Her biggest fear is that someone says that, not that it might be true.
The poor teacher then recounts how she faced upset parents who said that peer-reviewed science is "the Kool-Aid of the left wing liberal consipracy."
Such terrible ignorance. Perhaps those parents should be left to live without all the items they use every day that resulted from "peer-reviewed science" -- as a start they could lose anything to do with thermodynamics (internal combustion engines, refrigerator, air conditioning), anything with an integrated chip (computers -- and hence all digital communication: cable TV, Internet, cell phones), pharmaceuticals (based on chemistry), anything with a laser (DVD players, supermarket checkout scanners, cataract removal), radio, electricity, anything obtained by a satellite (weather forecasts, GPS, phone calls), vaccinations, and antibiotics.
Just for a start. Then let's talk again about Kool-aid.
Watch Teachers Endure Balancing Act Over Climate Change Curriculum on PBS. See more from PBS NewsHour.
The Director who speaks (5:10) about teaching science from fundamental principles has it right -- teaching about climate change is an ideal opportunity to dig into how scientific truth is established, including what the data implies, what it doesn't imply, how its collected, and its limitations. The topic is relevant, topical, easy to relate to and relatively easy to understand, and has hoards of data freely available that students can easily access and analyze in relatively simple ways. The topic is tailor-made for teaching science. If only the crazy parents would let them.
6 comments:
"Her biggest fear is that someone says that, not that it might be true."
Can't blame her. She's not afraid because she has not swallowed the alarmist faith. She probably already has a religion, she does not need a new one and the eco-fear on which it is based.
cheers
If you change it from 'peer reviewed science' to "peer reviewed climate science" then those parents should and could get along very happily without the gargantuan solar projects, windmill farms, and the daily detritus that results from the $50 billion tax funds wasted on the global warming alarmism.
What else we could spend that money on? Maybe zeroing out some of those government loans that the Obama admin is saddling our future with.
But they'd save at least $120 B/yr from the health damages caused by fossil fuels.
“Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use”
National Research Council, 2010
http://books.nap.edu/catalog/12794.html
And since generating power via fossil fuels creates more damage than value, they'd save even more:
Muller, Nicholas Z., Robert Mendelsohn, and William Nordhaus. 2011. "Environmental Accounting for Pollution in the United States Economy." American Economic Review, 101(5): 1649–75.
http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.101.5.1649
http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/documents/Env_Accounts_052609.pdf
To summarize that paper's findings: for every $1 in value that comes from coal-generated electricity, it creates $2.20 in damages.
Total damages: $70 billion per year (in 2012 dollars).
Petroleum-generated electricity is even worse: $5.13 in damages for $1 in value.
Oh, look: sock puppets from American Crossroads and other SuperPACs lying for big carbon. Boys, you are going to have to pay for quality sock puppets. These ain't it.
Best,
D
Notice that no one ever accuses Alarmist commenters of being paid shills. Why? Because most of them are of the low quality of Dano. It is not possible that someone would actually be paying for such incompetence.
I've always thought that the Mike Mangan sockpuppet was a Morano-type's sockpuppet.
Ever since it started showing up and spewing bile several years ago soon after Morano left the direct teat of government for a more privatized teat.
Coinkydink surely.
Nevertheless, the anti-science tribe doesn't think about how science makes their lives better. They believe what the Morano-types tell them and that's good enough.
Best,
D
Post a Comment