Tree-huggers infiltrating schools to brainwash the them while they're young!

[epp_b]

Bill would require California's science curriculum to cover climate change

[vegasrebel29]

I think the only real surprise here is that you're a Canadian.


Most curriculum, including those in California and Nevada, already include climate change in some way. This is just codification of status quo.

[BlaRo]

I don't see why mentioning climate change is a big deal; after all, it's a very important discussion within modern science.

It's only a big deal if some ugly bald tool with too much time on his hands wants to make it fucking REQUIRED BY LAW. See the difference? A lot of teachers might mention it if it fits within the curriculum, anyway. No harm in doing so as long as it's not propaganda.

[epp_b]

No harm in doing so as long as it's not propaganda.

What makes you think it won't be?

[tigger]

Originally Posted by epp_b

What makes you think it won't be?

A little paranoid, aren't we?

It's hard to say until a solid lesson plan is drawn up. Like BlaRo said, climate change is already standard science class fodder. We already know that this planet has gone through cycles of cooling and warming, I learned about that in elementary school.

[Bugatti's Aftershave]

Originally Posted by epp_b

Bill would require California's science curriculum to cover climate change

I take you believe climate change to be a scam

Anyhow, for those that would like more information about proof of global warming and the continuing debate surrounding it, there are two academic papers that are of great repute for their review-style summary of current scientific/sociologic findings. I've taken the opportunity to upload them to yousendit for now.


The Global Warming Debate: A Review of the State of Science:
A review of the present status of the global warming science is presented in this paper. The term global warming is now popularly used to refer to the recent reported increase in the mean surface temperature of the earth; this increase being attributed to increasing human activity and in particular to the increased concentration of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide) in the atmosphere. Since the mid to late 1980s there has been an intense and often emotional debate on this topic. The various climate change reports (1996, 2001) prepared by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), have provided the scientific framework that ultimately led to the Kyoto protocol on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (particularly carbon dioxide) due to the burning of fossil fuels. Numerous peer-reviewed studies reported in recent literature have attempted to verify several of the projections on climate change that have been detailed by the IPCC reports. The global warming debate as presented by the media usually focuses on the increasing mean temperature of the earth, associated extreme weather events and future climate projections of increasing frequency of extreme weather events worldwide. In reality, the climate change issue is considerably more complex than an increase in the earth’s mean temperature and in extreme weather events. Several recent studies have questioned many of the projections of climate change made by the IPCC reports and at present there is an emerging dissenting view of the global warming science which is at odds with the IPCC view of the cause and consequence of global warming. Our review suggests that the dissenting view offered by the skeptics or opponents of global warming appears substantially more credible than the supporting view put forth by the proponents of global warming. Further, the projections of future climate change over the next fifty to one hundred years is based on insufficiently verified...

and,

Challenging Global Warming as a Social Problem: An Analysis of the Conservative Movement's Counter-Claims:
The sociological literature on global environmental change emphasizes the processes by which the problem of global warming is socially constructed. However, the opposing efforts to construct the "non-problematicity" of global warming advanced by the conservative movement are largely ignored. Utilizing recent work on framing processes in the social movements literature and claims-making from the social problems literature this paper analyzes the counter-claims promoted by the conservative movement between 1990 and 1997 as it mobilized to challenge the legitimacy of global warming as a social problem. A thematic content analysis of publications arculated on the web sites of prominent conservative think tanks reveals three major counter-claims. First, the movement criticized the evidentiary basis of global warming as weak, it not entirely wrong. Second, the movement argued that global warming will have substantial benefits if it occurs. Third, the movement warned that proposed action to ameliorate global warming would do more claim than good in short, the conservative movement asserted that, while the silence of global warming appears to be growing more and more uncertain, the harmful effects of global warming policy are becoming increasingly certain in order to better understand the controversy over global warming, future research should pay attention to the influence ot the conservative movement by identifying the crucial roles of conservative foundations, conservative think tanks, and sympathetic "skeptic" scientists in undermining the growing scientific concensus over the reality of global warming.

Basically, it doesn't matter whether you're a believer or a doubter unless you have not studied both papers, as your views would lack evidence. (This is a general statement and is not directed personally at epp)

As for me, I have done some moderate research about this topic and hope that one day, everybody's school curriculum would require coverage of global warming... Don't throw stuff at me!!

[cvrefugee]

I remember learning about global warming in school a long time ago.

[Blind_Io]

Originally Posted by BlaRo

No harm in doing so as long as it's not propaganda.

There's not much in school that's not propaganda these days.

I don't have a problem with teaching about climate change, because the climate does change and is continuing to change - it's no secret. Where I start to have a problem is when that fact is linked to a "cause" that has never been established. We don't know that man is having an appreciable affect on climate change, especially since this continued warming trend is right on schedule for the planet still coming out of an ice age. What really torques me is when they go a step beyond that and start pushing "interventions" and "solutions" for a planetary and solar phenomenon.

I don't think global warming is a myth, I just have serious doubts about man's contribution and ability to change the direction of things. Man certainly has had an impact on this planet, there's no way 8 billion of us couldn't, but short of a mass-extinction event I don't think there's much we can do about it.

[phuckingduck]

As long as they mention the cow farts. Everyone who knows anything, knows that it comes down to cow farts.

[Blind_Io]

Here's a fun fact I learned from National Geographic: In the US, the "carbon footprint" of cheeseburgers is greater than all the SUVs combined.

[Hidden_Hunter]

Originally Posted by phuckingduck

As long as they mention the cow farts. Everyone who knows anything, knows that it comes down to cow farts.

You know that it will just be the typical evil car agenda

[KaJuN]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: a natural climate change doesn't make for good news stories.

[phuckingduck]

Originally Posted by KaJuN

I've said it before and I'll say it again: a natural climate change doesn't make for good news stories.

Neither do cow-farts.