Report: New science standards to banish climate skepticism from classrooms

Adoption of the standards into curricula is being fast-tracked by publishers.

“New national science standards that make the teaching of global warming part of the public school curriculum are slated to be released this month, potentially ending an era in which climate skepticism has been allowed to seep into the nation’s classrooms… They recommend that educators teach the evidence for man-made climate change starting as early as elementary school and incorporate it into all science classes, ranging from earth science to chemistry. By eighth grade, students should understand that “human activities, such as the release of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels, are major factors in the current rise in Earth’s mean surface temperature (global warming),” the standards say… The nation’s largest education publishers are already studying how to incorporate the new standards into their materials. They will likely appear in some of Houghton Mifflin Harcourt’s materials as early as next year, said Tony Artuso, director of science, technology, engineering and mathematics for the company.
The standards are also being fast-tracked at McGraw-Hill.”

Read more at Bloomberg.

14 thoughts on “Report: New science standards to banish climate skepticism from classrooms”

  1. MT Geoff: Do not romanticise this. Pro-AGW is a question of opressing free and objective science. Con-AGW is not against AGW as such, it basically means advocating critical and constructive discussion of conflicting scientific views like in other fields of science. Just look at how the AGW gang is screwing up old temperature data to make them support the global warming dogma!

  2. I agree. That is why I am concerned about what else is being taught. If we convince children that blind obedience is the way to go, they won’t rebel later. Plus, as we replace morality with just one sin–not going along with the group–I think you will see less and less teen rebellion. Bullying is supposedly frowned on, but only if it goes against the consensus. You can bully a white, Christian, heterosexual child but not a black, gay atheist. Soon, you will be allowed to bully skeptics but not warmists because warmists is the consensus. It’s scary.

  3. Not really. Even through college, despite being a strong conservative, lesser cynic, and engineer already with singificant doubts about global warming and enivronmentalism in general, I dutifully supported green energy before the dawning realization of the problems my Junior and Senior year. If I had had stronger training about the duty towards the environment, it would have been harder to change my line of thinking despite my existing biases and scientific background enabling me to see it for what it is.

  4. You know, I don’t see how they can teach the science of climate change when it’s SO complicated that only people in peer-reviewed journals can understand it. So bottom line, they have to be teaching propaganda and faith-based information, not science.
    As an aside, considering some of the other PC idiocy being taught, climate change may be the least of our worries. Children are not allowed to fail, they are taught no one is better than anyone else, that morals are nonexistent. It is definitely time to get the government out of schools, or at least get our kids out of government schools.

  5. Now, if only they can get the world to start WARMING again, then their work will be complete….but the longer we go without a “rise” in temperature, the shakier their ground gets…..

  6. To be picky here — I don’t think the federal government does establish the teaching standards. The textbook companies generally respond to the demands of large markets like Texas and California, which may well be in conflict, while still satisfying their own advisory boards. Since the subject of AGW does have legitimate areas of debate, California’s schools might favor books that discuss all areas but lean toward Gore-ism while Texas schools might favor books that lean Milloy-wise.
    A marketplace of ideas should help sort out the wiser from the less wise and seems to be doing so, if recent polling on public attitudes toward “climate change” mean much.

  7. The theory of evolution is established and very interesting. Global warming is not established beyond the datum that current temperatures are higher than during the Little Ice Age. It is not all that interesting either. A study of the effect of the Krakatoa eruption on Europe would be more suitable for students.

  8. I’ve been in contact with McGraw Hill Ryerson over their total replacement of sections in their chemistry text with global warming information.
    They did agree to remove the paragraph and to replace with information on the topic.
    They wanted to know where I was teaching.
    When I began pointing out more items of total hogwash they stopped communicating.
    .

  9. I think this move is a victory for the skeptics. About the time puberty hits, the kids will gladly reject the BS they learned in grade school.

  10. There is absolutely no reason to have government schools teaching our children. You can be assured that so long as the government has anything whatsoever to do with education, that it will teach the “official” politically correct statist approach. “Public schools” originated in Germany during the 19th century. They were intended to create ‘better’ citizens who would be willing to be “good” soldiers in the German military. While progressives in the U.S. expanded the basic goals of Public (government run) schools to include “good citizenship” there was little different from the German approach. Parents have little clue just how much propaganda is passed off as “education” in the Public School system.

  11. It definitely is time to de-couple the Federal government and American education. This is unabashed restriction of teaching the antithesis of science as being science. Science is about investigation, questioning and skepticism. Propaganda is the one that is about not questioning the truth.

  12. So apparently the idea of freedom and scientific inquiry that made the Scopes case fodder for jokes does not apply to climate-related issues. The “science” of the Progressive is the only science; when it’s correct, as in Evolution or most vaccinations, it’s good, and when it’s wrong, as in AGW or bisphenol-a, it’s better.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.