Last night, I jumped onto Twitter. Prof. Mandia had a post regarding a book on global warming being withdrawn from Millard Public Schools. This came after the complaints of a few parents, including the wife of US Rep. Lee Terry of Nebraska. Read the article here.
One of the parents said ‘that the materials used in [her son’s] class portrayed global warming as fact when scientists disagree’.
The last paragraph of the article was the most humorous;
“[The associate superintendent for educational services] said the committee recognized there are “multiple viewpoints” on global warming. The committee recommended that all teachers using the book “make students aware of both sides of the global warming theory,” he said.
You would’ve thought that we’re finally beyond this point. This reads more like creationists demanding a “balanced” teaching of both evolution and intelligent design and further demonstrates the similarity to faith bound ideologies.
“When scientists disagree”
Anderegga, W. R. L., Prall, J. W., Harold, J., and, Schneidera, S. H. (2010) Expert credibility in climate change. PNAS. doi:10.1073/pnas.1003187107
Various contributors (2010) Letters; Climate Change and the Integrity of Science. Science. 328(5979):689 – 690. doi10.1126/science.328.5979.689
Oreskes, N. (2004) Beyond the ivory tower: The scientific consensus on climate change. Science. 306(5702):1686 doi: 10.1126/science.1103618
Not to mention the bulk of scientific papers ever mounting on the subject (of which I’ve only covered a handful of recent papers as references for the Innovation is key currently in progress)
I would strongly argue that there is a scientific consensus regarding anthropogenic influence on climate change.
“both sides of the global warming theory”
There is only one real side – that of the scientific literature. This includes a number of physical indicators (some of which are briefly discussed in chapter 4), bio-physical indicators (some discussed in chapters 5, 6, 7, and 8).
Whatever records you look at, whether it’s ice melts, species distribution, bloom timing, weather patterns, ocean pH, climate zone shifts, temperature trends etc; there are multiple examples of a changing world.
The “other side” of the “debate” is nothing more than ideology based rubbished fueled on propaganda spread by lobby groups and think tanks funded by oil companies (eg. Exxon secrets).
“Multiple points of view” is just a cover to allow anti-scientific noise when the evidence tells us something we don’t like. What makes it worse is that a small group of parents have successfully manipulated and led to the misinformation of a new generation.
At least the Amish had the balls to separate themselves and enjoy life as they see fit rather than inflict misinformation on the general public. Indeed if we do not start to address the various problems that I’ve covered in Innovation is Key, the later we step up to the plate, the greater the effort to address a changing world and certainly the more likely we’ll be pushed back into an Amish-like lifestyle.
More people should make noise to counteract such mindless ignorance of the evidence. Bigotry shouldn’t be given such room.