, kids, and a great bulletin board.  

Watch the story here.

Brian Williams writes a short post on his blog about the story, but it is the first commenter that really rings true-

At the end of the story, Brian Williams said, “the magic of a mirror”.  This is true.  However, in my opinion, it is the magic of a GREAT TEACHER!!!  – Wendy Thomas

Scott McCloud at TED

4 Principles For Visionaries

1. Learn From Everyone
2. Follow No One
3. Watch For Patterns
4. Work Like Hell

I thought it would be fun to look at video and commercials related to the Internet during my life…

1969: Great Expectations! T-2 years to baby Brunsell

1981: Me @ 9 years, starting to beg for a computer.

1991: HS graduation / Freshman in college. About the same time I got my first e-mail account.  (I knew 5 people that had e-mail and lived on the same dorm floor as 4 of them).

1995: One year before entering the teaching profession!  Dial-up access kicks butt!

2000: Entering Non-profit science education world. Developing a web-based education program around a plant growth experiment on the International Space Station. E-commerce is a reality & the tech bubble is bursting.

2007: One year teaching at the college level under my belt. Discovering “Web 2.0.” (Probably 3 years before I actually get an iPhone.) User created content, Internet on your phone are the norm…

From Crappy Graphs:

On Friday (1/23/09), the Franklin Institute hosted a panel for Educon 2.1 focused around the question, “What is the Purpose of School?” Here is my video of the panelists opening statements.

The quality isn’t that great. The video was taken with a Flip camera, in the dark.  I used the back of a seat to stabilize the camera. Unfortunately, I ran out of space and missed most of Joel Arquillos (Executive Director of 826LA) opening statement while I was busily deleting other video.

Dr. Squyres is a professor at Cornell and the Principal Investigator for the Mars Exploration Rovers.

Prakash Nair is the Co-Founder, Fielding Nair International: Architects and Change Agents for Education

Dr. Molefi Asante is a professor of African American Studies at Temple and author of more than 60 books.

Kendall Crolius is  a founding partner of The Sulevia Group.

Jeff Han is the founder of Perceptive Pixel and inventor of the multi-touch screen

Required testing in Math and Reading has led to a Nationwide decrease in attention to other subjects, including science.  This is especially true at the elementary level.  Starting last year, NCLB required states to begin testing…but the results are not part of “Annual Yearly Progress” determination. A recent article in the Washington Post had this to say about the “new” science tests.

At least six states, including Maryland, released their first science scores this fall. The first science scores from D.C. schools will be released later this year.

Overall results from the new tests “are not very good,” said Francis Q. Eberle, executive director of the National Science Teachers Association in Arlington. “As a matter of fact, they’re pretty dismal. And it really shouldn’t surprise anybody,” he said, because science as a topic “has really gone off the instructional radar.”

In New Hampshire and Rhode Island, according to news reports, three-quarters of students failed the first science exams.

However, since the tests do not “count,” schools are still incentivized to continue focus on math and reading at the expense of science.  In fact, the article states that the only reason that emphasis on science may increase is because schools (and states) might be embarrassed by low test scores.  This comes at a time when nearly everyone realizes that students will need to be scientifically literate in order participate fully in the opportunities that today’s (and tomorrow’s) society provides. Hopefully, educational policy will catch up to reality soon… while we are waiting for that, educators need stand up and provide kids with authentic and meaningful science experiences.

Here are some great resources for good science teaching:

All Grade Levels:

Science Formative Assessment This book is simply a “must have.” It is the best science teaching book that I have bought in many years.  The first few chapters of the book describe the importance of using formative assessment and describe a constructivist-based teaching model that incorporates formative assessment.  The bulk of the book includes 75 excellent formative assessment techniques.

Preschool:

A Head Start on Science This book contains nearly 90 excellent activities grouped into seven categories: the five senses, weather, physical science, critters, water and water mixture, seeds, and nature walks.

Peep and the Big Wide Wold This isn’t a book, but I can’t resist!  This great cartoon is funded by the National Science Foundation and integrates many age appropriate science concepts.  The website provides online games, video clips, and tons of science activities appropriate for young children.  You can’t go wrong building a preschool science curriculum around these videos and activities! (Free)

Elementary:

Readings in Science Methods, K-8 This book (edited by me) is a compilation of nearly 70 excellent  articles from NSTA’s Science and Children and Science Scope magazines. Articles provide practical tips, suggestions, and activities for teaching elementary and middle level science.

Picture Perfect Science & More Picture Perfect Science These two books provide excellent inquiry-based lessons on a variety of elementary science topics.  Each lesson is connected to at least one children’s book.

Everyday Science Mysteries This book contains a series of mystery stories that can be used to introduce science concepts to students.  Each story is accompanied by a teacher section that provides background information and instructional ideas.

Secondary:

Science as Inquiry in the Secondary Setting This book consists of multiple chapters written by experts.  The introductory chapter describes a sophisticated framework for authentic science inquiry in the classroom.  Other chapters describe inquiry in physics, chemistry, and life / environmental science.  This book is a “must read” for all secondary science teachers. It can be downloaded for free.

Technology in the Secondary Science Classroom This book consists of multiple chapters written by experts.  Each chapter provides theory and practical examples of how to use technology to support science learning in the classroom.  The book can be downloaded for free.

This is a great presentation by Chris Lehman, principal of the Science Leadership Academy in Philly.  I also really like this “youtube” type service. Viddler lets you add comments directly to a video.  I see a lot of applications for the classroom.  (Note: This presentation was given at an “IgnitePhilly” event.  Participants were challenged to give a 5 minute presentation (20 slides, 15 seconds each) on a topic of their choice.)

–