It's encouraging to me to think that only one student has abandoned Mr. Sutter's class. The others come from homes similar to Gwen's, yet they continue to listen and learn. As for Gwen herself, Mr. Sutter shouldn't consider her a failed case. As veteran teachers know, you can't predict the ultimate outcome of your lessons. I remember a young neo-Nazi in my husband's American history class who refused to rethink his ideas about race. Two years after graduation, he came back to thank my husband, explaining that he now had Black friends and had seen the error of his ways. There's hope for Gwen yet, and for all of us, when teachers like Mr. Sutter persist. Now please give these teachers some real respect and better salaries.
129
I taught junior high school in Syracuse, New York in the early 1970's. I had several students explain to me how all the "man on the moon' videos were just made in Hollywood, because that's what their parents told them. It takes awhile for some to accept that what their parents are telling them is gibberish...and some times they just become their parents and pass the madness on to the next generation.
52
These Christian parents who encourage their children to challenge teachers based on personal belief rather than on critical analysis of what they are being taught simply perpetuate Christian hubris and the dumbing down of America. It is an unbelievable waste of classroom time to allow students to challenge the teacher with nothing more than assertions from the Bible.
82
This is why we've got to start having elementary grade students reciting the Scientific Method each morning instead of The Pledge of Allegance
62
“It’s like you can’t disagree with a scientist or you’re ‘denying science,”’ [Gween] sniffed to her friends.
Gwen, good job! You've just proven that a teacher can't disagree with a student without risking the student will race home to ask mom and dad what they think SHE ought to teach her fellow students there next morning about science.
That's Right:
Freedom of Screech...
Gwen, good job! You've just proven that a teacher can't disagree with a student without risking the student will race home to ask mom and dad what they think SHE ought to teach her fellow students there next morning about science.
That's Right:
Freedom of Screech...
31
So how do we resist this indoctrination? Or as we used to call it "brain-washing"
10
Mr. Sutter, don't give up. Adults, as well as young people, often quietly change their minds weeks or months after an argument. Be patient and you will probably see increasing, although gradual, results.
44
Like Obamacare, we should have a mandated set of course work required, based on nationally-agreed set of principles. I grew up in Long Island, my wife in an agriculture small city in coastal Northern California. I went into Science, she went into History for college. We got together in the mid-1970's and over the years have been amazed at how similar our Elementary and High School educations were in the 1960's. Both progressive, coastal States, of course. This article is situated in Ohio, and it brings to mind that the "red regions" (pretty much all the States, outside cities and suburban areas; those counties which went for Trump) now have creationist curricular, and are reverting to the pre-Enlightenment thinking. How can we agree on National topics without a common Elementary & High School background? I know this is a hard sell, but it's important. If we read the NYT and they get their "facts" from FOX, we'll never be able to agree. This is happening!
34
CO2 is NOT a pollutant! It is an essential component for plant growth, and therefore all life on Earth. If it falls below 150 ppm, all plant life will start to die from CO2 starvation, closely followed by all animal life dependent on it. Reducing it from its present level is tantamount to committing global mass suicide, contrary to all the opposing Carbon Tax propaganda.
Atmospheric CO2, at less than 400 ppm, is the lowest it has been since the Permian extinction, 270 million years ago, and so is average global temperature.
A recent New York Times article commented that scientists studying ice cores in the Antarctic had found that since CO2 had increased slightly from its lowest at the beginning of the industrial revolution, plant growth world wide had increased. Whoopee! Thats why its pumped into commercial greenhouses! The times of most prolific plant growth was when atmospheric CO2 was high, like the Carboniferous age that laid down the vast coal fields humanity has been benefiting from
CO2 has had NO effect on climate in 600 million years, first because it is one of the weakest of greenhouse gases, and second because there is so little of it, 0.7% 600 million years ago, and presently at 0.04%, merely a trace. In fact, at times during the last 600 million years, CO2 increased for millions of years, while temperature fell for millions of years, and when CO2 reduced for millions of years, temperature rose for millions of years, the opposite of Carbon Tax claims.
Atmospheric CO2, at less than 400 ppm, is the lowest it has been since the Permian extinction, 270 million years ago, and so is average global temperature.
A recent New York Times article commented that scientists studying ice cores in the Antarctic had found that since CO2 had increased slightly from its lowest at the beginning of the industrial revolution, plant growth world wide had increased. Whoopee! Thats why its pumped into commercial greenhouses! The times of most prolific plant growth was when atmospheric CO2 was high, like the Carboniferous age that laid down the vast coal fields humanity has been benefiting from
CO2 has had NO effect on climate in 600 million years, first because it is one of the weakest of greenhouse gases, and second because there is so little of it, 0.7% 600 million years ago, and presently at 0.04%, merely a trace. In fact, at times during the last 600 million years, CO2 increased for millions of years, while temperature fell for millions of years, and when CO2 reduced for millions of years, temperature rose for millions of years, the opposite of Carbon Tax claims.
16
As the inhabitants of Rapa Nui (Easter Island) discovered, belief systems that ignore empirical reality drag their believers over a cliff or into a wall at some point. It is a sobering fact of biology that about 99% of all the species that ever existed have gone extinct. Usually it takes at least a million years. Ours has been here only a couple hundred thousand. Please, let's do what we need to to give a few hundred more generations of humans the chance to exist before some unavoidable crisis takes us out. Right now we're doing it to ourselves.
33
They will all get it, someday.
50% of the world's population lives on waters that will rise.
50% of the world's population lives on waters that will rise.
25
We must stop using the word "belief" for every issue. Start paying attention to how many times you use that word - and you probably don't even mean it. When climate change is presented as a "belief" is enters into competition with things that *are* beliefs - religion. It's no wonder young members of christian churches are somewhat confused. (And that's the most polite thing I will say about religious indoctrination.) You believe in 'god' - you do not believe in climate change - so stop being timid - we THINK things, we KNOW things, we ACCEPT things. Leave beliefs to the churches where they belong...and Hogwarts.
44
What-if explanations attributing warming to some other cause always ignore what the greenhouse effect really is.
There are only THREE ways to transfer heat: conduction (something warm touching something not as warm), convection (basically something warm touching gas --like air-- that touches something else), and radiation (light, visible and non-visible).
Since space is a vacuum, there's nothing for the Earth to touch, so it can't lose heat by conduction or convection --the only way it can avoid building up more and more heat is by radiating it out to space.
As heat rays emanating from Earth travel through the atmosphere, some of the heat is absorbed by the gases air comprises (78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases)
Here's the crux of the Greenhouse Effect: carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) absorb more heat than those other gases. This is provable science that every single chemist and physicist acknowledges --period.
As the relative concentration of those gases increase in the atmosphere, more heat is trapped than before.
The LAW of Conservation of Energy states that energy isn't destroyed, it just changes form.
So unless you can discover a fourth way that the Earth is losing heat (you can't) or some way that heat is disappearing w/o heating things up (you can't), the simple fact is that the Earth is trapping more and more heat and arguing about other possible causes is willfully ignorant.
There are only THREE ways to transfer heat: conduction (something warm touching something not as warm), convection (basically something warm touching gas --like air-- that touches something else), and radiation (light, visible and non-visible).
Since space is a vacuum, there's nothing for the Earth to touch, so it can't lose heat by conduction or convection --the only way it can avoid building up more and more heat is by radiating it out to space.
As heat rays emanating from Earth travel through the atmosphere, some of the heat is absorbed by the gases air comprises (78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases)
Here's the crux of the Greenhouse Effect: carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) absorb more heat than those other gases. This is provable science that every single chemist and physicist acknowledges --period.
As the relative concentration of those gases increase in the atmosphere, more heat is trapped than before.
The LAW of Conservation of Energy states that energy isn't destroyed, it just changes form.
So unless you can discover a fourth way that the Earth is losing heat (you can't) or some way that heat is disappearing w/o heating things up (you can't), the simple fact is that the Earth is trapping more and more heat and arguing about other possible causes is willfully ignorant.
52
What a great story. And a sad one. It used to be that science was viewed aspirationally, as the way to a better world. Now it is seen conspirationally, as something used to lie and cause job loss. I can understand why this might be. But as a teacher, we owe it to our students and future generations to teach them science - not belief. Gwen was free to disbelieve, but she still needed to work with the science. And I suspect, in Gwen's mind, she DOES believe climate change is real. But in her heart, with her daddy - ah. That's another story.
35
Mr Sutter is an American hero. There were many who believed the earth was flat, too, but they came around. I only hope climate deniers figure it out before it's too late. We can not afford to be this ignorant much longer, and we certainly can not afford to have another Trump-like president foisted upon us.
43
I am curious about when students are taught the physical chemistry (that's what the class was called when I was in 8th grade) to understand a molecule (say, CO2) not reacting to energy at one set of wavelengths (say visible light) while absorbing energy at another set of wavelengths (say, infrared or heat). I would think that if students were well-grounded in the basic sciences they would struggle less with the concept of greenhouse gases. When are they taught the physics?
21
Bless Mr. Sutter for his efforts! Stay strong.
22
It's interesting that science teachers are expected to be martyrs and do the job of educating the profoundly ignorant all on their own. Where are the history, economics, and political science classes which present these students with the roots of their own economic suffering in the history of the region, the corporate raping of their beautiful countryside by logging and coal interests, abetted by the federal government in the various strikes and coal wars? Where are the literature classes presenting them with similar American dilemmas, such as Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath, to show them that a group of poor people can suffer economic catastrophes without losing their sense of dignity and community? These schools need more than AP science. They also need the methods and experiences of the humanities.
55
Climate science isn't just simple thermodynamics is it? It's modelling of complex systems. It typically incorporates economic modelling to estimate societal costs. It also includes politics insofar as we deal with international agreements, the problem of the tragedy of the commons and solutions to public goods problems.
So blowing off a student by saying most scientists whose bread and butter grants depend on supporting the consensus, well, amazingly enough, support the consensus, isn't likely to work. And, a student is likely to wonder, why the evangelistic intensity with which this is being emphasized? Do math teachers feel they have to assert that 99.9% of mathematicians think you shouldn't divide by zero? Why the evangelistic intensity? Ot do Mr. Sutter's students have biology so well down that the class has the luxury of spending so much time and energy on this one topic? What student would not wonder if there si not an almost religious belief here - the Church of Global Warming.
The approach is all counter-productiuve...
So blowing off a student by saying most scientists whose bread and butter grants depend on supporting the consensus, well, amazingly enough, support the consensus, isn't likely to work. And, a student is likely to wonder, why the evangelistic intensity with which this is being emphasized? Do math teachers feel they have to assert that 99.9% of mathematicians think you shouldn't divide by zero? Why the evangelistic intensity? Ot do Mr. Sutter's students have biology so well down that the class has the luxury of spending so much time and energy on this one topic? What student would not wonder if there si not an almost religious belief here - the Church of Global Warming.
The approach is all counter-productiuve...
2
While Mr. Sutter is truly doing good in his class, another form of education - adult education - needs to be given to the parents. Why would someone want to go back to the mines and get black lung, have their lives shortened, and receive low pay when there is a crying need for quality people in communications and technology - better pay, not backbreaking work and a healthier environment. In my opinion, Gwen Beatty is a victim of communal ignorance hiding under the veil of a fearful religious outlook. Things will not get better in uneducated America until that fearful outlook is replaced with enlightened understanding. And if one thinks it's hard with kids, who are at least willing if not eager to learn, try to reach adults who are set in their ways, fearful ways reinforced by authoritarian religion and propagandist news (like Fox, etc.).
24
While it is interesting to read a piece on this bright, indeed exceptional teacher, I would like to know more about what the other teachers are saying. I presume that they occupy the same mind set as their pupils and their families.
What is says to me is the importance of field trip. The assumption is often made that information is best imparted in front of the blackboard (chalk and talk). Clearly not here. In fact, as your very great educationalist, John Dewey, we must approach life (and science) as 'live creatures', based upon the acquistion of learning through the full sensory field.
What is says to me is the importance of field trip. The assumption is often made that information is best imparted in front of the blackboard (chalk and talk). Clearly not here. In fact, as your very great educationalist, John Dewey, we must approach life (and science) as 'live creatures', based upon the acquistion of learning through the full sensory field.
15
Mr. Sutter is obviously doing the best he can under very difficult circumstances. Good luck to him and his students.
It might be helpful for Mr. Sutter in his next class to show them a graph depicting (a) coal usage in the US and Europe since 1800, (b) a graph of the number of coal miners/mining jobs in the US since 1900 as measured by the US Dept of Labor, and (c) photographs showing the skylines of major cities such as London, Paris, New York, Chicago from early 20th century to the present.
(a) The coal usage graph will show the increase in coal usage as the industrial revolution spreads in Europe and the US, and its subsequent decline as petroleum based fuels replace coal in locomotion, power generation and industrial processes. Nothing to do with whiny environmentalists.
(b) Coal mining jobs declined as a result of reduced need for coal, and more so due to increased automation in the mines. Show them a bucket excavator at work. Also due to using highly destructive methods like mountain top removal mining, which reduce the need for human finesse and thus human workers.
(c) These photographs will show the impact of the reduction in burning coal on the air quality in these cities. He could supplement with photos of Beijing showing a decrease in air quality over the decades due to increased use of coal. Showing the effects he is talking about are real and not imaginary.
These 3 will help the students see the effect of economics, chemistry and ecology. Not just politics.
It might be helpful for Mr. Sutter in his next class to show them a graph depicting (a) coal usage in the US and Europe since 1800, (b) a graph of the number of coal miners/mining jobs in the US since 1900 as measured by the US Dept of Labor, and (c) photographs showing the skylines of major cities such as London, Paris, New York, Chicago from early 20th century to the present.
(a) The coal usage graph will show the increase in coal usage as the industrial revolution spreads in Europe and the US, and its subsequent decline as petroleum based fuels replace coal in locomotion, power generation and industrial processes. Nothing to do with whiny environmentalists.
(b) Coal mining jobs declined as a result of reduced need for coal, and more so due to increased automation in the mines. Show them a bucket excavator at work. Also due to using highly destructive methods like mountain top removal mining, which reduce the need for human finesse and thus human workers.
(c) These photographs will show the impact of the reduction in burning coal on the air quality in these cities. He could supplement with photos of Beijing showing a decrease in air quality over the decades due to increased use of coal. Showing the effects he is talking about are real and not imaginary.
These 3 will help the students see the effect of economics, chemistry and ecology. Not just politics.
17
As a retired family psycho-therapist I recognized a familiar issue when reading this very interesting article. When confronted by ideas that challenge our view of the world and ask us to reconsider our position it isn't at all unusual to become defensive. I would ask, was the real issue in this piece Gwen's rejection of her teacher's science fact or was it her difficulty in facing what those facts meant to her own sense of well-being and safety, not only on a personal level but on a family, community and larger social level as well. Science has to deal with facts and they are entirely persuasive in this case to do with greenhouse gases and their impact on heating the environment but the fact that a student was finding difficult to listen and take in those facts also need to be taken into consideration. Had her fears and doubts been explored as well, in the context of the entire class then perhaps the students would have taken away an even more important lesson. That examining one's values is a sensitive business but that it needs to be recognized for what it is, a potential obstacle to evaluating the larger good.
25
Kudos to Mr Sutter for bringing in a scientific video from a Christian. As an orthodox Christian, I feel that these people who mix politics and their own preferences into what they are teaching their children are setting them up to lose trust in God when they learn more. Sadly, in many cases their faith in God is largely cultural.
17
And a similar example/story of teaching climate science in Idaho: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/how-to-teach-kids...
3
Students cannot get inside the research. Justin Gillis of The New York Times reports on fact.
Decades of research have convinced the best scientists world over.
Changing behavior is the challenge. It's the same in livestock fed tetracycline by mouth. Our very best microbiologists understand the MicroBiome. See and measure the damage to this most basic element in all living things.
In warming and in MicroBiome work with AMR, we know we cannot afford to be wrong.
Have we hit a tipping point in each. Some say yes.
Warming is roaring. Gut biome loss has been measured. Ambient biome loss may not have been measured.
Students must fire up. Our academics are habit bound intellectual cripples worried about trouble either way in warming and in MicroBiome work.
Human arrogance is just spectacular.
And terminally dangerous, inspiring denial in politicians that want more.
Decades of research have convinced the best scientists world over.
Changing behavior is the challenge. It's the same in livestock fed tetracycline by mouth. Our very best microbiologists understand the MicroBiome. See and measure the damage to this most basic element in all living things.
In warming and in MicroBiome work with AMR, we know we cannot afford to be wrong.
Have we hit a tipping point in each. Some say yes.
Warming is roaring. Gut biome loss has been measured. Ambient biome loss may not have been measured.
Students must fire up. Our academics are habit bound intellectual cripples worried about trouble either way in warming and in MicroBiome work.
Human arrogance is just spectacular.
And terminally dangerous, inspiring denial in politicians that want more.
5
I do not understand people ignoring the downside of being wrong on climate change. If the scientists are wrong, and reducing carbon was a wasted effort, some coal miners and the Koch brothers will have lost. (Renewable energy suppliers will have gained.) If the deniers win out but are wrong, and carbon emissions continue unabated, the negative effects will be enormous on most of the world.
28
Exactly! If scientists are wrong we still have cleaner air and water, not to mention new technology and industry. And it's not like that fossil fuel is going anywhere. It will still be there if we want to use it at a later date.
9
The key point underlying all this is the failure of almost everyone, including the New York Times, to properly address the clear distinction between a belief and a hypothesis. This is the fundamental stepping stone for any individual or society that wants to advance from the more primitive world we came from, based on mythology and superstition, to a more intelligent future based on reality. As Osho puts it, "What is is, and what ain't ain't."
14
Unfortunately, belief can be replaced by science, and science can then be extended beyond science, and back into belief.
"Global Warming" of the past decades is likely connected to human civilization. But there is no way to quantify or countertest the hypothesis. Similar to the "Big Bang" theory, "Global Warming," though supported by a greater catalog of evidence, is beyond an experimental analysis. (Of course, a decade of world-wide industrial and civilization collapse accompanied by continuing environmental record keeping might provide the proof needed.)
In fact there is counterevidence, or at least, a countertheory to the cause: the Earth has been through prior catastrophic temperature cycles, which were completely disconnected from human activity. This parallel phenomenon and theory rules out the idea that the sole possible explanation is that "without our environmental sins, Earth would remain Eden."
Of course, there are many good reasons to oppose civilization's toxicity to the planet. But, though mixing science and faith may be a good motivator, it impedes true science.
Weathy modern humanity is desperate for transcendence and motivation, and converting science to religion is popular, but counterproductive to the nature of faithless knowledge.
"Global Warming" of the past decades is likely connected to human civilization. But there is no way to quantify or countertest the hypothesis. Similar to the "Big Bang" theory, "Global Warming," though supported by a greater catalog of evidence, is beyond an experimental analysis. (Of course, a decade of world-wide industrial and civilization collapse accompanied by continuing environmental record keeping might provide the proof needed.)
In fact there is counterevidence, or at least, a countertheory to the cause: the Earth has been through prior catastrophic temperature cycles, which were completely disconnected from human activity. This parallel phenomenon and theory rules out the idea that the sole possible explanation is that "without our environmental sins, Earth would remain Eden."
Of course, there are many good reasons to oppose civilization's toxicity to the planet. But, though mixing science and faith may be a good motivator, it impedes true science.
Weathy modern humanity is desperate for transcendence and motivation, and converting science to religion is popular, but counterproductive to the nature of faithless knowledge.
3
A lot of "flyover country" is beautiful; I get a window seat on a plane whenever I can. But any tourist potential (an infinitely renewable resource) it might have is destroyed when you have an orange creek running as acid as vinegar.
17
With Trump in the White House, tourists are avoiding travel to the US, costing our economy billions in lost tourist dollars.
7
Mr. Sutter could have thrown in the relative cost of mining coal in Ohio vs. Wyoming, or the relative cost of producing power burning coal vs. natural gas.
6
This story is a parallel to the fact that 46% Americans Believe In Creationism According To Latest Gallup Poll http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/americans-believe-in-creationism. IE, Forty six percent Americans believe in creationism, 32% believed in theistic evolution and 15% believe in evolution without any divine intervention. The data shows that the percent of Americans who believe in creationism has increased slightly by 2 percent over the last 30 years based on the prior 7 Gallup polls.
The Gallup poll indicates that more than 100 million Americans are not ready to abandon the biblical understanding of the natural world, insisting that the Earth is but a few thousand years old and that humans were created in their present forms. As expected, a majority of these Creationists self identified as being Republican.
Most educated people today see the natural world through the lens of science rather than the Bible. That shift in perspective is largely complete outside the United States. Is it any wonder that the USA`s children rank in so low knowledge in comparison to other countries.
Being "Exceptional" is not always a good thing. eg. like Trump
The Gallup poll indicates that more than 100 million Americans are not ready to abandon the biblical understanding of the natural world, insisting that the Earth is but a few thousand years old and that humans were created in their present forms. As expected, a majority of these Creationists self identified as being Republican.
Most educated people today see the natural world through the lens of science rather than the Bible. That shift in perspective is largely complete outside the United States. Is it any wonder that the USA`s children rank in so low knowledge in comparison to other countries.
Being "Exceptional" is not always a good thing. eg. like Trump
23
The adults are failing these kids, all so that the wealthy fossil fuel people can make more money. The jobs are being automated, so they aren't coming back, even if coal is used more.
The kids are taught to just believe things, not investigate them. Leads to not thinking for themselves.
The kids are taught to just believe things, not investigate them. Leads to not thinking for themselves.
21
The heartbreaking thing for these students is that they were reared in a culture where family loyalty is everything, but that loyalty will get them nowhere. They can accept the fact that more educated, sophisticated people do consider those beliefs wrong and stupid, consider the possibility that those outsiders are right, and start to break away from received "wisdom," or they can choose to stay in their comfortable, familiar cocoon.
If they choose to learn, they will probably have to break away in more than thought. Ultimately, they will have to leave their little town and their families behind in search of a college education, trade school, military service, and/or a job. If they don't take that incredibly difficult step, and remain in their psychological comfort zone, they will most likely remain mired in the area's poverty and other pathologies. J.D. Vance made that quite clear in "Hillbilly Elegy." It was especially telling that all of the people Vance knew who had successful, stable marriages had married outside of their culture. The successful ones broke away. It is an incredibly painful dilemma for teens to face, since one choice requires throwing away great opportunities and the other may result in losing contact with family who view them as betraying their people.
If they choose to learn, they will probably have to break away in more than thought. Ultimately, they will have to leave their little town and their families behind in search of a college education, trade school, military service, and/or a job. If they don't take that incredibly difficult step, and remain in their psychological comfort zone, they will most likely remain mired in the area's poverty and other pathologies. J.D. Vance made that quite clear in "Hillbilly Elegy." It was especially telling that all of the people Vance knew who had successful, stable marriages had married outside of their culture. The successful ones broke away. It is an incredibly painful dilemma for teens to face, since one choice requires throwing away great opportunities and the other may result in losing contact with family who view them as betraying their people.
27
When the choice is emotional loyalty to family and immediate circle of relatives or accepting scientific evidence, many people would probably choose the first. The war against science and facts by fossil fuel lobbies is an unfortunate reality of America today. But over time, the most futile struggle is against the nature of the world as it is: The lower costs of solar and wind energy will lead to more use of these sources in much of the world. America's farmlands will be devastated by droughts and its coastal properties flooded as global warming accelerates to the extent belief systems and politics do not permit sufficient action. Many Trump supporters stand to lose the most in the Midwest and states such as Florida and Louisiana.
12
So, this young AP Science student is part of our nations future? The adults in Welston are the President's base? Interesting.
14
No matter where or when, it's always shocking when you discover that everything you've been taught to believe may be untrustworthy. I don't blame her for running, but trust me, Mr. Sutter. You've changed her life forever. You've started a process in her mind that nothing can stop. It's exciting.
36
A sobering and inspiring story, thank you! It's a bad scene when giving a scientific explanation a chance strikes you as disrespecting and turning your back on those who love you.
18
Thanks to the Times for showing us what is happening in these various communities. It's a snapshot of what Mrs. Clinton called a war on reason. I fear that when half of Ohio is flooded due to rising waters there, Gwen and her family will still doubt the obvious. Worse, what will happen when the Mr. Sutters of the world refuse to teach in these areas, and the Betsy DeVos' succeed at having educational standards meet those set by local officials? L.R. Hubbard was before his time.....
15
Mr. Sutter,welcome to my world: a pediatrician trying to educate an anti-vaccer
23
I agree with "A Texan" who applauds the" NYT for this nuanced and sympathetic report." As a Californian and teacher, I've wondered how to talk with, share with and reach out to people who think differently and haven't directly felt the fluctuations in weather, fires, droughts, fisheries and depleted ground water supplies or been able to witness the difference in California skies, and the drop in asthma cases as auto emissions have been reduced. Our governor, Governor Brown has taken a strong stand to continue to limit CO2 emissions and honor the Paris Accords. We live in an almost 'parallel universe' to some in Ohio and do not share the world view of many in "Trump Country". However we do share the world with them and we must make continued efforts to listen, communicate and help solve the underlying economic problems of jobs leaving midwest that create a "rust belt" How will we do this? Perhaps video chats, classroom to classroom, cross state dialogs between church congregations whether Christian, Muslim or Jewish. Who will reach out to this science teacher and others in his position to help educate our nation's kids? We can't blame people in coal country for their ignorance or abdicate our responsibility. This once latte liberal is now a political activist. It's up to us, as President Obama reminded us in his farewell address!
16
The curious thing is that most people believe in the existence of human-caused pollution.
Most people understand that it is possible for humans to burn things (oil, coal, pines logs, etc.) faster than the air can cleanse itself through the natural dilution, filtration, and absorption of wind, rain, and vegetation. Most people look at the brown sky hanging over a metropolis and understand that human activity is responsible for the sky no longer being blue.
Most people understand that it is possible for humans to pour waste (sewage, fertilizer, oil, plastics, etc.) into natural bodies of water faster than that water can cleanse itself.
Most people understand that it is possible for humans to cut down trees faster than they grow or kill wild animals faster than those animals reproduce--and that human-caused extinction is something that really exists.
So why, then, do some people find it hard to understand CO2 pollution? It's rather clear than humans produce great quantities of CO2 with our cars, trucks, and factories.
The negative impact of other kinds of pollution--asthma attacks, fish kills, etc.--is quite clear.
Why is it hard to fathom that making CO2 faster than the Earth naturally processes CO2 will cause heat pollution?
Sure, we don't know the exact timing and extent of the damage done by putting the Earth on the grill, but why hasn't our experience with other kinds of pollution made it clear that we have the capacity to do deadly, even irreversible, damage?
Most people understand that it is possible for humans to burn things (oil, coal, pines logs, etc.) faster than the air can cleanse itself through the natural dilution, filtration, and absorption of wind, rain, and vegetation. Most people look at the brown sky hanging over a metropolis and understand that human activity is responsible for the sky no longer being blue.
Most people understand that it is possible for humans to pour waste (sewage, fertilizer, oil, plastics, etc.) into natural bodies of water faster than that water can cleanse itself.
Most people understand that it is possible for humans to cut down trees faster than they grow or kill wild animals faster than those animals reproduce--and that human-caused extinction is something that really exists.
So why, then, do some people find it hard to understand CO2 pollution? It's rather clear than humans produce great quantities of CO2 with our cars, trucks, and factories.
The negative impact of other kinds of pollution--asthma attacks, fish kills, etc.--is quite clear.
Why is it hard to fathom that making CO2 faster than the Earth naturally processes CO2 will cause heat pollution?
Sure, we don't know the exact timing and extent of the damage done by putting the Earth on the grill, but why hasn't our experience with other kinds of pollution made it clear that we have the capacity to do deadly, even irreversible, damage?
27
Over the past 31 years, I have taught similarly "controversial" subjects, such as evolution, plate tectonics and the big bang. I learned early on that minds snap shut when students feel like they have to make a choice between their religion and accepting what you are teaching them.
It's not fair to put a young person in that position.
I think the same thing goes for "tribal" beliefs like denial of climate change. Instead of attacking their existing beliefs, I invite my kids to take a look at why science has produced the explanations that it has.
It's kind of like learning about other religions -- a Christian can learn what a Hindu believes without converting. A non-threatening environment promotes a "live and let live" mental state where new ideas can take root. Nearly all of my students, even the most devout can explain these concepts and identify the evidence that supports them.
It's not fair to put a young person in that position.
I think the same thing goes for "tribal" beliefs like denial of climate change. Instead of attacking their existing beliefs, I invite my kids to take a look at why science has produced the explanations that it has.
It's kind of like learning about other religions -- a Christian can learn what a Hindu believes without converting. A non-threatening environment promotes a "live and let live" mental state where new ideas can take root. Nearly all of my students, even the most devout can explain these concepts and identify the evidence that supports them.
14
The earth certainly may be experiencing a natural warming cycle, but we are certainly contributing to the warming cycle with the many fuel burning engines we have created. By the way making our air unhealthy as well as our environment. Why exacerbate the situation when we can possibly help slow it, giving future humanity a chance at surviving long enough to find another home or way to live on, which by the way, defunding science is not going to help with either. Short sighted and selfish, uneducated decisions will lead to our own extinction.
8
This high-school student is not capable of understanding the thermodynamics and calculus required to understand the science of climate change. Trying to explain it to her is like trying to explain the astrophysics of satellite orbits to a 3-year-old.
If she cannot relate the disappearing glaciers and polar ice to increased global temperatures, she is not an "A" student.
If she cannot relate the increased global temperatures to human activity, she is not even a "C" student.
The only thing this article shows me is that there is significant grade inflation in Wellstone, Ohio, public high schools.
If she cannot relate the disappearing glaciers and polar ice to increased global temperatures, she is not an "A" student.
If she cannot relate the increased global temperatures to human activity, she is not even a "C" student.
The only thing this article shows me is that there is significant grade inflation in Wellstone, Ohio, public high schools.
10
Do you think that former IPCC lead authors and physicists Richard Lindzen and John Christy would be able to understand the thermodynamics and calculus involved? How about Nobel Prize winners in physics, such as Ivar Giaever and Robert Laughlin? They are all skeptics of the alarmist hypothesis. I would be willing to bet quite confidently that their understanding of thermodynamics and calculus is far greater than yours. So, perhaps, the error lies not with the student in Ohio but rather with the failings of the schools you may have attended?
If this were a question of basic physics and thermodynamics, then the IPCC would not, in its latest report, list the expect climate sensitivity to a doubling of pre-industrial CO2 as somewhere between 1.5 and 4.5 Celcius degrees, with no best estimate offered. When people, after nearly 30 years and billions of dollars of study, can only tell you that the effect of a change will be somewhere between X and 3X, then this is not a simple problem. It is the people who religiously believe that is, or should be, who are themselves simple.
If this were a question of basic physics and thermodynamics, then the IPCC would not, in its latest report, list the expect climate sensitivity to a doubling of pre-industrial CO2 as somewhere between 1.5 and 4.5 Celcius degrees, with no best estimate offered. When people, after nearly 30 years and billions of dollars of study, can only tell you that the effect of a change will be somewhere between X and 3X, then this is not a simple problem. It is the people who religiously believe that is, or should be, who are themselves simple.
10
As somebody said, "All models are wrong, some are useful."
That applies to everything from Newton's, then Einstein's, description of gravity, to Feynman's finite solutions in quantum mechanics, to ultra-complex descriptions of systems like atmosphere and climate.
Ideally a model predicts the future state of a system; the better the model, the better the prediction. Anyone who understands models of physical systems knows it's way, way more than simply "a question of basic physics and thermodynamics." So 30 years and billions of dollars have been spent collecting data and building climate models? I"d call that a good start, with a long way to go.
That applies to everything from Newton's, then Einstein's, description of gravity, to Feynman's finite solutions in quantum mechanics, to ultra-complex descriptions of systems like atmosphere and climate.
Ideally a model predicts the future state of a system; the better the model, the better the prediction. Anyone who understands models of physical systems knows it's way, way more than simply "a question of basic physics and thermodynamics." So 30 years and billions of dollars have been spent collecting data and building climate models? I"d call that a good start, with a long way to go.
8
Like Mr. Sutter, I am privileged. I get to try to teach climate change and through that vehicle the First Law of Thermodynamics, elemental thermal radiation and even something about aerosols. The examples of replicated data and analyses show that science indeed checks itself and skeptically scrutinizes its conclusions. Policy appears and the mechanics of supply and demand, carbon tax, cap and trade are all discussed.
I am incredibly grateful to have the students. They do not necessarily feel so lucky. Student evaluations are sometimes complaints about required science classes and wasted tuition. Some are bored by repetition others are stumped by science. One complained that the course was too simple another that it was like a graduate seminar in science; forcings, feedbacks, models with parameterized clouds. Infrared radiation and an infrared camera. Radiation balance and a net radiometer in a lab tracing the temperature of a pond along with incoming and reflected shortwave and incoming and emitted longwave. What comes of energy balance and imbalance? Temperature sensors good to a couple of thousandths tell us.
I hope my class works as well as James Sutter's. I hope by the end most students understand how GHGs add energy and what the climate system does with that energy. If a smart kid shrugs-just wait. Those ideas will sink in because they are right and are checked and rechecked. Scientists are wrong all the time. How else to progress? Science self-corrects.
I am incredibly grateful to have the students. They do not necessarily feel so lucky. Student evaluations are sometimes complaints about required science classes and wasted tuition. Some are bored by repetition others are stumped by science. One complained that the course was too simple another that it was like a graduate seminar in science; forcings, feedbacks, models with parameterized clouds. Infrared radiation and an infrared camera. Radiation balance and a net radiometer in a lab tracing the temperature of a pond along with incoming and reflected shortwave and incoming and emitted longwave. What comes of energy balance and imbalance? Temperature sensors good to a couple of thousandths tell us.
I hope my class works as well as James Sutter's. I hope by the end most students understand how GHGs add energy and what the climate system does with that energy. If a smart kid shrugs-just wait. Those ideas will sink in because they are right and are checked and rechecked. Scientists are wrong all the time. How else to progress? Science self-corrects.
9
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" -Upton Sinclair
17
Hang in there, Mr. Sutter. I attended inner city schools in Columbus where there weren't many exceptional teachers. The ones who really wanted to teach often left for schools where there was less fighting in the halls and more students who had less chaotic home lives. The few great teachers that I had made a difference in how I have lived for the past forty-five years. I may not have adequately appreciated them at the time but I do now. You may turn out to be one of Gwen's favorite teachers in the years ahead.
20
One unfortunate reality: if Jacynda manages to escape her small town, attend college, settle in a city, not be on disability, and become part of the 21st century, her family and small town friends will no longer think she is a "real 'mericun".
Just as most of our ancestors with any "get up and go" sorted themselves by leaving their ancestral home and came to North American in search of opportunity, the big sort is happening again.
Just as most of our ancestors with any "get up and go" sorted themselves by leaving their ancestral home and came to North American in search of opportunity, the big sort is happening again.
7
What are you talking about?
Isn't she already in North America?
What part of Ohio don't you understand?
Isn't she already in North America?
What part of Ohio don't you understand?
1
Mr. Reid is not saying that Jacynda will leave her home for North America, rather he's comparing her to our ancestors who left Europe, Africa, Asia, etc. to come to North America in search of a better life. If she and her peers decide to leave their community in search of opportunity, they are likely, as he states in his first paragraph, to be thought of in a negative light by those who remain.
9
Rather disturbing, youngsters can be so inculcated by their parents and communities, that they reject clear scientific evidence, and cling to faith, hunches, and phony media stories. Disturbing and very sad. Must be awful for the teacher, who sounds like a rational, caring professional.
10
Just so. And people don't think that culture is real, that it has an effect on who we are ... Another failure in education, abetted by the deniers. It's such a shame that so many of them are parents.
5
To me, one of the most disturbing statements in this article is, "a belief in climate change does not jibe with Christianity." So many of our current GOP "leaders" claim to be devout Christians, and evangelicals went disproportionately for Donald Trump. What hope do we have for the planet and for critical thinking skills in general when our policies are being driven by people who feel threatened by scientific reasoning, or worse, who are waiting for a "Second Coming" that will be ushered in by an apocalypse in the Middle East?
14
Bravo, Mr. Sutter - you obviously connected with your students, and don't consider Gwen a failure; rather, she now knows that there is overwhelming evidence of climate change. A similar problem occurs with teaching evolution; in 1900 it was "theory" - now, with overwhelming evidence, it's fact.
8
One approach is to explain the peer review process in which scientific research is vetted before being published in scholarly journals. Then say how rare that it is to have that research result in a statement of support from a prestigious society such as the American Chemical Society or the American Meteorological Society. Then explain it is unprecedented for as many prestigious academic societies to release statements around a single issue as has happened with anthropogenic climate change. Here is a very partial list: American Association for the Advancement of Science (more than 200,000 member scientists), American Chemical Society, American Meteorological Society, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, American Medical Association and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (founded by Abraham Lincoln, over 500 past and current Nobel Prize winners). Then there is the granddaddy of them all – The Royal Society of London, whose past members include Isaac Newton and Benjamin Franklin. Why would these institutions risk their hard earned reputations on a “hoax”?
16
How many of these positions were taken based on a poll of their members? As far as I know, the AMS once took a poll that showed deep levels of skepticism among meteorologists, and no other society has had such a survey. So the scientists belonging to these societies should not be assumed to have endorsed any of these statements. As for the Royal Society, whose motto is to take nobody's word for it, it's previously esteemed members ought to be rolling in their graves.
4
Had to check that I wasn't reading The Onion. Too sad that we live in a world where we have to defend facts over opinions.
9
After another reading of this wonderful article, I am left with a sadness since there are aspects of life about us that we need to understand, even if not accept, at an early age to be able to go on to be responsible adults.
7
Something NEEDS to be done about the propagation of dis-information flooding the Internet. There is so much that people are drinking up, that the majority of us are not clued into. It is scary to think there is a very solid alter-reality going on.
I wish someone would PLEASE offer a solution. If you had asked me before the elections about taking away some of my privacy/rights on the Internet, I would have said NO WAY! But after the uncovering of the amount of dis-information and "fake news" and "Alternative Facts" out there, I am now willing to forego some of my rights in order to keep the world from going insane and taking us into WW III or Bannon's dream for Armageddon.
I wish someone would PLEASE offer a solution. If you had asked me before the elections about taking away some of my privacy/rights on the Internet, I would have said NO WAY! But after the uncovering of the amount of dis-information and "fake news" and "Alternative Facts" out there, I am now willing to forego some of my rights in order to keep the world from going insane and taking us into WW III or Bannon's dream for Armageddon.
6
Hard to see why Gwen's fleeing the class is described as a "pragmatic decision".
Immature would be a lot closer to the mark.
Immature would be a lot closer to the mark.
23
As Donald Trump pointed out, he loves the "poorly educated." Why? Because you can get them to believe anything. Here we have school children repeating the talking points of the fossil fuel industry, the same way smokers used to repeat the talking points of the tobacco industry. It turns out the scientists were right about tobacco-it is addictive, and it kills (50% of habitual smokers die from a smoking-related illness) and causes terrible illnesses (COPD, heart disease). Unfortunately, while the greatest harm from smoking is visited on the smokers themselves, while their companions mostly just end up smelling bad, with climate change, the damage from the ignorance of those who reject science will be visited on EVERYONE.
23
From the article:
“It’s not about opinions,” he told her. “It’s about the evidence.”
“It’s like you can’t disagree with a scientist or you’re ‘denying science,”’ she sniffed to her friends.
The first sentence is the essence of science. The second reveals Gwen's fundamental misunderstanding: you disagree with a scientist by bringing better data and conclusions to the discussion, not by asserting an opinion.
“It’s not about opinions,” he told her. “It’s about the evidence.”
“It’s like you can’t disagree with a scientist or you’re ‘denying science,”’ she sniffed to her friends.
The first sentence is the essence of science. The second reveals Gwen's fundamental misunderstanding: you disagree with a scientist by bringing better data and conclusions to the discussion, not by asserting an opinion.
37
Maybe you believe in a certain way because you grew up in your own particular environment where that was all that was taught. It's not until you get out of your own sphere of influence where it is safe and warm and what you know; to a place unfamiliar and less insular.
If you do and many don't and if you are smart enough to formulate your own opinions you might be able to view things in a context where it means something to yourself and the bigger world.
Sutter is doing the right thing by introducing students to things that are new to them taking them to places they haven't been. Education does not corrupt it opens minds. Sometimes it can be frustrating but if only a few get it, its rewarding.
If you do and many don't and if you are smart enough to formulate your own opinions you might be able to view things in a context where it means something to yourself and the bigger world.
Sutter is doing the right thing by introducing students to things that are new to them taking them to places they haven't been. Education does not corrupt it opens minds. Sometimes it can be frustrating but if only a few get it, its rewarding.
16
One difficulty Gwen will have to face someday is that she was wrong - I think that is her driver; it is Trunpanian in nature.
She really believes in her position but to convince others to support her views she needs to really get involved on an intellectual rather than the emotional level which she exhibited on leaving the classroom.
If one really looks over the literature it is quite difficult to come to the conclusion that the changes we are just beginning to see are "noise". The models are becoming even more predictive and they say no, it isn't.
It took several centuries to build the magnificent cathedrals of Europe (mine being Canterbury). Have we become so short term that to plan such a structure is unthinkable today.? If so how about model predictions for 2100 or 1/3 of a cathedral... We're frogs in the pot and the kettle is gently warming, the kettle is large and there are about 7 billion frogs.
Guess what?
She really believes in her position but to convince others to support her views she needs to really get involved on an intellectual rather than the emotional level which she exhibited on leaving the classroom.
If one really looks over the literature it is quite difficult to come to the conclusion that the changes we are just beginning to see are "noise". The models are becoming even more predictive and they say no, it isn't.
It took several centuries to build the magnificent cathedrals of Europe (mine being Canterbury). Have we become so short term that to plan such a structure is unthinkable today.? If so how about model predictions for 2100 or 1/3 of a cathedral... We're frogs in the pot and the kettle is gently warming, the kettle is large and there are about 7 billion frogs.
Guess what?
8
It's a shame to hear about young minds that have already closed up.
I hope these students come to realize that listening, even when they disagree, is a valuable talent that will help them for the rest of their lives, and that forming your own opinions through research is part of becoming an adult.
I hope these students come to realize that listening, even when they disagree, is a valuable talent that will help them for the rest of their lives, and that forming your own opinions through research is part of becoming an adult.
9
Well at least Gwen's remained open.
1
John Muir father of the American environmental movement, was also a glaciologist. He sailed to Alaska in the 1860's, before the age of oil and our massive release of CO2. Muir took along copies of the charts made by Vancouver from the century before, allowing Muir to study the changes that had occured since Vancouver's exploration in the 1700's. He describes two glacier bays in one paragraph in chapter 10 of "Travels to Alaska" which might make a person question if changes in the past century are any different than the changes in the century before:
"Glacier Bay is undoubtedly young as yet. Vancouver's chart, made only a century ago, shows no trace of it, though found admirably faithful in general. It seems probable, therefore, that even then the entire bay was occupied by a glacier of which all those described above, great though they are, were only tributaries. Nearly as great a change has taken place in Sum Dum Bay since Vancouver's visit, the main trunk glacier there having receded from eighteen to twenty five miles from the line marked on his chart. Charley, who was here when a boy, said that the place had so changed that he hardly recognized it, so many new islands had been born in the mean time and so much ice had vanished. As we have seen, this Icy Bay is being still farther extended by the recession of the glaciers. That this whole system of fiords and channels was added to the domain of the sea by glacial action is to my mind certain."
"Glacier Bay is undoubtedly young as yet. Vancouver's chart, made only a century ago, shows no trace of it, though found admirably faithful in general. It seems probable, therefore, that even then the entire bay was occupied by a glacier of which all those described above, great though they are, were only tributaries. Nearly as great a change has taken place in Sum Dum Bay since Vancouver's visit, the main trunk glacier there having receded from eighteen to twenty five miles from the line marked on his chart. Charley, who was here when a boy, said that the place had so changed that he hardly recognized it, so many new islands had been born in the mean time and so much ice had vanished. As we have seen, this Icy Bay is being still farther extended by the recession of the glaciers. That this whole system of fiords and channels was added to the domain of the sea by glacial action is to my mind certain."
7
I'm from Wellston and my family has been in the County since 1803. I graduated from Wellston High School and went to Stanford and then earned a graduate degree at Wharton. I applaud Mr. Sutter's work and was influenced by teachers like Mr. Sutter as well as by teachers from Wellston and the surrounding area. Wellston has had hard times. Frick Gallagher moved out of town. McNally Pittsburgh closed. The area mines have boomed and busted over the years. (What's very encouraging to me and my family when we visit is the reforestation of the area. It's truly a fascinating transformation.) The town is smaller but the spirit is still large. There is very much more to this story. And it's complex and there are contradictions. Kudos to Amy Harmon for writing a first chapter.
19
A wonderful, illuminating article.
6
I am a professional in the climate sciences. This article kept me up last night. Particularly the brief mention that a field trip brought the HS' students first ride on an escalator -- I thought, there is no hope for these kids to ever appreciate modern science. They live in an isolated, slow-moving world, have no exposure to technology as quotidian (for me) as an escalator -- how can they possibly understand a simulation model, straight-As or not? But, that's just my liberal-elite-snobbery. What's really at play is the old adage, "it's hard to get a man to believe in something when his salary depends on his not believing it". Rather, it's hard for them to see climate science as an empirical, trustworthy, and important cause when all they've heard is that the greenies are the cause of their poverty, stagnant, drug-addicted community and lack of opportunity.
I wish to think their tune would change if the "greenies'" movement had quickly replaced the coal mine with, say, a wind turbine factory. Same industry, different look. But since the notion of climate change wiped their relevance off the face of the earth, they will only see it as an enemy.
I wish to think their tune would change if the "greenies'" movement had quickly replaced the coal mine with, say, a wind turbine factory. Same industry, different look. But since the notion of climate change wiped their relevance off the face of the earth, they will only see it as an enemy.
29
Does your salary, as a climate scientist, depend in any way on the sources of your funding believing that climate is a dangerous problem? Would the world be a friendly place for its now many climate scientists if climate sensitivity to manmade emissions were understood to be low, CO2 was considered mainly to be a helpful fertilizing agent, and warmer temperatures viewed as a boon as compared to cooler? I would find that hard to believe.
4
Repeated efforts to mislead by fudging the data naturally increased skepticism. Who has a license to lie?
5
Obviously the climate-deniers whom you read, people throwing out the baby with the thimble-water.
6
Blind skepticism, that is, simply doubting every statement without critically considering the substance supporting the statement, or attributing every observed phenomenon to any random cause, as the student does in the article, is not the hallmark of intelligent debate. No scientist reads a journal article and questions every premise put forward in the article, because those premises have been established scientifically. Science moves incrementally forward, but it does move forward. Unqualified laypeople are not really in a position to assess the evidence themselves without reading the relevant scientific literature first (if they can even understand it). Merely rejecting scientists' conclusions and accepting the specious logic of those with ulterior motives only digs our graves that much more quickly.
16
It is tough for children because no doubt they need to believe that their parents are wonderful, smart and right about everything, and anything that challenges that illusion will be fought tooth and nail. The student in the article has to choose believing science, which clearly is correct, and her parents, and this conflict is playing out in the classroom. So educating the parents is important, too.
10
When you have parents that deny evolution, where can you go as a teacher.
I would recommend experiments that might perhaps be more meaningful and don't tell the kids it is about climate change until afterwards. Can you produce smog in a bell jar?
I would recommend experiments that might perhaps be more meaningful and don't tell the kids it is about climate change until afterwards. Can you produce smog in a bell jar?
8
Rupert Murdoch and Sinclair owe Gwen lifetime employment as they have used their wealth to destroy education and critical thinking in her community with 24/7 hate speech filled with false information.
These people need to take back their air waves
These people need to take back their air waves
23
I'm sorry Gwen quit the class. Will she quit every job where she disagrees with her supervisor?
15
Communities like these are irreparably harmed by Fox News, talk radio and the alt right hate funded by oligarchs like the Koch brothers/Robert Mercer and the Murdoch family
By leaving that class, Gwen left science.
That is so sad.
By leaving that class, Gwen left science.
That is so sad.
21
I ask Gwen one question- but what if the scientists are right? what will you and your parents do then?
And one other question- why do you and your parents support Trump and McConnell Republicans when they are not bringing back coal jobs (don't kid yourself), polluting your water, making jobs more dangerous by removing worker protections, taking away your health benefits or making them more expensive (unless you already have black lung disease and are dying), allowing schools to provide less healthy meals, and providing no money for retraining for the 21st century economy.
Gwen what is your dad and your family going to do when the republicans take away food stamps and subsidized school meals by conditioning them on having a job that doesn't exist? How are they and you going to get decent health care when the "tax credits" won't come close to covering your out of pocket costs?
Wake up girl. Just look around you. Think for yourself.
And one other question- why do you and your parents support Trump and McConnell Republicans when they are not bringing back coal jobs (don't kid yourself), polluting your water, making jobs more dangerous by removing worker protections, taking away your health benefits or making them more expensive (unless you already have black lung disease and are dying), allowing schools to provide less healthy meals, and providing no money for retraining for the 21st century economy.
Gwen what is your dad and your family going to do when the republicans take away food stamps and subsidized school meals by conditioning them on having a job that doesn't exist? How are they and you going to get decent health care when the "tax credits" won't come close to covering your out of pocket costs?
Wake up girl. Just look around you. Think for yourself.
20
In my daughter's high school class, on a project about the Nuremberg trials, using the NYT or the Washington Post needed prior approval. According to my daughter, they were not allowed to used them; when I confronted the teacher, she said she would approve them upon request. I don't need to spell out the subliminal message to students, casting doubt on reputable sources... Talk about culture wars in the classroom!
25
Smart kid! Difficult question. Of course we know the outcome only after it is too late. Also we do not have 2 earths to experiment with, one with and one without the Paris treaty. The challenge is now really to explain why people believe the outcome without Paris is bad. Maybe China has to get the lead first for some
people to realize that their time is up.
people to realize that their time is up.
8
It's important to keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out. When you have to rely on arguments that essentially establish that knowledge is impossible ("scientists are wrong about things all the time") it is time to reassess how reasonable your skepticism is. Otherwise, we can all just rely on magic and witchcraft, which apparenty we are doing with respect to climate change. By the time Americans get on board with the program, it will be too late (if it is not too late already).
9
All American children should think as Gwen does. It will ensure a steady influx of educated immigrants and and outflux of scientific and engineering jobs. As an immigrant and engineer, go for it Gwen. I need the work.
7
Ms. Beatty: scientists are wrong all the time because of something called confirmation bias, which is a kind of subtle wishful thinking. It's something to be careful about. Being careful can be hard, but it's worth trying -- for them and for you.
6
Students need to begin learning critical thinking skills as soon as they begin to read. Without such skills, they can grow up to believe science is just an opinion that they are qualified to dispute with nothing more than their opinion, formed by family and strengthened by dubious internet sources.
It is very important to our democracy to have a broad population able to determine their beliefs based on more than emotion.
It is very important to our democracy to have a broad population able to determine their beliefs based on more than emotion.
16
Maybe Gwen thinks her curfew is unfair, too. It doesn't mean her opinion has any value whatsoever. Unless she can cogently explain the science that the small number of skeptics purport, she ought to learn a bit more and then decide to go down the denial path. Kudos to her if she can prove it some day and changes the whole conversation. Nonetheless, she sure can draw a lovely flag. That's a useful skill set.
8
Colleagues: This is an issue of probabilities.
If Gwen and her family (meaning all those who share her beliefs) are willing to say there is a vanishingly small chance that the global warming crowd is wrong and are willing to stake the future of all their descendants for the next 10 generations, meaning that they and their descendants would be willing to commit to living on the coast of the US South for those 10 generations, then they are brave indeed. I prefer caution here, as should Gwen and others. This is a high stakes game since there is a real chance that the scientists she is so skeptical about are right. All of her descendants and countless others could well perish.
Gwen, please relax. Your passion for truth telling should not fail but there will be no way to predict for sure if you are right or wrong. Your vocal opposition could sway others who are less thoughtful than you. Patience is key here, this is conservatism that we can all support. Regardless of how much we support or do not support those who fear climate change, we must all be prudent with what we have been gifted.
If Gwen and her family (meaning all those who share her beliefs) are willing to say there is a vanishingly small chance that the global warming crowd is wrong and are willing to stake the future of all their descendants for the next 10 generations, meaning that they and their descendants would be willing to commit to living on the coast of the US South for those 10 generations, then they are brave indeed. I prefer caution here, as should Gwen and others. This is a high stakes game since there is a real chance that the scientists she is so skeptical about are right. All of her descendants and countless others could well perish.
Gwen, please relax. Your passion for truth telling should not fail but there will be no way to predict for sure if you are right or wrong. Your vocal opposition could sway others who are less thoughtful than you. Patience is key here, this is conservatism that we can all support. Regardless of how much we support or do not support those who fear climate change, we must all be prudent with what we have been gifted.
4
My teenagers try to think up new ways to crash the Adults. This article describes one of the ways teens purposefully try to be adverse.
Sadly, the child will be the last one to think about recycling, driving an electric car and participating in Earth Day.
But most will consider it willingly: bone headed "facts" like those espoused by the GOP and the Flat Earth Society just won't last.
Sadly, the child will be the last one to think about recycling, driving an electric car and participating in Earth Day.
But most will consider it willingly: bone headed "facts" like those espoused by the GOP and the Flat Earth Society just won't last.
2
I cannot imagine arguing with a teacher about why a topic of scientific learning and research is valid especially at the high school level. Being an aging baby boomer I cannot fathom having such disrespect. Gwen Beatty views science as a personal attack on her beliefs and the beliefs of her family and parts of her community. Instead of being open minded she responds with a shrug asserting, “Scientists are wrong all the time,”. I wouldn't have had the gall to attack a teacher with that smart aleck retort.
Perhaps it would help if as part of a program of teaching science the science program courses would include fundamental understanding of statistical analysis and research methods. In other words students need to know why things are valid or invalid and how and why we create the tests.
Education should challenge students to learn not to argue. If Gwen Beatty and other students understood the basics of statistics and research methods they would still be able to challenge results but with insight and understanding not contempt.
Taking a class to a mine where tailings are dumped into a stream or river would have more meaning if the students could think about creating a study of how to measure the impact of the tailings on alkalinity or acidity of surface and ground water. Is there pollution? What kind is it? Where does it come from? How do we measure it? Why do we measure it this way and is there another? How can we validate our results? Are we drawing correct conclusions?
Perhaps it would help if as part of a program of teaching science the science program courses would include fundamental understanding of statistical analysis and research methods. In other words students need to know why things are valid or invalid and how and why we create the tests.
Education should challenge students to learn not to argue. If Gwen Beatty and other students understood the basics of statistics and research methods they would still be able to challenge results but with insight and understanding not contempt.
Taking a class to a mine where tailings are dumped into a stream or river would have more meaning if the students could think about creating a study of how to measure the impact of the tailings on alkalinity or acidity of surface and ground water. Is there pollution? What kind is it? Where does it come from? How do we measure it? Why do we measure it this way and is there another? How can we validate our results? Are we drawing correct conclusions?
9
Applause, applause, Mr. Sutter! Your work is so essential, yet so endangered by groups like the Heartland Institute. Hang in there, and thank you.
12
God bless the teacher. At least he is trying, and he was able to reach a few of these students. And shame on you administration for letting Gwen dictate what she was going to learn rather than forcing her to question and challenge in the classroom.
This article sure helps explain why 38% of the electorate supports Trump. But it scares the bejeezus out of me to think that the children of Trump voters are being so poisoned that they reject any independent
You go girl, Jaclyn. Keep on challenging.
This article sure helps explain why 38% of the electorate supports Trump. But it scares the bejeezus out of me to think that the children of Trump voters are being so poisoned that they reject any independent
You go girl, Jaclyn. Keep on challenging.
11
What's that old saying? Something about it is hard to get a person to disagree with the thing that puts food on their table? If your family's income comes from coal, it is going to be very hard to convince you of a view that says burning coal is bad, no matter how much evidence you're shown or how airtight the argument. I've experienced it personally: otherwise good and reasonable people bending over backwards to defend the indefensible, because if they don't, their industry (banking, corn sweetener, etc.) is the bad guy. t is easier to adopt motivated reasoning than to deal with the cognitive dissonance.
3
Gwen, you CAN disagree with science.
Just make sure you provide evidence to support your opinion.
Just like your teacher is offering you some evidence to support his opinion that climate change caused by humans is real.
Just make sure you provide evidence to support your opinion.
Just like your teacher is offering you some evidence to support his opinion that climate change caused by humans is real.
18
Bolting out of the classroom in hissy-fit denial? Using grammar more aligned with elementary schoolers? Straight A student? I don’t think so. “And that all these people that I pretty much am like are wrong and stupid.” Yeah, you hit the nail on the head, Little Miss I refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence that formally rejects the climate denier null hypothesis. "The null what"? she asks.
9
Remember that you cannot blame her for her education. As frustrating as it is to see people reject climate change despite the evidence, and as frustrating as high schoolers themselves can be, we need to remember that this student has been failed by the system in some ways. Her family also seems to have eaten up the false climate change messages that have been so pervasive in recent years. Blame her circumstances, not her.
7
I agree with gordonlee. While Gwen may think that her theatrics convey her passion, the other students may have been quietly chagrined that precious class time was being taken by someone who did not want to learn and chose to obstruct the rights of other students to learn, too.
I suspect that there were at least some parents in the community who were hoping that their children would learn enough to earn a scholarship that could lift them out of the family's desperate circumstances and allow them a better life. At some point, the teacher has to have the right to say "enough".
I suspect that there were at least some parents in the community who were hoping that their children would learn enough to earn a scholarship that could lift them out of the family's desperate circumstances and allow them a better life. At some point, the teacher has to have the right to say "enough".
4
This article is great. Thanks to such a wonderful teacher, being patient and understanding, kids will learn.
This whole business of climate change and personal beliefs, indeed, who we are, reminds me a lot of my adolescence. In my case, it was religion... I was in an advanced biology class, and then a philosophy class, where every statement was challenged for supporting evidence. In other words, you couldn't just say, "I believe..."
I was brought up in a religious household, Sunday school, summer bible camp during high school, but having to support what I believed with evidence changed, over time, how I think. My philosophy professor was the harshest, leaving some kids in class in tears as a result of his relentless questioning.
That was a very long time ago, early 1960's. I have been a science professor for 40 some years now, and I doubt I could challenge students today the way I was challenged. See the recent articles about Evergreen State and other colleges.
In the end, maybe it doesn't really matter what these kids think about global climate issues. What matters is that they will have been given the mental tools to sort through the evidence, be skeptical of all points of view perhaps, and in the end come to an informed decision about whatever issue is on the table. They are lucky to have had this science teacher in their lives.
This whole business of climate change and personal beliefs, indeed, who we are, reminds me a lot of my adolescence. In my case, it was religion... I was in an advanced biology class, and then a philosophy class, where every statement was challenged for supporting evidence. In other words, you couldn't just say, "I believe..."
I was brought up in a religious household, Sunday school, summer bible camp during high school, but having to support what I believed with evidence changed, over time, how I think. My philosophy professor was the harshest, leaving some kids in class in tears as a result of his relentless questioning.
That was a very long time ago, early 1960's. I have been a science professor for 40 some years now, and I doubt I could challenge students today the way I was challenged. See the recent articles about Evergreen State and other colleges.
In the end, maybe it doesn't really matter what these kids think about global climate issues. What matters is that they will have been given the mental tools to sort through the evidence, be skeptical of all points of view perhaps, and in the end come to an informed decision about whatever issue is on the table. They are lucky to have had this science teacher in their lives.
9
Teachers are responsible to provide current information; to share evidence of that information and to prompt their students to think. We are not in the business of changing minds. To Mr. Sutter I say keep up the good work. I'm impressed.
12
Inability to adapt to the environment is at the heart of why species go extinct, according to Darwin.
Thus, I submit Wellston, Ohio and its inhabitants (as Rod Serling might intone) as exhibit A.
Buh-bye, Wellston. You won't be missed.
Thus, I submit Wellston, Ohio and its inhabitants (as Rod Serling might intone) as exhibit A.
Buh-bye, Wellston. You won't be missed.
7
I don't understand how climate change has become an argument of believers vs. non-believers. Climate change was abundantly clear to me during a recent flight I recently took over British Columbia's northern coastal mountains. Glaciers are receding quickly all over the range, leaving huge swaths of exposed gravel and a tree line showing where they consistently covered only a few decades ago. But I guess its easy to be a believer when you have the opportunity to see it for yourself and don't need to "trust" evidence based literature.
10
Climate change denial isn't based on evidence, or lack thereof. It's primarily due to perceived economic interests (environmentalists killed my job!) or religion (God turns the weather knob).
For religious fanatics the notion of anthropogenic climate change sounds like blasphemy. In Pakistan that'll get you killed. In Ohio you have to run out of the classroom to save your soul.
For religious fanatics the notion of anthropogenic climate change sounds like blasphemy. In Pakistan that'll get you killed. In Ohio you have to run out of the classroom to save your soul.
6
Glaciers also retreated quickly in the late 19th century, when CO2 levels were essentially unchanged from industrial times. The 'proof' you see in this is akin to being convinced by a horoscope.
4
The climatic phenomena are cumulative - not one thing all at once that you can see happen. They are based on ideas and analysis where the examples of the effects are never direct. The problem of perception is similar to how smoking is linked to disease states. One person smoking in front of you does not contract a disease on the spot. In contrast, someone suffering a concussion on impact shows an effect. But in both cases, the long term effects on large numbers provide the evidence of major and irreversible damage. Neither smoking, nor concussions, nor global warning are good for you but you shouldn't have to see what they do on the personal level to accept the truth. The challenge is always enormous to act on the knowledge from science in cases like these.
3
Unfortunately, the evidence-denying, cling-at-all-costs-to-the-past attitudes common in communities like this prevent them from transitioning to their "next act," which may be in health care, or other service oriented industries. It's already possible that a larger percentage of this community's wealth is generated by health care than by coal mining. They need a new narrative, but there are no community leaders to provide one.
4
Gwen pretty much explained exactly why she has to disagree with science: "“It was just so biased toward saying climate change is real,” she said later, trying to explain her flight. “And that all these people that I pretty much am like are wrong and stupid.”"
It's called "cognitive dissonance". Perhaps there should be a vocabulary test of scientific terms every week and slip that one in.
It's called "cognitive dissonance". Perhaps there should be a vocabulary test of scientific terms every week and slip that one in.
8
Gwen entered the science classroom with a deep-seated belief that climate change "wasn't real," and she flatly refused to consider evidence to the contrary. Ultimately, she fled the classroom rather than have her beliefs challenged.
Bad outcome--for Gwen and for society. I wouldn't want to hire an employee like Gwen. Her "I'm right and you're wrong" and "I have nothing to learn from you if you disagree with me" attitude doesn't translate into a good employee who is willing to learn. Rather than allow her beliefs to be challenged to and how to defend them, she was defiant, uncooperative and ultimately MIA. Whatever her family circumstances or background, they don't offer an acceptable excuse for her behavior in the classroom or outside of it.
Finally, what would a teacher in a Christian school, paid for with a public tax-dollar voucher, do it a student in his classroom challenged creationism as vigorously as Gwen challenged climate science? My guess is that the teacher's and school's response to that behavior would be much less sanguine then the patience and tolerance Gwen's teacher and district afforded her.
Bad outcome--for Gwen and for society. I wouldn't want to hire an employee like Gwen. Her "I'm right and you're wrong" and "I have nothing to learn from you if you disagree with me" attitude doesn't translate into a good employee who is willing to learn. Rather than allow her beliefs to be challenged to and how to defend them, she was defiant, uncooperative and ultimately MIA. Whatever her family circumstances or background, they don't offer an acceptable excuse for her behavior in the classroom or outside of it.
Finally, what would a teacher in a Christian school, paid for with a public tax-dollar voucher, do it a student in his classroom challenged creationism as vigorously as Gwen challenged climate science? My guess is that the teacher's and school's response to that behavior would be much less sanguine then the patience and tolerance Gwen's teacher and district afforded her.
28
My grandfather never went past third grade and pushed a candied apple cart through the streets of Detroit in the winter to make a living. I greatly respected his hard work and perseverance but knew that there were better possibilities for me through education. My grandparents pushed me in school and were proud when I became the first college grad in the family.
There has to be a way to open the door to Appalachian students to a wider world of work possibilities--without alienating them from their families and their ancestors. At least some of them would likely respond to the possibility of a healthier and more interesting life than coal mining can offer.
Coal, as an industry, is going to disappear no matter what. Now is the time to help these students honor their parents and grandparents while moving forward into the future. This is what education can and should offer them. I salute Mr. Sutter for trying to help in the face of such deep fear.
There has to be a way to open the door to Appalachian students to a wider world of work possibilities--without alienating them from their families and their ancestors. At least some of them would likely respond to the possibility of a healthier and more interesting life than coal mining can offer.
Coal, as an industry, is going to disappear no matter what. Now is the time to help these students honor their parents and grandparents while moving forward into the future. This is what education can and should offer them. I salute Mr. Sutter for trying to help in the face of such deep fear.
17
Mr. Sutter is energetic, enthusiastic, and dedicated. Nevertheless he was "largely winging it." In what profession can one do an acceptable job by winging it? Should your doctor or airline pilot wing it? It takes ten years or so for a teacher to hit his or her stride. It goes without saying that an experienced teacher would have done better, all other things the same. To be sure, school districts are doing anything they can to get qualified STEM teachers.
The general situation is still simply awful. Science and math teachers are relatively much worse than, say, literature teachers. Many are science- or math-phobic. Any number teach because they are not qualified for an engineering career or a graduate science program. Textbooks are surprisingly poor. Science and math have become increasingly abstract, obtuse and difficult even as they have thoroughly pervaded everyday life. Relatively few students believe STEM careers are desirable and even fewer express an interest in pursuing a STEM career themselves. The numbers of minorities and young women in all STEM fields other than the life sciences is the same as it was 30 years ago.
The general situation is still simply awful. Science and math teachers are relatively much worse than, say, literature teachers. Many are science- or math-phobic. Any number teach because they are not qualified for an engineering career or a graduate science program. Textbooks are surprisingly poor. Science and math have become increasingly abstract, obtuse and difficult even as they have thoroughly pervaded everyday life. Relatively few students believe STEM careers are desirable and even fewer express an interest in pursuing a STEM career themselves. The numbers of minorities and young women in all STEM fields other than the life sciences is the same as it was 30 years ago.
2
You should try teaching. Most teachers are winging it because they aren't given the resources they need to adequately teach.
8
JF, I agree with you that one of the problems is that teachers are not given adequate resources. I should have said so. Such resources would include adequate mentoring and training.
(I have "tried teaching.")
(I have "tried teaching.")
2
Because of Koch-like propagandists, It took decades of tobacco cancer denial before people were able to know the truth. The wealthy, whose fortunes rested with diseased lungs and agonizing deaths, held on to their sinister positions, lying all the way to the bank.
The same is going on now.
Let's say,. instead of 97% of the worlds scientists sounding the alarm about greenhouse gasses only 50% find that the data is convincing.
Well, since the actual fate of the planet may be at stake, why even take a chance?
But with 97% of the scientists shocked at the data and its terrible ramifications, this is exactly like a brain addled buffoon playing Russian roulette, every chamber loaded and pointed straight at the heart of our Mother Earth.
The same is going on now.
Let's say,. instead of 97% of the worlds scientists sounding the alarm about greenhouse gasses only 50% find that the data is convincing.
Well, since the actual fate of the planet may be at stake, why even take a chance?
But with 97% of the scientists shocked at the data and its terrible ramifications, this is exactly like a brain addled buffoon playing Russian roulette, every chamber loaded and pointed straight at the heart of our Mother Earth.
10
I feel for young students who are faced with one set of beliefs at home, coupled with a set of life circumstances, who then face the scientific reality of the world at school. Their love and loyalty to family is touching and meaningful, and the situation of their parents' work life is tough and often unfair.
But really, it's impossible to think logically and at the same time deny science. We can't avoid teaching our students about humanity's contribution to climate change. A planet in balance is like a scale in balance: even if there are tons weight on each side, adding just a tiny bit to either side will tip the scale in that direction.
At one point families argued over whether the earth was the center of the universe. It turns out that no, it isn't. And yet people have found a way to make their religion absorb this fact and still hold its meaning.
All of us depend upon young people like Gwen finding a way to reconcile love for family and traditional religious value with scientific fact. We depend on you to save our lives.
But really, it's impossible to think logically and at the same time deny science. We can't avoid teaching our students about humanity's contribution to climate change. A planet in balance is like a scale in balance: even if there are tons weight on each side, adding just a tiny bit to either side will tip the scale in that direction.
At one point families argued over whether the earth was the center of the universe. It turns out that no, it isn't. And yet people have found a way to make their religion absorb this fact and still hold its meaning.
All of us depend upon young people like Gwen finding a way to reconcile love for family and traditional religious value with scientific fact. We depend on you to save our lives.
7
One of the largest problems facing anyone wishing to research the "facts" is the huge amount of legitimate-sounding misinformation out there. When corporations are publishing articles in scientific journal look-alikes, funding research chairs at universities, and creating shell non-profits to promulgate their marketing "data," it's very difficult to segregate good information from bad. It's not so much "willful blindness" on the part of individuals as it is "deliberate obfuscation" on the part of corporations, and it is a systemic weakness in capitalism which a good government should put in regulations to prevent. The alternative is living in an oligarchy.
6
This article was troubling on so many levels, but at the expense of sounding like an old codger, why is Gwen in AP classes? Maybe the bigger problem is grade inflation? We've created students that are under the impression that they are special and smart without having demonstrating the academic rigor to back it up. Since the issue of climate changed has been politicized at the expense of facts, maybe she could show her smarts in an AP Poli Sci class, but should have definitely been demoted to the dull-normal science class. And please, please tell me that she was sent to the principal every time she disrupted the class. It really just sounds like she was disrespecting the teacher; teenagers have an uncanny, and cutthroat instinct to run roughshod over newbies--I'm very grateful for all the teachers in my past who saw my unsubstantiated "opinions" for what they were and nipped the underlying acting-out behavior right in the bud.
9
Did you miss the "straight A student" part? You get into AP classes by getting good grades in other classes. There aren't belief tests.
4
No, I did not. I don't think I left any doubt that I did not think this girl was a straight-A student in the objective landscape. Again, my guess is grade inflation, which is a real problem in American high schools and colleges.
1
Listen here, bashing me for being uneducated just shows the kind of person you are. I never have unjustifiably interupted a class ive had, ever. I tried to learn and understand climate change but this article does not show my true opinion. I just thought that some of the evidence did not add up and when your being screamed at by a 32-year-old man, you tend to not want to stay in his class. I think you should be more compassionate to the people who you rudely tear down. Have a lovely day because i will here in this no good trump supporting town.
1
Ah, another NY Times "anthropologist" ventures "out there" to examine how "those" people live.
Like a trip to the zoo, only with an expense acount.
Like a trip to the zoo, only with an expense acount.
8
Well put. Sort of like the paper's political "analysis" in the last election.
4
While I may not be surprised why someone with a vested interest in coal, either directly or due to a family connection to the industry, would doubt climate science, I think that this is a variation on the Upton Sinclair statement that "It's impossible to make someone understand something when their paycheck is dependent on not understanding it."
The way to look at this is from the approach of a risk versus reward perspective. If the climate science deniers are right and we go through all the efforts to reduce greenhouse gases, then all we risk is having more solar panels and wind farms and cleaner air, since no one can deny that exhaust fumes are no good for one's health, regardless of their effect on the climate.
HOWEVER, if the climate scientists are right and human activity is causing the planet to warm and we do nothing about it, as the climate deniers would have it, WE LOOSE THE PLANET.
The way to look at this is from the approach of a risk versus reward perspective. If the climate science deniers are right and we go through all the efforts to reduce greenhouse gases, then all we risk is having more solar panels and wind farms and cleaner air, since no one can deny that exhaust fumes are no good for one's health, regardless of their effect on the climate.
HOWEVER, if the climate scientists are right and human activity is causing the planet to warm and we do nothing about it, as the climate deniers would have it, WE LOOSE THE PLANET.
10
Mostly, they've been lied to by their politicians about the causes of coal's decline. I live in KY and all you hear about is how regulations kill coal; it's incredibly difficult to change such an ingrained narrative (especially when it's married with so called conservative "Christian" values).
The Dems have truly failed when it comes to the narrative; they let the GOP control it and merely respond, instead of just strongly stating that automation and the cheaper cost of natural gas is the cause of coal's decline.
The Dems have truly failed when it comes to the narrative; they let the GOP control it and merely respond, instead of just strongly stating that automation and the cheaper cost of natural gas is the cause of coal's decline.
7
It's easy to fail the narrative when listeners refuse to understand. Everyone wants to blame the Democrats, but spare a thought for the citizens; voters who prefer a comforting lie to an inconvenient truth.
1
The Upton Sinclair quote applies perfectly to most of our climate scientists.
It's a testament to the better angels of human intellect that most of the doubting students had recognized the facts of climate change by the end of the school year. Not everyone - but there is still a good chance that Runaway Gwen will get over her denialism if she gets out from under the authority of her family. Supposedly she isn't stupid.
This little high school is a microcosm of America. We can still hope that truth will prevail. We may have to wait until these young people grow up, but truth will out.
This little high school is a microcosm of America. We can still hope that truth will prevail. We may have to wait until these young people grow up, but truth will out.
6
Thank you so much for this narrative of a caring and dedicated young professional who manages to persuade most of his high school class of the truth about global climate change. You go, Mr. Sutter! We all need your wisdom and ability to reach these adolescent skeptics.
1
Most people agree that regardless of the cause of global warming, we should be working together to find renewable sources of energy, decrease pollution, and recycle. Let's focus on that rather than wasting our time on this argument that seems to have no end to it.
7
This article writes about children very unfortunately. Why does this article mention that Jacynda depends on her friend Gwen "to supply the $2.40 for school lunch that she could not otherwise afford." I believe the author's intentions were to use this tidbit to characterize both the area and Jacynda as economically disadvantaged--poor. It is also used to demonstrate why Jacynda may not have wanted to disagree with her friend. But did Jacynda tell the author this and that they should publish this? Do these child's actions and motivations deserve to be reduced to their poverty? The asides about the poverty of this region come across as yet another poverty-shaming endeavor-- the poor "White working class" support Trump, they don't believe in science because of their economic situation. If this is your argument, make this your argument--do not simply throw in the manifestations of poverty as constant reminders: "Remember, their poor!" Talk about the social pressure of denying climate change science, but I don't appreciate these strange asides that seem only to remind us that this is hickville, "heroin highway".
7
That part about the lunch money bothered me, too. I imagine that the young women may feel a little awkward about what the article revealed; I worry those kinds of gratuitous details will make that even more difficult.
5
So the stubborn obstacles to climate science are now a handful of coal miner teenagers unwilling to learn ... are you KIDDING me?!
3
It's not the teenagers, it's the way in which the GOP has intertwined conservative Christianity to this hardworking, bootstrap idea and peddled it to entire communities, along with lies about what has caused their poverty. There's no one in these communities standing up to these ideas. There's no support.
1
Was that really your takeaway?
3
In several decades, Florida students can be reminded of global warming as they wade to their classes.
9
I thought global warming was expected to "dry" the planet.
1
Doesn't matter much what she thinks. Read the article preceding. She and Trumpville have all got a good chance of overdosing on fentanyl at anytime. Am I supposed to feel sorry for Ms straight A student who wants to pick her own facts?
Something about the beginning of this story, probably the mention of 'brainwashing'. reminded me of the 1950s, when parents became alarmed that a teacher might be a communist sympathizer by recommending a book by Steinbeck or music by Woody Guthrie.
5
Modern day Luddites.
8
It's these poorly-informed American communities that are holding the rest of America hostage by putting people like Trump in office. If they were more informed, they'd realize the politicians they are electing are working to make sure these communities stop receiving any kind of help.
8
Faith versus reason is a debate doomed to futility.One is based on known facts, the other on wishful fantasy. The problem here is illiteracy.
Climate deniers do not read or otherwise expose themselves to known contextual facts within a long established historical and scientific timeline. Illiteracy dooms people to dwell in darkness and illusion, their choice entirely.
I do no care how you make your living, that fact should not shackle your mind to
factual reality. READ, learn, and expand your intellectual horizons or suffer the limitations of your familial and geographic destiny.
Climate deniers do not read or otherwise expose themselves to known contextual facts within a long established historical and scientific timeline. Illiteracy dooms people to dwell in darkness and illusion, their choice entirely.
I do no care how you make your living, that fact should not shackle your mind to
factual reality. READ, learn, and expand your intellectual horizons or suffer the limitations of your familial and geographic destiny.
3
From the 1991 1st IPCC executive summary, "we predict global mean temperature during the next century of about 0 3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0 2°C to 0 5°C per decade)"
According to the current NASA/ GISS global temp data actual temps rose 0.44 deg. over the last 25 years (Almost identical to the temp increases seen between 1910-1940) That works out to 0.176 deg/ decade (12% below low end estimates, 41.3% below average estimates and 64.8% below high end estimates). So... Devar, help me out. Are the climate change activists/ alarmist participating in faith (assuming all their predictions are true and should be acted on even though over the last 1/4 century have overestimated actual temps 2 fold) or are they willing to listen to fact and reason that argues such discrepancies should cause them to re-evaluate their models, their predictions and their recommendation. Because so far climate change advocates and alarmists haven't altered their rhetoric in response to such facts and reason.
According to the current NASA/ GISS global temp data actual temps rose 0.44 deg. over the last 25 years (Almost identical to the temp increases seen between 1910-1940) That works out to 0.176 deg/ decade (12% below low end estimates, 41.3% below average estimates and 64.8% below high end estimates). So... Devar, help me out. Are the climate change activists/ alarmist participating in faith (assuming all their predictions are true and should be acted on even though over the last 1/4 century have overestimated actual temps 2 fold) or are they willing to listen to fact and reason that argues such discrepancies should cause them to re-evaluate their models, their predictions and their recommendation. Because so far climate change advocates and alarmists haven't altered their rhetoric in response to such facts and reason.
6
Your numbers don't jive with the data :
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
The temperature anomaly change from 1991 (.43) to 2016(.99) is an avg decade change of .224 which is well within the low of .2 and expected of .3.
From 2001 (.55) to 2016(.99) is an avg decade change of .293.
The 16 hottest years on record have been since 2000.
The temperature change from 1910 to 1940 is not identical to the tempurature increase the last 25 years. Looking at the graph can tell you that.
This isn't rhetoric, this is facts.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
The temperature anomaly change from 1991 (.43) to 2016(.99) is an avg decade change of .224 which is well within the low of .2 and expected of .3.
From 2001 (.55) to 2016(.99) is an avg decade change of .293.
The 16 hottest years on record have been since 2000.
The temperature change from 1910 to 1940 is not identical to the tempurature increase the last 25 years. Looking at the graph can tell you that.
This isn't rhetoric, this is facts.
5
The temperature spiked in 2015-2016 due to a super El Nino, in addition to a separate anomalous warm "blob" in the North Pacific, both of which brought large amounts of warm water to the surface and sharply warmed the atmosphere. Neither of these phenomena are related to CO2, and prior to this time, temperature trends were running far below the IPCC's predicted mean.
The El Nino fizzled out around the end of 2016, and the warm blob anomaly is now a cold blob anomaly. Ocean surface temperatures in 2017 have quickly dropped back to where they were prior to these events. In the absence of another oceanic warming event, surface temperatures, which lag, will likely drop right back down again as well.
If should be pretty apparent, if you are not dogmatically wedded to the idea that CO2 will lead to significant warming, that the IPCC predictions have been a dud. CO2 did not spike in 2015-2016. Oceanic phenomena unrelated to CO2 ended a nearly 2 decade long cessation of significant warming. Warming of the earth's surface in response to natural oceanic phenomena is not proof of your favored hypothesis. It is the opposite.
The El Nino fizzled out around the end of 2016, and the warm blob anomaly is now a cold blob anomaly. Ocean surface temperatures in 2017 have quickly dropped back to where they were prior to these events. In the absence of another oceanic warming event, surface temperatures, which lag, will likely drop right back down again as well.
If should be pretty apparent, if you are not dogmatically wedded to the idea that CO2 will lead to significant warming, that the IPCC predictions have been a dud. CO2 did not spike in 2015-2016. Oceanic phenomena unrelated to CO2 ended a nearly 2 decade long cessation of significant warming. Warming of the earth's surface in response to natural oceanic phenomena is not proof of your favored hypothesis. It is the opposite.
3
With nearly 600 comments, I can't be the first person to have thought this but perhaps it bears repeating. Why are the families of 76,000 coal miners being allowed to determine the fate of a planet of 6 billion people?
23
These people aren't determining the fate of the planet. It's being determined by the owners of the mines and factories and other industrial enterprises who don't want their activities regulated. The families of coal miners and others who have been taught to reject science are pawns. Their votes were needed in order to keep friends of these industries in Congress and to put somebody like Trump in the White House. Trump's job is to de-regulate and to stack the Supreme Court with judges who might be also be inclined to strike down regulation in various forms.
8
Not sure what you'd propose en lieu of democracy & voting... best to elect different politicians, not blame a few people w problems.
5
"Why are the families of 76,000 coal miners being allowed to determine the fate of a planet of 6 billion people?"
The handful of billionaires who are actually making that determination don't give a damn about those 76,000 coal miners or their families.
The handful of billionaires who are actually making that determination don't give a damn about those 76,000 coal miners or their families.
4
I graduate from high school in 1975. If I had insisted on contradicting my teachers and denying science I have no doubt I would still be sitting in home room today.
Gwen will get her diploma, and America's collective brain will lose another few working cells.
Gwen will get her diploma, and America's collective brain will lose another few working cells.
13
this teacher-student conflict is pointless, counter-productive and completely unnecessary... OF COURSE there can be disagreement about the interpretation of scientific data...(as a geologist, I would point out, for example, that the climate has been warming for the past 11-12,000 years, since the end of the last Ice Age)... but the arguing here is over an irrelevancy; the "problem" isn't climate change, it's pollution, something everyone can agree needs to be eliminated... meanwhile, a promising student is being turned off, completely unnecessarily... shame on the teacher
9
How exactly is it the teacher's fault when a student refuses to learn or acknowledge factual information?
The article closes by recounting that Gwen's friend Jacynda had changed her mind, that most of Mr. Sutter's doubters had come to realize that the world is dangerously warming and humans are to blame. That sounds like Sutter had done an excellent job of reaching students. Condeming him just because one student out of many decided to stick her fingers in her ears and sing "na na na I can't hear you" is irrational and illogical. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make her drink. Sutter has a responsibility to teach the information competently and engagingly (and based on the coda of the story it sounds like he did), but the students also have responsibilities: to accept that at 17 they are not subject-matter experts on everything, including climate change, and show some deference or at least benefit of the doubt to their teacher's greater years, experience, and education; to show competent understanding of the course material, and accept that does not have to equate to agreement; to accept that at 17 their purpose of going to school is learn new things, engage new ideas, not have their preconceived beliefs confirmed for them, and in the end, they may come to see the world differently than when they did at the beginning of the year - hopefully they will. It appears that MOST of Mr. Sutter's students accepted their responsibilities, even initial doubters. Gwen, at 17, nearly an adult, chose not to. The failure is all hers, not.
10
"the "problem" isn't climate change, it's pollution"
Pollution is what we used to complain about before we realized it was one factor contributing to the much larger problem of global climate change. Shame on the teacher for not using your preferred euphemism? Does your screen name reflect your source of income, and does that affect your opinion?
Pollution is what we used to complain about before we realized it was one factor contributing to the much larger problem of global climate change. Shame on the teacher for not using your preferred euphemism? Does your screen name reflect your source of income, and does that affect your opinion?
5
There is a very strong emphasis on loyalty, particularly loyalty to your family in Appalachia. They feel like they're betraying their family and community if they are swayed by Mr Sutter's argument . While I understand climate change and completely accept the evidence of it's human origins, I get itchy when coal comes up.
I'm shocked by how rude these students behaved in the classroom. However, I'm tickled by their ability to identify and call out condescension. That is definitely Appalachian.
I'm shocked by how rude these students behaved in the classroom. However, I'm tickled by their ability to identify and call out condescension. That is definitely Appalachian.
3
"Call out condescension" - they're 17 year olds without high school diplomas yet. It should be an uncontroversial given that they have a lot to learn and adults with college and graduate education know more than them. Teachers assuming students know less than them and explaining things to them is not condescension, it's teaching. Sure, teenagers are going to bristle against authority, but part of growing up is knowing that sometimes you have to swallow your pride and do what needs to be done, even if that means learning and understanding the concepts behind something even if your 17 year old brain doesn't believe it. And sometimes a funny thing happens - your perspective gets changed and you actually learn something more than just being able to regurgitate the info on a test. That sounds like what happened for most of the students in Sutter's class, Gwen was just a snowflake who couldn't stand having her preconceived beliefs challenged by data.
7
It wish the Times had provided more info on what Sutter teaches and why he elected to teach/preach on ACGW.
Unless you are trying to indoctrinate, teaching ACGW in a rural HS science class seems iffy. How can you teach the experimental method (control groups, independent & dependent variables, double blind studies, statistical significance, falsifiable hypotheses, etc.) when teaching ACGW? ACGW is simply a theory that is difficult to test and relies heavily on post hoc explanations, computer models, error laden measures, and anecdotes. It also depends on essentially non-falsifiable hypotheses (because they are so far in the future).
No doubt there is science to teach when presenting ACGW. Certainly, greenhouse gases & how they work is important as is knowing climate has varied greatly during earth's history -- and how we know that. It is also important to know that consensus means little in science, that science is never settled.
It sounds like Sutter is teaching with scare tactics: horrible storms soon to come to a town near you. Infestations of horrible insects. What about good things like longer growing seasons? Milder winters?
How about teaching about variable interactions -- that if CO2 causes warming, and longer growing seasons result and vegetation increases, more CO2 will be absorbed. How about -- correlation isn't causation.
I also hope he teaches that much of the global temp record is in large part based on estimates.
Unless you are trying to indoctrinate, teaching ACGW in a rural HS science class seems iffy. How can you teach the experimental method (control groups, independent & dependent variables, double blind studies, statistical significance, falsifiable hypotheses, etc.) when teaching ACGW? ACGW is simply a theory that is difficult to test and relies heavily on post hoc explanations, computer models, error laden measures, and anecdotes. It also depends on essentially non-falsifiable hypotheses (because they are so far in the future).
No doubt there is science to teach when presenting ACGW. Certainly, greenhouse gases & how they work is important as is knowing climate has varied greatly during earth's history -- and how we know that. It is also important to know that consensus means little in science, that science is never settled.
It sounds like Sutter is teaching with scare tactics: horrible storms soon to come to a town near you. Infestations of horrible insects. What about good things like longer growing seasons? Milder winters?
How about teaching about variable interactions -- that if CO2 causes warming, and longer growing seasons result and vegetation increases, more CO2 will be absorbed. How about -- correlation isn't causation.
I also hope he teaches that much of the global temp record is in large part based on estimates.
6
Mr Sutter could use your post to teach logical fallacies. Red herrings are not science: ACGW…really? Or that silly plant food thing.
If you really studied the issue, CO2 increases are beneficial for some crops and plants, but bad for others. Without balancing other nutrients, increased CO2 will not help.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm
The global temperatures are not based on estimates, there are billions of data points from multiple sources all over the planet that are analyzed to ensure consistency and then validated to provide a temperature trends over long periods of time. If you have done any type of analysis, this would not be such a surprise.
As far as the science being settled, yes, science can be settled…gravity, thermodynamics, photon energy, absorption and emission curves etc are not going to change—at least not significanly. Climate science may have some additional projection refinements, but 100 years of data will not be reversed. Hansen's 1981 paper made projections on surface temperature rises that are still accurate. No way he faked future data.
Next time, provide the forcings that are naturally causing the planet to warm up 10 to 20 times faster than any time in the past 20,000 years instead of the zero science rhetoric.” Will be happy to discuss the science.
I would highly recommend the following on line course:
http://forecast.uchicago.edu/lectures.html
If you really studied the issue, CO2 increases are beneficial for some crops and plants, but bad for others. Without balancing other nutrients, increased CO2 will not help.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm
The global temperatures are not based on estimates, there are billions of data points from multiple sources all over the planet that are analyzed to ensure consistency and then validated to provide a temperature trends over long periods of time. If you have done any type of analysis, this would not be such a surprise.
As far as the science being settled, yes, science can be settled…gravity, thermodynamics, photon energy, absorption and emission curves etc are not going to change—at least not significanly. Climate science may have some additional projection refinements, but 100 years of data will not be reversed. Hansen's 1981 paper made projections on surface temperature rises that are still accurate. No way he faked future data.
Next time, provide the forcings that are naturally causing the planet to warm up 10 to 20 times faster than any time in the past 20,000 years instead of the zero science rhetoric.” Will be happy to discuss the science.
I would highly recommend the following on line course:
http://forecast.uchicago.edu/lectures.html
The two young women featured in the article are in his AP course. AP courses are ideally taught at a college level. So his curriculum is appropriate given the context.
2
It's the consensus in modern educational theory that expanding learning beyond just narrow subject matter, and incorporating contemporary interdisciplinary issues into the classroom enhances students' enthusiasm for and understanding of the core discipline. Teaching ACC in a science class is certainly appropriate. And sorry, but just because facts and data have scary implications doesn't make teaching those facts and data "scare tactics."
2
"She was, he knew, a straight-A student. She would have had no trouble comprehending the evidence, embedded in ancient tree rings, ice, leaves and shells, as well as sophisticated computer models, that atmospheric carbon dioxide is the chief culprit when it comes to warming the world. "
*Come on*! "She" is a high school student. Even though a straight-A student, can she really comprehend the "sophisticated computer models"? I'm a PhD physicist, and *I* can't "comprehend" the climate models without a lot of very high-level study!
This quoted statement in the Times illustrates the extent to which all sides tend to trivialize the science underlying the climate change controversy and exaggerate the depth to which they understand the scientific evidence.
*Come on*! "She" is a high school student. Even though a straight-A student, can she really comprehend the "sophisticated computer models"? I'm a PhD physicist, and *I* can't "comprehend" the climate models without a lot of very high-level study!
This quoted statement in the Times illustrates the extent to which all sides tend to trivialize the science underlying the climate change controversy and exaggerate the depth to which they understand the scientific evidence.
Mr Sutter, I salute you. not for trying to convince that climate change is real, but for the effort into giving young adults
the tools to inquire for themselves
the tools to inquire for themselves
7
God bless her. You go, Gwen. Keep thinking and being the only one with an open mind. There is no proof that humankind can affect the earth's temperature. Resist the indoctrination. Even if you are sneered at by the NYT as living on heroin highway in hilbillyville. You are a tough cookie.
6
Will you be still cheering her on when planetary conditions worsen and she's struggling to get by on unemployment?
2
Did you miss the end where she considered all the evidence, particularly the first-hand observations from her own community that the class did, and now agrees that man-made climate change is real?
2
"Even if you are sneered at by the NYT as living on heroin highway in hilbillyville." Please point out where this was stated in the story. I can't find it.
5
This student is simply ignoring the data and not listening and not learning. Pretty common, but unusual for intelligent people and extremely rare among scientists. In her case very clearly the result of political bias against admitting strong scientific evidence. It seems unlikely she could successfully complete a scientific course of study until she learns that science proceeds by looking at data without bias and accepting when a theory is disproven. While no theory is ever totally proven, a theory can be disproved, shown to be false, in which case scientists no longer accept it. In the case of climate change the data showing global temperatures increasing is not theory or opinion but indisputable facts. For the explanation of the observed fact that the Earth is warming rapidly, all the alternative theories put forth by those who say it is not caused by human atmospheric emissions or that it is mostly caused by natural causes rather than by human activities, all those theories have been falsified, disproved, leaving only human atmospheric emissions as the overwhelmingly likely cause. There are only a very few disreputable scientists, who are paid a lot of money for their false opinions, who still assert that global warming is not human caused.
9
infrederick -- pure bunk.
1) the global temp record, supposedly from 1880 until now, is in reality based in large part on estimates, extrapolations and adjustments. Much of the globe did not have ground weather stations until 1950 or later and much is still sparsely covered. Nor did the various countries that collected temp data always use common methodology.
2) The US showed no warming during the 20th century, only normal variation -- per James Hansen. Much of the US showed some cooling. This is important because the US has had in place an extensive network of ground weather stations (since 1895) and used a common methodology for gathering data -- as opposed to the ROW.
3) The world populations has increased from under a billion to over 7 billion since 1880. Our cities have grown -- more buildings, roads, fewer trees. There is little question that some of the warming we've seen globally is due to the Urban heat Island effect -- and to deforestation -- to the extent there has been any warming and not simply errors in the data.
4) I don't know where you get the notion that other natural causes of warming have been falsified. We know the climate varies normally. We know el nino and la nina affect global weather. Exactly what "natural" explanations have been falsified?
5) If there has been warming -- what % is man caused? Any one given that a definitive answer?
1) the global temp record, supposedly from 1880 until now, is in reality based in large part on estimates, extrapolations and adjustments. Much of the globe did not have ground weather stations until 1950 or later and much is still sparsely covered. Nor did the various countries that collected temp data always use common methodology.
2) The US showed no warming during the 20th century, only normal variation -- per James Hansen. Much of the US showed some cooling. This is important because the US has had in place an extensive network of ground weather stations (since 1895) and used a common methodology for gathering data -- as opposed to the ROW.
3) The world populations has increased from under a billion to over 7 billion since 1880. Our cities have grown -- more buildings, roads, fewer trees. There is little question that some of the warming we've seen globally is due to the Urban heat Island effect -- and to deforestation -- to the extent there has been any warming and not simply errors in the data.
4) I don't know where you get the notion that other natural causes of warming have been falsified. We know the climate varies normally. We know el nino and la nina affect global weather. Exactly what "natural" explanations have been falsified?
5) If there has been warming -- what % is man caused? Any one given that a definitive answer?
3
anecdotes are still not data...here is the real stuff:
1&2) The US is not the globe and Hansen never said all US warming is due to natural variation. The US record keeping changed over time, but analysis removes those biases when the sampling time changed or the station moved. Simple analysis really.
The US is not the whole planet and has not shown cooling…particularly in Alaska which has warmed about twice as much as the planet average. The US has warmed over the last 100 years plus…here is the actual global vs US data for the lower 48.
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-and-...
3) Urban areas on the planet are less than 1% of the planet’s area—not significant. The actual temperature changes due to the global warming in urban areas are actually cooling biased due to all the asphalt radiating IR into space.
4) El nino and la nina are NOT heat sources…all these cycles due is move heat around. From the base date of 1750: The solar forcing change is about +/- 0.3 W/m2 whereas the forcing due to anthropogenic CO2 and CH4 is about +2.8W/m2…so, about a factor of about 10 times more.
5)The Milankovitch cycles are cooling and operate over much longer periods. Since the sun has been cooling since since the 60s, essentially all of it is humans since that time. The general number on surface temps is no more than about 0.25C due to natural causes with the remaining ~0.75C all us.
1&2) The US is not the globe and Hansen never said all US warming is due to natural variation. The US record keeping changed over time, but analysis removes those biases when the sampling time changed or the station moved. Simple analysis really.
The US is not the whole planet and has not shown cooling…particularly in Alaska which has warmed about twice as much as the planet average. The US has warmed over the last 100 years plus…here is the actual global vs US data for the lower 48.
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-and-...
3) Urban areas on the planet are less than 1% of the planet’s area—not significant. The actual temperature changes due to the global warming in urban areas are actually cooling biased due to all the asphalt radiating IR into space.
4) El nino and la nina are NOT heat sources…all these cycles due is move heat around. From the base date of 1750: The solar forcing change is about +/- 0.3 W/m2 whereas the forcing due to anthropogenic CO2 and CH4 is about +2.8W/m2…so, about a factor of about 10 times more.
5)The Milankovitch cycles are cooling and operate over much longer periods. Since the sun has been cooling since since the 60s, essentially all of it is humans since that time. The general number on surface temps is no more than about 0.25C due to natural causes with the remaining ~0.75C all us.
3
Why does this matter so much to you? If the overwhelming of climate scientists are right, we need to do something to change the way we use fuel in order to limit emissions of greenhouse gases in order to prevent further damage. If we go ahead and reduce CO2 emissions and it turns out that they were wrong, so what? We'll have transitioned to cheaper, cleaner, more sustainable sources of energy than we're using now. Would that be a bad thing? Would it be any different from the technological advances we've embraced in other realms like communication?
1
As Upton Sinclair has noted, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
If alternative energy companies (or other non-coal companies) could provide decent paying jobs in these communities, people hard hit by the decline of the coal industry would be more likely to open their minds to evidence-based science and recognize the urgent need to deal with climate change.
To people in these communities who are concerned about their next meal, climate change is a "high class problem."
If alternative energy companies (or other non-coal companies) could provide decent paying jobs in these communities, people hard hit by the decline of the coal industry would be more likely to open their minds to evidence-based science and recognize the urgent need to deal with climate change.
To people in these communities who are concerned about their next meal, climate change is a "high class problem."
8
Sounds like a job for the coal companies, already in decline for decades, to assure their former employees move on in a good way. What parallel employment in the clean energy sector do you think a miner could acclimate to?
3
Rather than presume to teach students that they can decide for themselves whether warming is real, teachers should promote the fact that the vast majority of the true experts in the relevant fields are convinced that anthropogenic warming is a serious problem. No high school student is in a position to study the facts and draw an independent conclusion.
1
Funny thing, one of the first data sources mentioned is tree rings, because tree ring data does not support CO2 as the driver of global warming. Neither does ice core data. Or air balloon data. Or satellite data. Or well situated ground station data. But that shouldn't be questioned, right? I applaud the young woman for questioning the status quo when she sees reason to instead of lazily sticking to a narrative without question.
5
Sources? Or just your opinion? Cite the links to your sources and foster some information exchange. Otherwise the effort to reply is just wasted.
7
Let's give Mr. Sutter an award for teaching. I am particularly impressed by taking and analyzing water samples downstream from a coal mine. That's just one example. And let's give an award to those responsible for developing and managing the hiring of scientists like Mr. Sutter in high schools. Gwen might not yet get it, but she is intelligent enough to see that she is being held back by superstition, envy, and fear. Go girl. Break the shackles.
8
Well, you've flunked your own class by using the term "global warming". The alarmists changed the name to "climate change" a decade ago. We all know the data has been manipulated and falsified. We've heard the polar bear argument yet there are more polar bears than any time in the last 100-years. We all know that you cannot prove the "human caused" argument. We all know that the science is being funded by those profiting the most from it. We all know that many of the business leaders who are profiting are doing so at taxpayer expense, by governments willing to pick winners and losers (not their job).
5
Be sure to cite your sources. Perhaps the links to the on line material would be helpful. Then we can all follow your line of supported reasoning. But in the meantime....
10
Considering that temperatures averaged 73 degrees Fahrenheit during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum period 56,000,000 years ago whereas we are averaging 63 today perhaps the "science" underlying man's effect on climate change may be a tad bit off.
4
Smart students, they know that Al Gore, Mr Obama and Leonardo di Caprio fly around the world in their private jets.
9
The end of this article makes an important point. The word "belief" means distinctly different things to different people. In the sciences, the word "believe" is often used as a shorthand for "my estimate is x, but I do not have time to do the derivation". In religion, belief is something far more fundamental.
In the sciences, if one does not agree with a conclusion, the answer is always "Find data to support your position". Analyzing water from the stream teaches that reality. If the hypothesis is "trees grow better in CO2 rich environments", then get the tree data, the CO2 data, and related data (e.g., rainfall) and do the calculations.
All science is about data, not beliefs.
In the sciences, if one does not agree with a conclusion, the answer is always "Find data to support your position". Analyzing water from the stream teaches that reality. If the hypothesis is "trees grow better in CO2 rich environments", then get the tree data, the CO2 data, and related data (e.g., rainfall) and do the calculations.
All science is about data, not beliefs.
6
He's winning.
2
Science is a process for determining truth. What science does not do, however, is tells us what we should do about those truths once we find them. The costs and benefits of government-imposed CO2 restrictions extend well beyond the boundaries of science. Therefore, intelligent and educated people, including scientists, can have differing opinions on how to respond to climate change without "denying" the scientific truths involved.
5
Many thanks, Ms. Harmon. Eighty percent of the 1,050 students enrolled in Valle de Angeles' public high school recently completed our climate change baseline survey. Responses to the knowledge, attitude, and practice or KAP survey related questions varied considerably. But, 93% of the students agreed climate change had enabled the Southern Pine Bark beetle to decimate huge swaths of their municipality's pine forests. Again, thanks so much. Our students and teachers will be equally grateful.
7
Keep it up, Mr. Sutter. You are having a valuable impact on your students. All you can do is plant the seeds and nurture them; the students have to do the rest.
8
Real science teachers like Mr. Sutter are the hope for the future. The alt science of the alt Right will make America the Christian Fundie version of Sharia law nations (Sharia is turning all laws and texts into accordance with whatever the holy man says the holy book teaches).
5
Wouldn't it be a positive thought to consider, just for a moment, that maybe the seeds that Mr. Sutter is planting produced some socially and environmentally conscious adults.
A handful of years from now we could see one or two of his students graduate from Humboldt or MIT.
I can picture Gwen & Jacynda as environmental engineers..
A handful of years from now we could see one or two of his students graduate from Humboldt or MIT.
I can picture Gwen & Jacynda as environmental engineers..
4
If we are teaching science in school and covering theories about Climate shouldn't all theories be included if we want students with a well rounded point of view?
There are various climate scientist and theories that go against the grain. Just sharing the "consensus" point of view is not very objective. Often the scientific consensus is done away with by the work of a few or the work of a single scientist. Einstein comes to mind.
There are various climate scientist and theories that go against the grain. Just sharing the "consensus" point of view is not very objective. Often the scientific consensus is done away with by the work of a few or the work of a single scientist. Einstein comes to mind.
4
Alternative facts? Texas had a sticker on textbooks telling students that evolution was just one theory about how man came to be...
6
But there are no climate scientists who deny climate change. Except a few paid handsomely by the fossil fuel industry and their reasoning has been discredited by scientific facts.
7
There aren't two sides to climate change. There is no "debate" about whether or not it is happening.
No objective scientists truly debate the reality of climate change - those that you can find have hidden motives to be the mouth-pieces of their financial backers. The science behind why climate change is happening is simple and settled.
The science of the exact impact of those changes is complex and is what is actually open to debate and renewed assessment as our computational models become more intricate. There isn't debate about whether the earth will warm - the exact extent (2 degress celsius versus 6 degress celsius) of the warming is not known because of the complexity of what are called feedback mechanisms in the earth's atmosphere and climate system.
So when you say shouldn't we present all sides? The answer is no. There aren't multiple sides - not truly.
No objective scientists truly debate the reality of climate change - those that you can find have hidden motives to be the mouth-pieces of their financial backers. The science behind why climate change is happening is simple and settled.
The science of the exact impact of those changes is complex and is what is actually open to debate and renewed assessment as our computational models become more intricate. There isn't debate about whether the earth will warm - the exact extent (2 degress celsius versus 6 degress celsius) of the warming is not known because of the complexity of what are called feedback mechanisms in the earth's atmosphere and climate system.
So when you say shouldn't we present all sides? The answer is no. There aren't multiple sides - not truly.
2
Great article, and my deep appreciation to Mr. Sutter and others like him who are the front line in the effort to get our country to acknowledge the situation and try to tackle it. Kudos to him!
5
Thank you, Mr. Sutter, for your commitment to our future.
3
Why doesn't Gwen and her family become Christian Scientists, after all, they reject scientific methods to stay alive if disease strikes? If her parents take aspirin for a headache or penicillin for infections, and still deny scientists, then they are hypocrites, if you ask me. I never met a conservative who isn't a liberal when it comes to his or her needs.
The spread of ignorance in this country is astounding considering we are so advanced scientifically and these science deniers benefit - and take advantage - of the fruit of scientific knowledge. For heaven's sake, people are living longer to a great degree because of science.
If you ask me, the Republican party is Public Enemy #1 for this country me; there will always be ignorant people, but to corral these people into a voting block by flattering their ignorance for the cynical reason for votes is unconscionable. We have seen that the GOP's real constituents are the Kochtaopusses, not the voters. Yet year after year, their base is bamboozled, to vote against their own interests.
A brain is a tragic thing to waste; it is a direct affront to humanity's striving to perfect itself.
What does this response have to do with Gwen? Everything. She is a bright girl who can be an asset to her fellow Americans had she not come from such a warped environment at home. She is one among the wellspring of youth thwarted by ignorance to halt progress.
Let's hope she transcends her willfully imposed parental ignorance toward science.
The spread of ignorance in this country is astounding considering we are so advanced scientifically and these science deniers benefit - and take advantage - of the fruit of scientific knowledge. For heaven's sake, people are living longer to a great degree because of science.
If you ask me, the Republican party is Public Enemy #1 for this country me; there will always be ignorant people, but to corral these people into a voting block by flattering their ignorance for the cynical reason for votes is unconscionable. We have seen that the GOP's real constituents are the Kochtaopusses, not the voters. Yet year after year, their base is bamboozled, to vote against their own interests.
A brain is a tragic thing to waste; it is a direct affront to humanity's striving to perfect itself.
What does this response have to do with Gwen? Everything. She is a bright girl who can be an asset to her fellow Americans had she not come from such a warped environment at home. She is one among the wellspring of youth thwarted by ignorance to halt progress.
Let's hope she transcends her willfully imposed parental ignorance toward science.
8
Awesome comment!
1
When we study science, we learn values as well as facts. Environmental science teaches young people to be less selfish and to think about both the past and the future. The neon-orange stream in the Wellstone, Ohio is the result of greedy past choices and broken promises. Students should learn to extrapolate to the future -- to decide what kind of future planet they want for their own children. Someday soon, they might cancel out their parents' votes for a know-nothing and do-nothing government.
5
Thank you Mr. Sutter for your unrelenting work to teach the truth. I know this must be extremely frustrating, but your country thanks you for your service.
6
Welcome to modern America.
Where ignorant hatred of science is in.
Where ignorant hatred of science is in.
7
I have no idea how Mr. Sutter presents the "evidence" for ACGW in the classroom. But orange colored water doesn't prove anything except water pollution. Nor does a warm winter prove anything.
And I'm not sure why teaching climate science is a priority at this HS. In part, that is because there is so much science to choose from and in part because so much of climate science really isn't science.
The teacher suffers from the same problem alarmists suffer from -- consensus and anecdotes and computer models do not science make, nor do non-falsifiable hypotheses. It may be that the world is warming and that warming will produce some negative consequences, but the burden of proof is on those who make that assertion. If Sutter can't make a convincing argument -- whose fault is that?
And for those who are interested -- the area of Ohio where Wellston didn't warm during the 20th century (like Ohio and the rest of the US). And Wellston's temp avg 2000-2016 is only .3 F than the avg for the 1930's.
The default explanation for climate change is natural variability. Those pushing the ACGW hypothesis must have proof. Gwen is correct in challenging the teacher to provide proof. For example, there is no proof of any increasing severity of local weather events due to CC. Hurricanes have not become more violent or frequent -- ditto tornadoes.
And the Times presents Gwen very negatively, which is unfair. If there was still a public editor I would complain.
And I'm not sure why teaching climate science is a priority at this HS. In part, that is because there is so much science to choose from and in part because so much of climate science really isn't science.
The teacher suffers from the same problem alarmists suffer from -- consensus and anecdotes and computer models do not science make, nor do non-falsifiable hypotheses. It may be that the world is warming and that warming will produce some negative consequences, but the burden of proof is on those who make that assertion. If Sutter can't make a convincing argument -- whose fault is that?
And for those who are interested -- the area of Ohio where Wellston didn't warm during the 20th century (like Ohio and the rest of the US). And Wellston's temp avg 2000-2016 is only .3 F than the avg for the 1930's.
The default explanation for climate change is natural variability. Those pushing the ACGW hypothesis must have proof. Gwen is correct in challenging the teacher to provide proof. For example, there is no proof of any increasing severity of local weather events due to CC. Hurricanes have not become more violent or frequent -- ditto tornadoes.
And the Times presents Gwen very negatively, which is unfair. If there was still a public editor I would complain.
9
Hmm, unfair protrayal of the female student because she refused to accept facts. Science is not opinion-based and her objections were pseudo-critical thinking. Sadly this kind of nonsense has been tolerated in the American educational system for too long. And I say that as a European who brings up children in the United States.
I think we should stop teaching science. Americans are just too stupid to understand scientific methods.
3
There is consensus because of the evidence.
Predictions are based on evidence and our knowledge of the natural world, not "anecdotes."
The computer models replicate the world as it is now and mirror changes in the past.
I recently worked closely with a oceanographer
who has been studying the effects of ocean acidification on sea snails and other plankton. She gathered data, not anecdotes. As did her colleagues across the world. And the combo of rising temperatures and falling PH is affecting oceanic life. The same thing could be said for acid streams; the Wellstone is not the only one.
Predictions are based on evidence and our knowledge of the natural world, not "anecdotes."
The computer models replicate the world as it is now and mirror changes in the past.
I recently worked closely with a oceanographer
who has been studying the effects of ocean acidification on sea snails and other plankton. She gathered data, not anecdotes. As did her colleagues across the world. And the combo of rising temperatures and falling PH is affecting oceanic life. The same thing could be said for acid streams; the Wellstone is not the only one.
4
Despite as much focus in the article on the straight-A student as on the teacher, we must remember that evidence-based concepts are not part of high-school courses, with one exception.
In 1996, there were two new Advanced-Placement courses, one of which was Environmental Science, which during their first few years had many more students than the other course. Why? Probably in large part because of the appellation, "Environmental Science", compared with that of the other new AP course.
Now, 20 years later, I believe it's not even close, with over 200k students sitting for the APExam in that other AP course last month.
The other course with the not-as-good-sounding name as ES? The course is probably the only high-school course where "evidence-based" conclusions are a primary part of the course. (Although it can be considered part of the mathematical sciences (and hence taught in high-school math departments), it is an introduction to a distinct discipline.)
The course is Statistics.
In 1996, there were two new Advanced-Placement courses, one of which was Environmental Science, which during their first few years had many more students than the other course. Why? Probably in large part because of the appellation, "Environmental Science", compared with that of the other new AP course.
Now, 20 years later, I believe it's not even close, with over 200k students sitting for the APExam in that other AP course last month.
The other course with the not-as-good-sounding name as ES? The course is probably the only high-school course where "evidence-based" conclusions are a primary part of the course. (Although it can be considered part of the mathematical sciences (and hence taught in high-school math departments), it is an introduction to a distinct discipline.)
The course is Statistics.
1
The keys to this teacher's independence? His collective bargaining agreement and the union to enforce it. Without them, he'd either teach the party line, or find himself out of a job.
1
Would anyone think me mad were I to make a modest proposal, ala Johnathan Swift, on possible uses for climate change deniers as farm output declines?
Climate science deniers that read this comment, Johnathan Swift proposed that people like you should be part of government. Modestly.
Climate science deniers that read this comment, Johnathan Swift proposed that people like you should be part of government. Modestly.
How or why is this "Heartland Institute" permitted to distribute industry-backed literature in public schools?
7
We must insist upon teaching climate change everywhere because it's not a political agenda, IT'S TRUE. I don't see recorded what Mr. Sutton told sweet little Gwen, but he has to be insistent in whatever subtle ways he can be, or else others in his class will get the idea that he doesn't believe in what he teaches. If your student says "but can't we question science about some things", then you have to say, "yes, but there are some things that we know are true and one of them is that humanity polluting the earth with greenhouse gases is causing a tremendous problem that has to be addressed by less pollution". Teaching values like truth is hard for many moderns who believe all truth is relative, but climate change won't be learned by those who need to learn it, if we're not strong in our values.
11
Having been raised by conservative parents, the issue is that your parents are your lifeline -- financially, socially, emotionally -- and you are carrying water for them because you really need to believe that they know what they are talking about. It is where you belong. You really have no choice.
If and when you do turn away from their ideas like I eventually did, you risk the very real result of being shunned.
I know. Trust me. I know. It's really quite sad.
If and when you do turn away from their ideas like I eventually did, you risk the very real result of being shunned.
I know. Trust me. I know. It's really quite sad.
6
I was brought up by a very conservative outspoken evangelical mother who tried fruitlessly to sway me against my environmental scientist father and all liberal thought and modern music. I couldn't wait to leave home and did so at 18. One side of the family shuns me to this day and offered nothing in the way of support when I was a student and younger adult starting out. It's a tough road to get out from under religious extremism.
4
I couldn't help thinking of all of the slave owners children that suddenly had to deal with the fact that they were on the wrong side of history. Maybe it is an attack on their beliefs. But beliefs don't have to be correct. I can believe that smoking is not harmful, but it is.
9
And you can also believe climate change is driven by CO2 when it's not.
1
My husband had a conversation with someone in an area similar to the one highlighted here. The person admitted that the weather patterns are changing, but attributed it to God trying to tell us something.
However, climate change is a lot like God. Both are there whether anyone believes it or not, and many will soon discover that what God was trying to tell us is that we can't keep polluting our ecosystem as we have been without dire consequences.
However, climate change is a lot like God. Both are there whether anyone believes it or not, and many will soon discover that what God was trying to tell us is that we can't keep polluting our ecosystem as we have been without dire consequences.
4
Weather patterns changed massively during the Middle Ages. Torrential rains and rapidly retreating glaciers were used by the Church as convincing evidence of the divine reckoning coming as the first Millennium approached.
Several centuries later, when the earth cooled precipitously during the Little Ice Age, glaciers advanced rapidly and threatened to swallow towns in the Alps. The terrified residents pleaded with the Pope to intercede with God on their behalf to stop their towns' destruction.
You should pick up a history book. Climate changes all the time. It changes suddenly, and unexpectedly, and in ways that no one has ever recalled happening before in their lifetimes, or in the lifetimes of their parents or grandparents. And people have, throughout time, seen this as God trying to tell them something. So far, they have all been wrong. You may believe that this time is different. You may, however, want to open your mind to the possibility that this time is, in fact, exactly like all the rest. That would be a much more reasonable bet.
Several centuries later, when the earth cooled precipitously during the Little Ice Age, glaciers advanced rapidly and threatened to swallow towns in the Alps. The terrified residents pleaded with the Pope to intercede with God on their behalf to stop their towns' destruction.
You should pick up a history book. Climate changes all the time. It changes suddenly, and unexpectedly, and in ways that no one has ever recalled happening before in their lifetimes, or in the lifetimes of their parents or grandparents. And people have, throughout time, seen this as God trying to tell them something. So far, they have all been wrong. You may believe that this time is different. You may, however, want to open your mind to the possibility that this time is, in fact, exactly like all the rest. That would be a much more reasonable bet.
2
Battling against people who are steadfast in their beliefs and who refuse or cannot analyze the data for themselves is an uphill battle at best. I don't know if this will make any difference but the students can go to Berkeley Earth website at berkeleyearth.org. The physicist, Richard Muller, was a skeptic of climate change and man-made heating of earth until he analyzed the data for himself. He even received some funding from the Koch brothers in the hope he would disprove climate change - only the opposite happened. The data from his team is constantly be added to and updated. It shows without a doubt that humans are warming the planet.
5
I just want to take a moment to thank each of the individuals who was named and quoted in this article for speaking with Amy Harmon. It took courage to put yourselves out there on such a controversial issue, but the result is a thought-provoking piece populated by real, complex people whose beliefs and motives can't be reduced to stereotypes.
9
I applaud the parents of kids in James Sutter's Wellston High School science class for sticking to their guns and refusing to accept his liberal brainwashing. Hopefully these parents can also get to work advocating the use of leeches in the local emergency room, fixing Google Earth so that it correctly depicts the planet as a flat disc, and introducing their kids to cigarettes because smoking is so good for them.
8
This young student has been definitely brainwashed by her parents and her church minister. What these kids and the blind believers don't seem to understand is that there is a major difference between an opinion and a fact. They can question an opinion they cannot question of fact. The best way to get the point across is to simply tell them, according to you " your iPhone, your cars all your appliances and everything that is man-made is based on science and facts. If I go by your opinion these things shouldn't exist because opinions cannot create them. Accept reality or go back to your cave. By the way don't ask me for help because I don't believe you exist. You are just an opinion.
1
Sheep will always want a shepherd, and Christianity, like any other power structure, is designed to maintain that power. In this case it's in the hands of a few white men of privilege. The elite who quote God on such an insufferably regular basis neither believe the gospel they're hiding behind nor care for the flock they're pillaging from. They use behavioural economics and they game social media to steal the one thing of worth that every citizen has: a vote. Most of the poor sheep will end up as lamb chops anyway, but they sure do seem to be singing the praises of their executioner right now in middle America. Education is the ONLY way forward, so it's incumbent on every citizen to seek out, protect and encourage unbiased education for all their children. Not spin from left, right or any religious slant, but unbiased objectivity. When they take your education away, they don't just rob you. They steal from your children.
6
Let me add one thing to my earlier comment.
Bret Stephens, in his first column at the New York Times, wrote on climate change. In the May 4 column, titled “Climate of Unintended Consequences,” Stephens pointed to the failure of heavily touted ethanol and other biofuels to reduce atmospheric CO2, indeed they had the opposite effect, and to the adverse consequences of Europe’s E.T. S. and Germany’s “energy turn.” Mr. Stephens concluded, “The lessons are legion but, more often than not, unlearned. We need to make policy choices based less on moral self-regard and more on attention to real-world results.”
James Sutter would benefit from reading Mr. Stephens’s column. So also might others. I say this with, kind of, my head in the sand, remembering, as I do, the “Off With His Head” bombardment of Mr. Stephens by Times readers that followed his “Climate of Unintended Consequences “ column. The bombardment that tried to finish off the assault on Mr. Stephens that accompanied the announcement that he would be coming over to the Times from the Wall Street Journal.
.
Bret Stephens, in his first column at the New York Times, wrote on climate change. In the May 4 column, titled “Climate of Unintended Consequences,” Stephens pointed to the failure of heavily touted ethanol and other biofuels to reduce atmospheric CO2, indeed they had the opposite effect, and to the adverse consequences of Europe’s E.T. S. and Germany’s “energy turn.” Mr. Stephens concluded, “The lessons are legion but, more often than not, unlearned. We need to make policy choices based less on moral self-regard and more on attention to real-world results.”
James Sutter would benefit from reading Mr. Stephens’s column. So also might others. I say this with, kind of, my head in the sand, remembering, as I do, the “Off With His Head” bombardment of Mr. Stephens by Times readers that followed his “Climate of Unintended Consequences “ column. The bombardment that tried to finish off the assault on Mr. Stephens that accompanied the announcement that he would be coming over to the Times from the Wall Street Journal.
.
6
Oh yes scientists know nothing.
2
Why hasn't anyone talked about airplanes in the sky and their heated exhaust?????? Over 400 overseas flights daily, and just looking at the flight maps on any given day of normal domestic travel would give a person cause to take trains wherever they go. It's appalling, but I guess it's "business" and business always trumps environment.
3
About your picture caption showing the spray-painted "Trump Digs Coal": you call that thing a tractor?? If you want to be taken seriously in Ohio, you want to learn what a tractor looks like.
That picture is reality. That thing sits on a state route just a mile or so from the school.
It is stunning that, in the face of overwhelming evidence, so many Americans still: a) don't believe the climate is changing, and b) if they believe it is changing that human activity has nothing to do with it.
The education system in the US needs a dramatic overhaul. Climate change is not a liberal conspiracy. Thank you Mr Sutter for persisting with the thankless but necessary job where the government has failed to educate young Americans.
The education system in the US needs a dramatic overhaul. Climate change is not a liberal conspiracy. Thank you Mr Sutter for persisting with the thankless but necessary job where the government has failed to educate young Americans.
12
Politics aside for a minute ... As a country we have failed the folks in what's now known as the Rust Belt. Let's keep in mind for a century this country was literally built on coal and steel. Without the hard and often dangerous work of miners and factory workers in this part of the country there would be no skyscrapers, bridges, automobiles or much of the foundation we take for granted.
It's easy to dismiss the POVs expressed by the high-schoolers in this article as ignorant and pedantic but their families and communities are in ruins. No way out and no hope. They have truly been left behind.
As a matter of morality we, as a society, need to figure out a way to have these folks benefit from the prosperity those of us on the coasts enjoy.
It's easy to dismiss the POVs expressed by the high-schoolers in this article as ignorant and pedantic but their families and communities are in ruins. No way out and no hope. They have truly been left behind.
As a matter of morality we, as a society, need to figure out a way to have these folks benefit from the prosperity those of us on the coasts enjoy.
16
These people have chosen to be left behind. They aren't looking for education or job training, they aren't willing to move, change or grow.
I worked my way out of poverty and I know how hard it is. I also know it's impossible to improve your life by just sitting around sneering at things you don't want to hear or believe in.
I worked my way out of poverty and I know how hard it is. I also know it's impossible to improve your life by just sitting around sneering at things you don't want to hear or believe in.
1
I live between Wellston and Athens (home of Ohio University), so I was very interested in reading this article--and surprised to find this small, off-the-beaten-path community the focus of an NYT feature story. I was raised in the Cincinnati area, and although Ohio is known for its more conservative leanings, I experienced a real culture shock when I moved here. We have no cell phone service, and only access to one, expensive Internet provider. This is one of the poorest areas in the state and offers few career opportunities for young people. I applaud Mr. Sutter for taking on such a challenging task and hope he continues to share his knowledge with the young people of Wellston. Obviously he has made an impression on his students. It may take time and maturity for them to fully understand and appreciate the numerous gifts he has shared with them.
16
As a science teacher in a suburban district in Houston, I ran into this kind of resistance from some parents and a few students. I commend this scientist turned teacher who is using field studies of local conditions such as bark beetles on pine trees to show his students how climate change is affecting them. Nothing like having students engaged in the process of science, asking questions, collecting their own data, and drawing conclusions for themselves to counter the misinformation being spread by groups like the Heartland Institute.
10
What they should be teaching Gwen -- which she might have an issue with, is that the cost of bringing the carbon levels in the atmosphere are so stratospheric that they are never in the discussion of climate change. Think electricity at 3x your current prices, think of 3x gas prices, think of not being able to live in a house without extraordinary income. If it was so easy that we could just turn out the lights more often and reuse our cup at Starbucks, we would have fixed this a long time ago. Temperatures have gone up, humans and their release of carbon into the atmosphere is most likely the cause, our ability to turn back the clock is unlikely and those who perpetuate the myth that we can do it with something like the Paris accord are not fully informed.
5
Think you should cite valid peer reviewed evidence if you're going to make assertions like this, both economic and scientific.
I feel for your science teacher who is young, inexperienced and an outsider. He's in a tough spot.
Trump ran on several ideas. Expertise doesn't matter. Scientists are wrong all the time (i.e., more often wrong than non-scientists). Repudiating one notion is the same as abandoning everything. Anything that makes the other side unhappy is good.
Yes, scientists have often been wrong. But such uncertainty is part and parcel of the scientific method. And, yes, Gwen's uncle doesn't understand the difference between math and science. For math certainty is built-in but in science uncertainty is a given.
The interviews in this paper with Trump supporters have been enlightening. For the most part, they have not provided evidence for their claims. In fact, they have been averse to any discussion or debate whatsoever.
I add the following based on many years of STEM education experience:
*On average, science teachers are still much poorer than, say, literature teachers. Science textbooks are equally poor.
*Science has become extraordinarily abstract and obscure. Yet such science powers many aspects of our everyday lives.
*In public schools now, a "straight A" designation is meaningless. It means you show up, do the work, and are polite.
*The same goes for teachers with college degrees. E.g., many are math- or science-phobic.
Given the above, how could any one such science teacher ever start from first principles and explain such things, i.e., convince such students?
Trump ran on several ideas. Expertise doesn't matter. Scientists are wrong all the time (i.e., more often wrong than non-scientists). Repudiating one notion is the same as abandoning everything. Anything that makes the other side unhappy is good.
Yes, scientists have often been wrong. But such uncertainty is part and parcel of the scientific method. And, yes, Gwen's uncle doesn't understand the difference between math and science. For math certainty is built-in but in science uncertainty is a given.
The interviews in this paper with Trump supporters have been enlightening. For the most part, they have not provided evidence for their claims. In fact, they have been averse to any discussion or debate whatsoever.
I add the following based on many years of STEM education experience:
*On average, science teachers are still much poorer than, say, literature teachers. Science textbooks are equally poor.
*Science has become extraordinarily abstract and obscure. Yet such science powers many aspects of our everyday lives.
*In public schools now, a "straight A" designation is meaningless. It means you show up, do the work, and are polite.
*The same goes for teachers with college degrees. E.g., many are math- or science-phobic.
Given the above, how could any one such science teacher ever start from first principles and explain such things, i.e., convince such students?
5
“What if we’re not the cause of it? What if this is something that’s natural?”
At this point in time, who or what is causing global warming is besides the point. Scientists are not trying to blame the people who mined the coal. What scientist are saying is we need to stop this before it gets any worse. That means coal miners need to find alternate jobs, like Jacynda's father did, in construction, or elsewhere.
Fighting the teacher equals to shooting the messenger. Not because Mr. Sutter stops talking about climate change, climate change will stop. Why is this so hard to understand?
At this point in time, who or what is causing global warming is besides the point. Scientists are not trying to blame the people who mined the coal. What scientist are saying is we need to stop this before it gets any worse. That means coal miners need to find alternate jobs, like Jacynda's father did, in construction, or elsewhere.
Fighting the teacher equals to shooting the messenger. Not because Mr. Sutter stops talking about climate change, climate change will stop. Why is this so hard to understand?
9
It's a shame Mr. Sutter would be beyond the limits of his curricula if he were to include economics as well.
Coal is now viewed as inefficient and more expensive than natural gas. It will never come back nor will coal jobs.
This is the real reason the stories 45 tells coal country can't come true.
For whatever reasons, Gwen is clinging to a myth.
Some day she'll understand that money dictates all. Almost always to the detriment of people and their planet.
Coal is now viewed as inefficient and more expensive than natural gas. It will never come back nor will coal jobs.
This is the real reason the stories 45 tells coal country can't come true.
For whatever reasons, Gwen is clinging to a myth.
Some day she'll understand that money dictates all. Almost always to the detriment of people and their planet.
4
The American mistrust of climate science is related to the mistrust of science in general by homegrown, evangelical Christians. I grew up Jehovah's Witness the denial of scientific evidence (especially for evolution) abounded: "they change their minds all the time," the methodology was flawed, and further, evidence that does exist are manipulations by Satan, "The Great Deceiver," to make people disbelieve God. Of course, this did not stop the Witnesses from using science to undergird their own occasional claims on the Bible and natural science lining up, citing divine knowledge.
I used to think that the Witnesses were singular in their wackiness and incoherence on these matters, and was duly embarrassed. But living the last decade in this country has made me realize that not only are Witnesses just a variation on a generic theme, but that it is related to a particularly American trait that young Gwen sadly embodies: the obnoxious instinct to double down and argue in the face of new information, calling everything "opinion" as if all things were equally correct, but also equally harmless for people to believe.
I aver that the national pastime of venerating and conflating the quirky language of the First Amendment is to blame: my first right is to believe whatever I want and say it to whomever I want, no matter how wrong or even dangerous, and I don't have to change my mind. Not even in the classroom. I'll leave and pick different facts.
I hope Gwen grows out of it.
I used to think that the Witnesses were singular in their wackiness and incoherence on these matters, and was duly embarrassed. But living the last decade in this country has made me realize that not only are Witnesses just a variation on a generic theme, but that it is related to a particularly American trait that young Gwen sadly embodies: the obnoxious instinct to double down and argue in the face of new information, calling everything "opinion" as if all things were equally correct, but also equally harmless for people to believe.
I aver that the national pastime of venerating and conflating the quirky language of the First Amendment is to blame: my first right is to believe whatever I want and say it to whomever I want, no matter how wrong or even dangerous, and I don't have to change my mind. Not even in the classroom. I'll leave and pick different facts.
I hope Gwen grows out of it.
7
It's getting a little tiring reading these pieces. This is no different than the controversy of teaching "intelligent design/creationism" along side evolution in science class. It's ignorant and irrational. People like Gwen are lost causes. Give it a shot, and then let it go. It doesn't matter what evidence you present, because it will never be enough, like when Creationists argue the fossil record contains no evidence to support evolution. The truth remains that the majority of Americans DO take climate change to be a real and serious issue. If Americans want better policy that is based on rational thought, then start electing better representatives to your state and federal legislatures. BUT, that will require reforming your campaign finance laws so that you don't need to be a well-connected millionaire lawyer/businessperson to run for office (which most of your elected reps are). Change will only come when science teachers, engineers and individuals with other technical and scientific expertise have an real chance of getting elected. Only then will things change, and it won't matter what the Gwens of the world think.
4
This article is a good follow up to the NYT's previous piece about how the conservative position on climate changed morphed from just low priortizarion to denial.
The article also implies that the conservative position will likely switch back low priortization, as even after the students accepted the scientific consensus, they still didn't mind going to prom with climate change deniers. Plus the town has other worries as well like poverty and heroin
The article also implies that the conservative position will likely switch back low priortization, as even after the students accepted the scientific consensus, they still didn't mind going to prom with climate change deniers. Plus the town has other worries as well like poverty and heroin
1
This will be the legacy for diehard Republican science deniers.
Their kids will struggle with STEM classes, and will have great difficulty succeeding at the college level in subjects such as biology (due to disbelief regarding evolution), geology and physics (being steeped in "young earth" creationism), economics (supply side, dontcha know), and even basic mathematics.
Do the purveyors of this nonsense not comprehend the very real damage they are doing, and the disadvantage which their children and communities will experience, due to the propaganda campaign they've been waging for decades?
Or do they just not care?
Their kids will struggle with STEM classes, and will have great difficulty succeeding at the college level in subjects such as biology (due to disbelief regarding evolution), geology and physics (being steeped in "young earth" creationism), economics (supply side, dontcha know), and even basic mathematics.
Do the purveyors of this nonsense not comprehend the very real damage they are doing, and the disadvantage which their children and communities will experience, due to the propaganda campaign they've been waging for decades?
Or do they just not care?
3
This article may not be condescending to Trump voters, in a vain effort to not upset them, but taking this baloney seriously does not leave room for any solution. Once we condone that it is OK to reject facts without even any effort of reviewing and checking them for veracity, we truly are back in the Dark Ages.
If this would affect the climate change denying student just personally I would shrug my shoulders and not think about it further. The problem is, this affects all of us. It feels like this student driving full throttle in a race car on a twisting mountain road with me in the passenger seat. Unfortunately, when she inevitably crashes, she will kill me as well.
I am not ready for this murder-suicide pact. So what can we do to stop it?
Convince the Trump voters that jumping off a skyscraper is really harmless and that the people who say otherwise are just propagating a Chinese hoax?
If this would affect the climate change denying student just personally I would shrug my shoulders and not think about it further. The problem is, this affects all of us. It feels like this student driving full throttle in a race car on a twisting mountain road with me in the passenger seat. Unfortunately, when she inevitably crashes, she will kill me as well.
I am not ready for this murder-suicide pact. So what can we do to stop it?
Convince the Trump voters that jumping off a skyscraper is really harmless and that the people who say otherwise are just propagating a Chinese hoax?
3
From the 1991 1st IPCC executive summary, "we predict global mean temperature during the next century of about 0 3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0 2°C to 0 5°C per decade)"
According to the current NASA/ GISS global temp data actual temps rose 0.44 deg. (Almost identical to the temp increases seen between 1910-1945) That works out to 0.176 deg/ decade (12% below low end estimates, 41.3% below average estimates and 64.8% below high end estimates). Scientifically those represent significant misses.
So why is someone a denier or anti-science if they look at that data and ask why their models overestimated actual temp rise by almost 2 fold? Or why 95% of the IPCC models overestimated the observed temp over the last 1/4 century? Please answer with facts and data and not simply attacks or wild predictions. I have done nothing here except cite climate experts own predictions and data and ask some simple questions.
According to the current NASA/ GISS global temp data actual temps rose 0.44 deg. (Almost identical to the temp increases seen between 1910-1945) That works out to 0.176 deg/ decade (12% below low end estimates, 41.3% below average estimates and 64.8% below high end estimates). Scientifically those represent significant misses.
So why is someone a denier or anti-science if they look at that data and ask why their models overestimated actual temp rise by almost 2 fold? Or why 95% of the IPCC models overestimated the observed temp over the last 1/4 century? Please answer with facts and data and not simply attacks or wild predictions. I have done nothing here except cite climate experts own predictions and data and ask some simple questions.
4
REPNAH - one response to your comment is that the actual temperature increase vs. predicted doesn't matter. It's not seeing the forest through the trees. Air pollution, water pollution and deforestation are real problems right now. Look at the smog in Beijing and Mexico City... How many farmers have had their well water made undrinkable by fracking? We're poisoning our environment and that has very empirical effects on our health and economy today, not 30 years from now. You shouldn't need temperature increase or melting ice cap predictions to buy-in to the idea we need to clean up our act.
4
Repnah, scientists are naturally skeptical (which is why the idea of a scientific conspiracy about climate change is laughable). So the question you ask is an example of healthy skepticism, as long as you are willing to learn from the answer. The 1991 predictions you reference were the "business as usual" predictions from the IPCC. Their predictions have been updated frequently since 1991, as the scientists involved have learned more about changes in human behavior (reducing the rate of growth in greenhouse gas emissions, in response to the IPCC reports!), changes in solar activity (actually decreased energy input from the Sun from 1990 through 2010), etc. More recent predictions show a range in "best" values between 0.15 to 0.25 deg. C/decade. Ongoing data collection and model improvements require research funding. Cutting off all such funding, as in the President's budget, indicates a decided fear of getting more accurate models that might contradict one's prejudices. Models have uncertainties, just as do predictions of the future path of severe hurricanes. But citizens would be ill advised to stay put in the projected eye of the storm just because the last hurricane's path deviated slightly from the best estimate of its future path. The bottom line is that no model ignoring human forcing of the climate has come close to predicting the observed changes in global temperatures, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and sea level rises.
3
Thank you Cathex for being the poster child for my point. If the data doesn't fit global warming, climate change, whatever the next phrase will become... Then the data doesn't matter. Just come up with more wild predictions and say the only way to save us is implement liberal, central government control solutions. I'm sorry, if we're going to be scientific then data does matter, and whether or not observations over time support or refute original theories and predictions does matter. And if they don't support them then we certainly be making radical economic changes based on the unsupported theories.
2
Even the latest IPCC assessment report Executive Summary page 3 confirms the hiatus in warming despite a slight increase in atmospheric CO2. Most simulations of the period do not reproduce the observed reduction in global mean surface warming trend over the last 10 to 15 years. "There is medium confidence that the trend difference between models and observations during 1998–2012 is to a substantial degree caused by internal variability, with possible contributions from forcing error and some models overestimating the response to increasing greenhouse gas forcing. Most, though not all, models overestimate the observed warming trend in the tropical troposphere over the last 30years, and tend to underestimate the long-term lower stratospheric cooling trend. {9.4.1, Box 9.2, Figure 9.8"
"Kevin Trenberth a government NASA/NOAA/GISS employee wrote in one of the Climategate emails:
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." and now he is one of the 20 asking the the President and the Justice Department to begin a RICO investigation into those who agree with his "lack of warming" conclusion.
U.K. Judge Rules Gore's Climate Film Has 9 Errors By Mary Jordan Washington Post Foreign Service Friday, October 12, 2007
For the record all of those islands that Al Gore predicted would disappear because of rising sea levels are still there. Some Islands in the Pacific are actually gaining land area.
Science is never settled!
"Kevin Trenberth a government NASA/NOAA/GISS employee wrote in one of the Climategate emails:
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." and now he is one of the 20 asking the the President and the Justice Department to begin a RICO investigation into those who agree with his "lack of warming" conclusion.
U.K. Judge Rules Gore's Climate Film Has 9 Errors By Mary Jordan Washington Post Foreign Service Friday, October 12, 2007
For the record all of those islands that Al Gore predicted would disappear because of rising sea levels are still there. Some Islands in the Pacific are actually gaining land area.
Science is never settled!
4
The Repub voters told everyone to stop complaining about fracking(and in many places, the flammable tap water that it produced) and let natural gas make a profit. Well hooray! Now it is! But natural gas profits came at the expense of the coal industry which is now suffering and can't compete.
BUT, instead of letting the "free market" decide the fate of coal, were supposed to put our FUTURE at risk to save it? These climate deniers refuse to change with the times, and then voted for Trump because they said they wanted things to change...and they expect the world to change to suit their needs and NEVER the other way around. Everyone is supposed to drop everything to save coal jobs, yet when we have candidates who say they want to expand education aid or something(which could help a lot of those unemployed coal miners train for new industries), these dimwits vote for Republicans who pledge to burn the dept. of education to the ground. They're determined to fail at life, drag as many others as they can down with them, and blame everyone but themselves when they finally succeed.
BUT, instead of letting the "free market" decide the fate of coal, were supposed to put our FUTURE at risk to save it? These climate deniers refuse to change with the times, and then voted for Trump because they said they wanted things to change...and they expect the world to change to suit their needs and NEVER the other way around. Everyone is supposed to drop everything to save coal jobs, yet when we have candidates who say they want to expand education aid or something(which could help a lot of those unemployed coal miners train for new industries), these dimwits vote for Republicans who pledge to burn the dept. of education to the ground. They're determined to fail at life, drag as many others as they can down with them, and blame everyone but themselves when they finally succeed.
2
I do not agree with Ms. Beatty.
But at least she sounds more mature than the orange plague that infested the White House this past January.
Maybe the Donald should give her his phone. His twitter account has nowhere to go but up.
But at least she sounds more mature than the orange plague that infested the White House this past January.
Maybe the Donald should give her his phone. His twitter account has nowhere to go but up.
1
This is why it was a mistake to lower the voting age to 18.
It was a good try Mister Sutter. Gwen obviouisly belongs to that tiny minority of people who are either unwilling or unable to consider that their beliefs might be incorrect. Consider yourself fortunate to have reached the other students in your class like Jacynda, as so many other teachers do not make it that far.
2
Gwen, the White House website does not belong to Pres. Trump actually, it belongs to us, the American people. The purpose of it is to inform, by removing information on Climate change, it is being manipulated to NOT inform. Hear is what I think, you are not stupid as your grades and your initiative clearly show, but you are wrong. Everyone hates to be wrong, I still get defensive at times and could be your grandmother, age wise. Coal jobs have been dropping for many, many years, long before Pres. Obama became president. The two main reasons, as I understand it are automation and mountain top mining,which reduces manpower needs. This creates terrible hardships for people who once earned decent livings working in the coal industry, but sticking fingers in ears will not change the facts. The best choice for you, it seems to me is to get a good education, junior college is probably the way to start. I implore you, do not believe the lies and distortions of Donald Trump. I am sorry to inform you, but the Rose Garden event might make Trump voters feel good, but it was littered with lies and distortions. Doubt you will believe me, even though every fact check organization in the media says the same. best wishes, let facts be your North Star.
3
The Kocha and Trump really represent the culmination of evil: brainwashing young people in order to delay action that could keep the world livable for them, in order to die with more money in your pocket than you already have now.
2
This isn't about anything other than thermodynamics: either you believe that when you do something, there is ALWAYS a reaction, or you do not believe that. If you don't believe that, then you do not believe that you must pay for what you get. If that is the case, then you have no place here and should go to communist Russia or China.
PAY FOR WHAT YOU GET. Dumping carbon into the atmosphere is an externalized cost to everyone that people that burn fossil fuels impose on others and DO NOT PAY FOR. A carbon tax would create an actual free market for energy, where each source of energy would be priced with ALL costs included. Once that is done, you are free to believe whatever idiotic thing you want, since you will be PAYING FOR WHAT YOU GET.
Sheesh.
PAY FOR WHAT YOU GET. Dumping carbon into the atmosphere is an externalized cost to everyone that people that burn fossil fuels impose on others and DO NOT PAY FOR. A carbon tax would create an actual free market for energy, where each source of energy would be priced with ALL costs included. Once that is done, you are free to believe whatever idiotic thing you want, since you will be PAYING FOR WHAT YOU GET.
Sheesh.
2
To navigate through the fog of war against facts, we need beacons of critical thinking. The most important skill school science teachers can impart to their students is critical thinking, including how to distinguish real from "alternative" facts. The Heartland Institute booklet uses the same cynical tools of misinformation they have used for decades to lobby against any link between tobacco or secondhand smoke and health issues, between emissions and acid rain, between CFC's and ozone depletion, and now against the human influence on climate change. They are always wrong, but never in doubt, always pushing an agenda of extreme opposition to any government regulation. Students can be taught to recognize the telltale signs of this misinformation toolbox -- they are easy to spot when you are attuned to them. A local high school teacher here in southern Indiana has the students carry out debates, representing each side of the "facts" presented (and refuted) on the website skepticalscience.com. This gives them the chance to recognize how data are cherry-picked to mislead the public, without the lesson having to be "handed down" from on high. Other techniques may work just as well. But the challenge for teachers is to find effective ways to get students to think critically about what they read or are told. It is not, as some commenters have suggested, a matter of sorting through conflicting opinions, but rather of recognizing facts vs. intentionally doctored "facts."
20
On a field trip to a biology laboratory there, many of his students took their first ride on an escalator. To illustrate why some scientists in the 1970s believed the world was cooling rather than warming (“So why should we believe them now?” students sometimes asked), he brought in a 1968 push-button phone and a 1980s Nintendo game cartridge.
“Our data and our ability to process it is just so much better now,” he said.
..."The field trip to a local stream where the water runs neon orange also made an impression. Mr. Sutter had the class collect water samples: The pH levels were as acidic as “the white vinegar you buy at a grocery store,” he told them. And the drainage, they could see, was from the mine.
It was the realization that she had failed to grasp the damage done to her immediate environment, Jacynda said, that made her begin to pay more attention. She did some reading. She also began thinking that she might enjoy a job working for the Environmental Protection Agency — until she learned that, under Mr. Trump, the agency would undergo huge layoffs."
Mr. Sutter sounds like a terrific teacher: challenging the kids to think for themselves by coming up with great examples right in their own backyard for how to consider & confront this huge problem we have with climate change.
“Our data and our ability to process it is just so much better now,” he said.
..."The field trip to a local stream where the water runs neon orange also made an impression. Mr. Sutter had the class collect water samples: The pH levels were as acidic as “the white vinegar you buy at a grocery store,” he told them. And the drainage, they could see, was from the mine.
It was the realization that she had failed to grasp the damage done to her immediate environment, Jacynda said, that made her begin to pay more attention. She did some reading. She also began thinking that she might enjoy a job working for the Environmental Protection Agency — until she learned that, under Mr. Trump, the agency would undergo huge layoffs."
Mr. Sutter sounds like a terrific teacher: challenging the kids to think for themselves by coming up with great examples right in their own backyard for how to consider & confront this huge problem we have with climate change.
5
Best wishes to Mr. Sutter and his teaching commitment. Congratulations to the graduates, but they need to remember their journey is just beginning. The changes and scientific revelations to come will be more amazing that anything taught in the classroom today.
2
One of my first quests in past teaching episodes was to ask students what the definition of a theory is. The answers were typically in the range of "an unproven or speculative proposal.” Of course, this was wrong, but the real problem was that a class full of juniors and seniors were missing base knowledge in science. (many comments on the NYT climate change articles will see this line from the AGW denier camp) This is more difficult to correct as students get older and have already entrenched in certain ideologies.
Ask the younger generation what a “skeptic” is now and the likely answer would be a person that does not accept human induced global warming. Try telling that person that a skeptic is someone that follows the science and math based evidence for any type of phenomena or observation and see what happens.
Ask the younger generation what a “skeptic” is now and the likely answer would be a person that does not accept human induced global warming. Try telling that person that a skeptic is someone that follows the science and math based evidence for any type of phenomena or observation and see what happens.
3
The idea of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change is a scientific hypothesis, not a scientific theory. There is a big difference.
As for skeptics of this hypothesis being able to follow the math and science behind it, it might give you pause to consider that prominent skeptics include former IPCC lead authors, such as Richard Lindzen and John Christy, Nobel Prize winners in physics, such as Ivar Giaever and Robert Laughlin, and general giants of math and physics such as Freeman Dyson and Edward Teller (now deceased). Surely these people are at least as qualified as you to follow the science and math based evidence, and yet they have come to an entirely different conclusion.
Rather than arguing from authority, you might try to argue from the perspective of logic, data, and reason. You might also seek to understand why the individuals above, along with a great many other scientists, do not find the "evidence" you present to be persuasive. As hard as it seems to be for most of the bien pensants of the NYTimes to consider, you may even discover that the evidence you currently find persuasive is not actually very good.
As for skeptics of this hypothesis being able to follow the math and science behind it, it might give you pause to consider that prominent skeptics include former IPCC lead authors, such as Richard Lindzen and John Christy, Nobel Prize winners in physics, such as Ivar Giaever and Robert Laughlin, and general giants of math and physics such as Freeman Dyson and Edward Teller (now deceased). Surely these people are at least as qualified as you to follow the science and math based evidence, and yet they have come to an entirely different conclusion.
Rather than arguing from authority, you might try to argue from the perspective of logic, data, and reason. You might also seek to understand why the individuals above, along with a great many other scientists, do not find the "evidence" you present to be persuasive. As hard as it seems to be for most of the bien pensants of the NYTimes to consider, you may even discover that the evidence you currently find persuasive is not actually very good.
3
It's not the environmentalists that destroyed coal jobs. It's mainly these other things:
1. Coal exploration, development, & production technology requiring fewer workers
2. Natural gas, a cleaner (though not clean) alternative to coal and one supported by a powerful industry with politicians in pocket
3. Climate change denial itself that prohibits the investment community to fully back "clean coal tech"; as a result, clean coal tech is several decades behind where it might have been
4. Solar, wind, and battery storage advancements
In the case of #3, coal country did it to itself.
1. Coal exploration, development, & production technology requiring fewer workers
2. Natural gas, a cleaner (though not clean) alternative to coal and one supported by a powerful industry with politicians in pocket
3. Climate change denial itself that prohibits the investment community to fully back "clean coal tech"; as a result, clean coal tech is several decades behind where it might have been
4. Solar, wind, and battery storage advancements
In the case of #3, coal country did it to itself.
1
Sutters "cause and effect", probably aided by climatic changes we have yet to understand, is fine as far as it goes. What everyone seems to miss is what is needed to save the Planet from our lack of attention, thus far. Considering the various levels of civilization and industrialization of the 7.5 Billion people, now living and our rates of expansion, exacerbated by our desire to feed everyone and cure all diseases, the Paris Accord discussions are a total joke, misleading and patently lies, by suggesting these emission levels and caron credits (a total scam by a few to satisfy their greed) will somehow, overtime, correct what we have already changed; what is being proposed are nits in a world knee deep in fleas, bloody useless! A reduction by, at least, half of our present population, made up of barbarians and savages, the least industrial of us, and the maintenance that new level for the millennium it will take to bring us back to pre-industrial pollution levels! Good Luck!
2
Perhaps Mr. Sutter could have explained why barely 1000 years ago European settlers in Greenland were able to raise and subsist on livestock? Climate cooled by the 1300's and those settlements failed. It is still too cold for livestock in Greenland today.
4
Five decades of cultured ignorance will not be overcome easily particularly when the people are still fed a daily diet of it from Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and Alex Jones. The only encouraging note in this piece is that given patience and a non-judgmental approach you can at least reason with and reach students.
3
Climate science is not part of a "culture war", it's science and evidence against ignorance. We certainly shouldn't shut down students that have questions or even challenge the prevailing scientific consensus, but we also shouldn't pretend for the sake of "fairness" that it is merely a matter of opinion. Facts are not fair, by definition they have a bias.
When a student raises a question, or challenges the scientific consensus or the accepted scientific theory, as is the case often with natural selection, educators must use that as a learning opportunity. I understand the strain teachers are under, with limited time and very packed lesson plans, but maybe that's an opinion to speak with the student after class, or give them extra credit opportunities to delve deeper into the subject.
When a student raises a question, or challenges the scientific consensus or the accepted scientific theory, as is the case often with natural selection, educators must use that as a learning opportunity. I understand the strain teachers are under, with limited time and very packed lesson plans, but maybe that's an opinion to speak with the student after class, or give them extra credit opportunities to delve deeper into the subject.
3
This article may not be condescending to Trump voters, in a vain effort to not upset them, but taking this baloney seriously does not leave room for any solution. Once we condone that it is OK to reject facts without even any effort to review and check them for veracity, we truly are back in the Dark Ages.
If this would affect the climate change denying student just personally I would shrug my shoulders and not think about it further. The problem is, this affects all of us. It feels like this student is sitting in the chair next to me, holding a gun to her own head and having the finger on the trigger. Unfortunately, the bullet is going to come out the other side of her skull and then continue on to kill me as well.
I am not ready for this murder-suicide pact. So what can we do to stop it?
Convince the Trump voters that jumping off a skyscraper is really harmless and that the people who say otherwise are just propagating a Chinese hoax?
If this would affect the climate change denying student just personally I would shrug my shoulders and not think about it further. The problem is, this affects all of us. It feels like this student is sitting in the chair next to me, holding a gun to her own head and having the finger on the trigger. Unfortunately, the bullet is going to come out the other side of her skull and then continue on to kill me as well.
I am not ready for this murder-suicide pact. So what can we do to stop it?
Convince the Trump voters that jumping off a skyscraper is really harmless and that the people who say otherwise are just propagating a Chinese hoax?
1
Thanks NYT for the global warming propaganda. Questioning the current body of knowledge is the very NATURE of science, and people (like this student) who question the flimsy evidence for global warming should not be discouraged from doing so. The climate of this planet is ALWAYS changing, and some cursory research at nasa.gov will reveal corresponding temperature changes that have occurred on other planets such as Mars and Jupiter. Are man-made emissions responsible for climate changes on those planets as well? How many SUVs were driving around during the Jurassic era, when temperatures were MUCH warmer than they are today? Everyone wants to protect the environment, and the U.S. already leads the world on clean air and water. What we DON'T want is to pay billions of dollars to other countries who have done nothing to curb their own carbon emissions.
5
Yeah, if only the skeptics were equally as skeptical of anything that agrees with them. In science we spend far more time attempting to prove ourselves wrong than we do right. If you're prepared to commit to that standard of skepticism, no problem. You won't, though, when you use a word like "propaganda" instead of simply using a neutral term like "argument", it's clearly that emotion is ruling, not reason.
3
One thing I would dearly love to see the end of is the use of the phrase, "Do you *believe* in human-caused climate change"?
This is definitely part of the problem, and not part of the solution. Science is not a thing to be believed, but a thing to be known (and not known-for-certain). Believing is a separate operation involving the will and is not at all subject to the same processes of evidence gathering and examination as the knowledge process. It is implicitly part of the tribalizing phenomenon, and that's true whether we're talking about tribes on the left or the right.
There IS no correct orthodoxy that would improve the world if we could just inculcate those beliefs into everyone's minds. "Orthodoxy is unconsciousness" as Orwell showed us in 1984. It cannot but be wrong no matter what. So please, all, stop asking whether someone "believes" in climate change. Switch modes and processes as it appears the good Mr. Sutter mostly tried to do. It's the only way.
This is definitely part of the problem, and not part of the solution. Science is not a thing to be believed, but a thing to be known (and not known-for-certain). Believing is a separate operation involving the will and is not at all subject to the same processes of evidence gathering and examination as the knowledge process. It is implicitly part of the tribalizing phenomenon, and that's true whether we're talking about tribes on the left or the right.
There IS no correct orthodoxy that would improve the world if we could just inculcate those beliefs into everyone's minds. "Orthodoxy is unconsciousness" as Orwell showed us in 1984. It cannot but be wrong no matter what. So please, all, stop asking whether someone "believes" in climate change. Switch modes and processes as it appears the good Mr. Sutter mostly tried to do. It's the only way.
3
“He acts,” Gwen said with her patented eye roll, “like he’s God’s gift to Wellston.”
Instead of rolling her eyes she should open them wider and realize that this young man is, indeed, God's gift to Wellston.
Instead of rolling her eyes she should open them wider and realize that this young man is, indeed, God's gift to Wellston.
5
While I disagree with Gwen's opinion on climate change ~~ nor her instinct to leave instead of staying in the class ~~ She is correct. He thinks he is God's gift to Wellston and WHS. That opinion is mired in his own self-inflated ego as he is much less of a gift to many students. He has a job to educate all students in his class and he failed to do that in many cases.
"The climate conference in Copenhagen is another step forward towards the global management of our planet " - Herman Van Rompuy
Warnists don't like questioning their faith. Kind of like telling a preacher that you don't believe in Jesus.
Warnists don't like questioning their faith. Kind of like telling a preacher that you don't believe in Jesus.
5
There must be something about American culture that breeds these incredibly close-minded communities. I attribute it to the small-town mentality that is so glorified in America, to the anti-intellectualism and elevation of emotions over reason that is the legacy of Christian fundamentalism. I once taught a graduate college course in Europe. Among my students, there were a sizable minority of Muslims, including several hijab-wearing girls. I made it clear in the first class that I am an atheist Jew, that I have no particular regard for Islam, and that some class material, including discussions of evolution, would go against their religious beliefs. I offered anybody who wanted to, the opportunity to walk out. Not a single one did. They all listened attentively to what, to them, must have been blasphemy or worse. I don't know if they accepted my point of view but they understood it, respected me as a teacher, and wrote excellent papers. So, Muslims can be open-minded but Christians cannot?
153
Well, the problem is the American LACK of culture. In the 80s I read somewhere that half of the American students didn't know that George Bush was the President of their own country, I was a child and I thought it was a joke...it wasn't. As an European I never questioned a teacher because he was Catholic, a Jew, an Atheist or whatever...we were never interested in that.
1
Bigotry is found in ALL faiths - and open-mindedness is also found in ALL faiths. Glad that you had a class of open-minded students, but it's luck of the draw. And before the religious community gets up in arms at me -- bigotry is also found among atheists as well. Regardless of upbringing, it is up to every individual to decide whether or not to at least LISTEN to what other people have to say, so long as it is said in a courteous, respectful manner - and to try to objectively weigh the evidence presented.
1
Muslims can be open-minded but Christians cannot?
Trying drawing a cartoon of Mohammed.
Trying drawing a cartoon of Mohammed.
Any parent that would subject their children to the anti God, anti Christian, pro abortion, immoral propaganda being pushed by the humanist, globalists, eugenicists running our public schools is subjecting their children to abuse
2
So happy I escaped rural Ohio -- about 100 miles from Wellston -- 45 years ago. Not that Arizona is much more enlightened...
2
Hooray for all the Mr. Sutters out there. You are making a difference. Like the very successful anti-smoking campaigns of the past, the public school educates America's children. Armed with information, these students influence their parents and grow up to be more informed citizens.
Keep up the hard work, teachers. We can't have a functional democracy without you!!!
Keep up the hard work, teachers. We can't have a functional democracy without you!!!
5
“It was just so biased toward saying climate change is real,” she said later, trying to explain her flight. “And that all these people that I pretty much am like are wrong and stupid.”
Unfortunately, she IS wrong. Fortunately, good teachers can help other students who aren't as close-minded to see and understand the facts.
Unfortunately, she IS wrong. Fortunately, good teachers can help other students who aren't as close-minded to see and understand the facts.
2
No she's asking reasonable questions which are generally scoffed at when asked of climate change cultists. Also, the article is condescending in that it sites the article in Ohio which is intellectual elite code for ignorant "Trump/Bible Belt" country. Anyway, directionally, I can accept the proposition that carbon emissions could influence climate. However, it's a matter of degree:
1. Historically, important global warmings and coolings have evolved over many thousands of years whereas we're using data from the 200 year old industrial revolution as proof that we're in a new cycle. As one reader put it earlier, they were farming Greenland 1000 years ago; it got colder, the farmers left and they haven't been back since;
2.Methane, water vapor and mother nature also contribute to climate change. Have scientists accurately gauged and quantified the influence of those factors vs. Carbon emissions? How are they able to hold those factors constant when measuring the impact of the latter?
So to those who say "the science is clear" without addressing these questions and others, I would say it looks muddy. If the air in your city gives you a sore throat from coal burning( as it does in Beijing); or, if smog is causing breathing trouble as it does in Delhi, yea that's a pretty good sign that the air needs to get cleaned up. Otherwise, the better argument for developing alternate sources of energy( vs. climate change) is that we're eventually going to run out of fossil fuels...
1. Historically, important global warmings and coolings have evolved over many thousands of years whereas we're using data from the 200 year old industrial revolution as proof that we're in a new cycle. As one reader put it earlier, they were farming Greenland 1000 years ago; it got colder, the farmers left and they haven't been back since;
2.Methane, water vapor and mother nature also contribute to climate change. Have scientists accurately gauged and quantified the influence of those factors vs. Carbon emissions? How are they able to hold those factors constant when measuring the impact of the latter?
So to those who say "the science is clear" without addressing these questions and others, I would say it looks muddy. If the air in your city gives you a sore throat from coal burning( as it does in Beijing); or, if smog is causing breathing trouble as it does in Delhi, yea that's a pretty good sign that the air needs to get cleaned up. Otherwise, the better argument for developing alternate sources of energy( vs. climate change) is that we're eventually going to run out of fossil fuels...
4
wonder what this young girl thinks of the Pope telling her take care of the earth? this 97% is not a 100% argument is inane, and should be turned against them
1
Now will someone help me with these lessons in So. Cal? We live so removed from nature that people don't have evidence of the local effects of climate change. You'll never step on the earth; we've paved it over. You'll never feel the climate, we're always in air conditioned cars, malls, or homes. Even at the beaches we comb away the seaweed and add lots of nice white sand to the beaches. Everything is always made to look attractive and new. We've been disneylandified! It's no wonder, plenty of people deny or ignore climate change - we're living in an artificial environment!
2
What good is teaching science in school if we brainwash our children into disbelieving it? Perhaps the evangelicals should introduce Christian madrasa schools where only Bible studies are taught here in the USA. That seems to be what they want and with Betsy Devos at the helm that is probably what they are going to get. Let's hear it for making America stupid again. Stick a fork in us. We're done.
2
The thinking of those in Wellston are exactly why we have Trump.
3
Absolutely stunningly bad article. Gwen Beatty was 100% correct and her teacher is just plain ignorant. Just because the left has decided that "climate science" is their new polemic play toy doesn't mean you should turn scientific principles on their head. Does an increased percentage of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere lead to higher temperatures if all other factors are controlled? Yes. Do scientists know precisely how much of the warming over the past century is due to carbon emissions? No. Are we currently in an inter-glacial period - probably. Will the increased carbon emissions prevent another ice age? Who knows.
The whole idea of science is questioning theories. To halt that questioning and say that it is not a theory, it is fact, is throwing the whole idea of science in the garbage can. For the teacher to take a pedantic and pompous attitude to Gwen's questioning is wrong in every way. If it wasn't for minds like Gwen, we would still be sitting at the center of the universe, watching the sun and planets spin around us and worried about falling off.
The whole idea of science is questioning theories. To halt that questioning and say that it is not a theory, it is fact, is throwing the whole idea of science in the garbage can. For the teacher to take a pedantic and pompous attitude to Gwen's questioning is wrong in every way. If it wasn't for minds like Gwen, we would still be sitting at the center of the universe, watching the sun and planets spin around us and worried about falling off.
5
Airplane exhaust!!!
1
Whatever the case for AGW, the IPCC discredited itself as a scientific authority back in 2001 when it enthusiastically endorsed the Mann-Bradley-Hughes "hockey stick" climate reconstruction purporting to show the absence of climate change in the millennium prior to 1900. The first thing one learns in chemistry or physics lab is that bad data + bad statistics = bad science, even if you get the desired answer.
The emerald ash borer cited by Mr. Stutter as evidence of global warming is an invasive species that is no more related to recent warming than were the historical chestnut blight or dutch elm disease.
The emerald ash borer cited by Mr. Stutter as evidence of global warming is an invasive species that is no more related to recent warming than were the historical chestnut blight or dutch elm disease.
3
Good for Mr. Sutter for taking his students to see, firsthand, examples of climate change in their own neighborhood. Things have more impact when they hit close to home. And good for Jacynda for understanding what she witnessed on her field trip, and for modifying her thinking accordingly. Education at its best should be mutually transformative for both student and teacher, and I suspect that Mr. Sutter's ability to reach Jacynda was exactly that.
As for Jacynda's father, who ..."sees it as the environmental people have taken his job.” -- perhaps that mindset is best overcome in an economics class.
As for Jacynda's father, who ..."sees it as the environmental people have taken his job.” -- perhaps that mindset is best overcome in an economics class.
3
The student's parents probably remember the 70's when global cooling was the rage. Since that was proved wrong a new money making scheme is global warming. The earth will do what it will do and man can soil his nest but change the weather to any great extent has yet to be proven.
1
Hats off to Mr. Sutter and the young students who are able to let go of what has been the brainwashing of the Koch's and their ilk who have come to control our country through the Republican Party. Heart breaks for all who--whatever their religion or politics--will endure the world that Koch and the Republicans are viciously destroying in the name of short term profits.
3
It's official, FOX News is making all of us dumber. When good students in good schools fail to comprehend or acknowledge historical facts and scientific evidence, we are tradegicly slipping backwards, into the dark ages. We are supposed to learn, progress, and evolve into smarter and better collective counties.
2
Gwen, the young woman who bolted during a documentary featuring Christian climate-change scientists, may in fact now believe that humans contribute to warming--that's why she fled. The doc may have kicked the last leg out from under her comforting belief that it was all a tree-hugger's lie. Since she is a smart student, she would have reached a series of of terrifying conclusions:
1. The earth really is warming, and the talk of invasive insects, disease, flooding and other apocryphal disasters isn't just theory.
2. The people I love are wrong about climate change. What else are they wrong about?
3. If we want to head off disaster, we can't bring back coal jobs. Now what?
4. God is not going to fix this for us.
5. Maybe there is no god. RUN!!!
If we are to succeed in turning more people into believers, we need to consider how terrifying our data really are. We need to find ways to address the emotions they arouse. As we make our case, we have to offer hope. When we demonstrate that a return to coal is out of the question, we should be ready to talk about the jobs that will be created as renewable energy becomes a more viable option.
And if we can provide young people with the language to discuss these matters with their families so they can start a conversation instead of an argument, we can really begin to turn the tide of public opinion.
1. The earth really is warming, and the talk of invasive insects, disease, flooding and other apocryphal disasters isn't just theory.
2. The people I love are wrong about climate change. What else are they wrong about?
3. If we want to head off disaster, we can't bring back coal jobs. Now what?
4. God is not going to fix this for us.
5. Maybe there is no god. RUN!!!
If we are to succeed in turning more people into believers, we need to consider how terrifying our data really are. We need to find ways to address the emotions they arouse. As we make our case, we have to offer hope. When we demonstrate that a return to coal is out of the question, we should be ready to talk about the jobs that will be created as renewable energy becomes a more viable option.
And if we can provide young people with the language to discuss these matters with their families so they can start a conversation instead of an argument, we can really begin to turn the tide of public opinion.
3
I live in Ohio and personally witness the arrogant and ignorant assault on education and science from J.D. Vance's Hillibilly Nation.
This seems to be the norm from Ohio and it's this same mentality that willingly accepted the empty promises of a con man like Donald Trump and the Republican Party to make "America Great Again".
This seems to be the norm from Ohio and it's this same mentality that willingly accepted the empty promises of a con man like Donald Trump and the Republican Party to make "America Great Again".
4
Why is there a Advanced Placement environmental science class? What are the odds that these kids can do calculus? Better yet, how many have actually done science, you know used the scientific method? Some things just can't be taught, they have to be learned, and at the top of the list is that you are dumb. How you "feel" about things or your intuition isn't all that useful, you have to "think" and do measurements and experiments. These kids are just rocking back and forth in their chairs regurgitating indoctrination.
2
My child graduated from WHS and did very well in pre-calculus.
The truth of the matter, at least in part, is that no parents like to hear their children say "Momma, Daddy, you're wrong."
But that's how truth is. It does not play favorites, and while it can educate the ignorant, some prefer to stay ignorant because they have a belief system that effectively trumps (pun intended) anything that suggests change.
But that's how truth is. It does not play favorites, and while it can educate the ignorant, some prefer to stay ignorant because they have a belief system that effectively trumps (pun intended) anything that suggests change.
1
People have questions about climate science. When these questions such as "Why is the Antarctic ice shelf growing, then?" are not answerable by climate science "believers" these people will take the believers' ignorance to mean that their own ought to have equal standing and therefore climate change skepticism has merit. The proper answer to such questions is "I am not a climate scientist. If you have questions, ask one of them. But my (and your) not knowing the answer to your question does not change the fact that human-caused climate change is has been confirmed by climate scientists, well beyond a reasonable doubt. My not being able to answer each and every gotcha question on climate science does not make me some sort of koolaid-drinking tree-hugger. It means I understand that climate science is the purview of climate scientists. If I don't understand how light can sometimes escape a black hole it does not mean that black holes are not a thing."
By this time your button-holing climate science denier friend has long boarded the bus back home to Ignoramusville and, while you have won no hearts or minds (not that you were going to be able to, anyway) you will not be troubled by him or her again.
By this time your button-holing climate science denier friend has long boarded the bus back home to Ignoramusville and, while you have won no hearts or minds (not that you were going to be able to, anyway) you will not be troubled by him or her again.
1
Bravo, Mr. Sutter, and all scince teachers like him. Now let's get civics back into the high school curriculum again, as well as critical thinking and logic.
1
Gwen deserves exactly the kind of life she will lead. Absolutely no sympathy. This teacher should stop wasting his time and find another job. There is nothing you can do to fix willful ignorance based on "belief."
I was born in the Northeast and later in life taught photography in a small rural town in the South. It was my first encounter with a culture different from how I was raised. In stressing the importance of keeping the darkroom clean, I remarked that we did not want to leave it in a slobby mess for the next class. One of my students immediately said defensively that his house was never clean. Was I calling his folks slobs?
That was my first lesson in learning to teach in such a way that I did not inadvertently attack a student's family's values or way of life.
Do you remember the first time someone who raised you fell off his or her pedestal? In those hormonal teen years, this can be a traumatic experience. It shakes an individual out of a comfortable sense of Self.
Like me, Mr. Sutter was an outsider, trying to teach something that was already learned in a different way. The only approach is to show respect.
Respect by making no judgement calls, respect by listening carefully. Respect by never backing students into a corner so that they have to react defensively. Respect by countering a misconception by narrowing the topic to something very specific and undeniable, such as a "field trip to a local stream where the water runs neon orange."
Well done, Mr. Sutter.
That was my first lesson in learning to teach in such a way that I did not inadvertently attack a student's family's values or way of life.
Do you remember the first time someone who raised you fell off his or her pedestal? In those hormonal teen years, this can be a traumatic experience. It shakes an individual out of a comfortable sense of Self.
Like me, Mr. Sutter was an outsider, trying to teach something that was already learned in a different way. The only approach is to show respect.
Respect by making no judgement calls, respect by listening carefully. Respect by never backing students into a corner so that they have to react defensively. Respect by countering a misconception by narrowing the topic to something very specific and undeniable, such as a "field trip to a local stream where the water runs neon orange."
Well done, Mr. Sutter.
3
I dont see how this kid is an a student. she rejects hard facts and figures... much like your average trump supporter not driven exclusively by blind xenophobia and hatred.
I can't comment on what's happening there, since I don't live there. But it's not happening at my daughter's HS. Don't get the impression most kids are gullible fools! Far, far from it.
Ignorance is taught, and you wonder why these areas are struggling economically. Caught in their own circle of self fulfilling lies and excuses.
1
Maybe the parents of Wellston are most fearful of critical thinking, seeing it as buying into the 'politically correct' lies of the 'elite' (James Sutter with his high level of education, is obviously one of 'those'). Fight or flight, Gwen chose e flight-what is she so afraid of?
Any good salesman (or con artist) knows that people will believe anything you tell them if it is what they want to believe. The trick is to get people to understand how they are getting hurt by the lies.
1
The major problem for those who look to the solar cycle & earth orbit around Sun for an explanation of global warming is that the pattern we are not moving into is for an ice age. Yes, an ice age. Well, guess what, ladies and germs, the climate is getting warmer. Hummmm. Solar cycle & earth orbit are not going to save your bacon. Gee, I wonder what else could be causing the change in climate?? The students are drinking the Koolaid of denial. Give them a house on the coast, and let them watch was the storms and rising levels flood them out of existence.
1
We are too busy looking at coal mines and fossil fuels. You have to wonder if this is a diversion. There are other more powerful, science based factors. Cloud seeding chemicals create rain in deluges, rather than the gradual drizzle followed by steady rain. Now it's like someone turned the shower on full blast, inches over short periods of time. HAARP is throwing weather and seismic forces into chaos. So is CERN. Finally, the Gulf stream is a critical artery in global air and water currents. It has been blocked by a mass of chemicals dissolving deep underwater. Corexit did not remove the oil. It merely placed it where we could not see it.
So to to Gwen Beatty, check out chemtrails, cloud seeding, HAARP, CERN, and the BP oil spill effects on the Gulf Stream.
So to to Gwen Beatty, check out chemtrails, cloud seeding, HAARP, CERN, and the BP oil spill effects on the Gulf Stream.
1
The solar cycle/Earth orbit thesis is not going to help deniers since we are moving into an ice age. Opps. Gee, I wonder what else could account for climate change? Increase in greenhouse gases, which is a fact, fitsa the bill.
1
You have it wrong here...ask the climate deniers to prove burning fossil fuel is a positive...see what they come up with.
1
I blame it partly on religion being allowed a not so slow creep into the public sphere. Every day there is a reminder of the wisdom of the humans who founded this now-in-turmoil country of ours..
But....imagine....you well-educated, well-off to some degree, readers of the NYTimes if you had these kids' lives.
Then imagine a rich man with unimaginable power appears and promises you a better life, a rich man who knows little but look at him, he's living a life most can't imagine and he focuses on you. And, he amazingly seems to understand your life. How can that be?
Wouldn't you believe, maybe what he says because...what have you got to lose?
But....imagine....you well-educated, well-off to some degree, readers of the NYTimes if you had these kids' lives.
Then imagine a rich man with unimaginable power appears and promises you a better life, a rich man who knows little but look at him, he's living a life most can't imagine and he focuses on you. And, he amazingly seems to understand your life. How can that be?
Wouldn't you believe, maybe what he says because...what have you got to lose?
1
There is nothing like a catastrophic flooding to make people believe - in a God or just Nature who is mad at what the humans have done.
1
How very sad to read about this young lady's fierce denial. I was once like, her. My beliefs defined who I was, a religious, conservative Catholic, who had grown up in a home where "liberals were commies." Thankfully, I evolved! Hope she does too, through learning.
Conservatives cling to their beliefs, in an age which is challenging everything they believe, and this is scary to them. So scary, that they become even more stubborn refusing to face truth and evidence! Poor people, they are the minority and they know it, this adds just adds to their fears.
Climate Change is real....the sooner we face it and deal with it the better for these kids futures and the futures of my grandchildren!
Conservatives cling to their beliefs, in an age which is challenging everything they believe, and this is scary to them. So scary, that they become even more stubborn refusing to face truth and evidence! Poor people, they are the minority and they know it, this adds just adds to their fears.
Climate Change is real....the sooner we face it and deal with it the better for these kids futures and the futures of my grandchildren!
1
My beloved science teacher at my tiny Christian high school was adamantly opposed to the idea of climate change and I believed him, because that's what you do when you're taught to never question authority and to be agreeable.
Nearly two decades later, a firm believer in the onset of global warming and the need for immediate action, I read this article with great admiration for Jacynda. She was raised in the same community, with the same prevailing ideas as Gwen, but she remained in her seat and listened to the opposing arguments of her teacher, did the work, examined the evidence he presented and then went out in search of her own. In the end, she is the master of her own opinion on this issue, something not many of us are always able to claim.
Nearly two decades later, a firm believer in the onset of global warming and the need for immediate action, I read this article with great admiration for Jacynda. She was raised in the same community, with the same prevailing ideas as Gwen, but she remained in her seat and listened to the opposing arguments of her teacher, did the work, examined the evidence he presented and then went out in search of her own. In the end, she is the master of her own opinion on this issue, something not many of us are always able to claim.
219
It may be useful to point out two salient facts regarding the Science behind Climate Change:
1) Your car won't run without it. Carbon dioxide and water vapor are the two primary products of combustion. When your gasoline explodes, the hot exhaust gases that expand the piston absorb infrared radiation, thus moderating the expansion rate dramatically. It's highly likely that if engine designers didn't use the central equations that, in another context, conclude that humans are warming the planet, in their designs, their engines either wouldn't work at all or would ping horribly.
2) Climate Science is the only branch of Science that ordered a planet to do an 'about face', for which the planet subsequently complied. When Arrhenius first warned that Earth would begin warming due to fossil fuel emissions, Earth had actually been cooling for the previous 8,000 years. Almost to the moment of Arrhenius' paper, in 1896, the planet turned on a dime and started marching in the opposite direction. To my knowledge, there is no other branch of Science that has managed to make a planet reverse itself, and it speaks powerfully to the accuracy of the underlying Science.
1) Your car won't run without it. Carbon dioxide and water vapor are the two primary products of combustion. When your gasoline explodes, the hot exhaust gases that expand the piston absorb infrared radiation, thus moderating the expansion rate dramatically. It's highly likely that if engine designers didn't use the central equations that, in another context, conclude that humans are warming the planet, in their designs, their engines either wouldn't work at all or would ping horribly.
2) Climate Science is the only branch of Science that ordered a planet to do an 'about face', for which the planet subsequently complied. When Arrhenius first warned that Earth would begin warming due to fossil fuel emissions, Earth had actually been cooling for the previous 8,000 years. Almost to the moment of Arrhenius' paper, in 1896, the planet turned on a dime and started marching in the opposite direction. To my knowledge, there is no other branch of Science that has managed to make a planet reverse itself, and it speaks powerfully to the accuracy of the underlying Science.
I remember saying more than once to students, "Pride in your own ignorance is not a virtue".
Based on my limited experience teaching high school students, as disappointing as it is to lose a child to thoughtless ignorance and ingrained prejudice, there are dozens more still there watching you, willing to give you a chance. Lots of us out here are cheering for your success. The more young minds you are able to bring into the illumination of understanding, the better off we all are.
Thanks for your hard work.
Based on my limited experience teaching high school students, as disappointing as it is to lose a child to thoughtless ignorance and ingrained prejudice, there are dozens more still there watching you, willing to give you a chance. Lots of us out here are cheering for your success. The more young minds you are able to bring into the illumination of understanding, the better off we all are.
Thanks for your hard work.
3
I'd like to echo all those comments supporting the teacher, Mr. James Sutter. The writer, Ms. Harmon, paints him unfairly. Good job, James!
I also do not think Ms. Harmon got it right in her presentation of the featured young lady. Eye-rolling, blurting out back talk, and storming out of a classroom are neither conducive to a respectful, academic classroom environment nor to civil discourse in general, something sorely lacking in our society today.
It'd be something to celebrate if the featured young lady had done her own research and respectfully presented her findings to the teacher & class. Is that too much to expect from a school's high-achieving student?
As we raise the expectations higher and higher for teachers, I think we lower them for the students.
I also do not think Ms. Harmon got it right in her presentation of the featured young lady. Eye-rolling, blurting out back talk, and storming out of a classroom are neither conducive to a respectful, academic classroom environment nor to civil discourse in general, something sorely lacking in our society today.
It'd be something to celebrate if the featured young lady had done her own research and respectfully presented her findings to the teacher & class. Is that too much to expect from a school's high-achieving student?
As we raise the expectations higher and higher for teachers, I think we lower them for the students.
5
Even if there was not climate change;there will be energy changes that disrupt people's lives.. A conservative oil producing state like Texas obtains much of its electricity because of wind power. There is an abundance of wind and the basic fuel is free. But here any alternative form of energy is threatens people's economic well being; so no matter how the subject is broached it poses a threat. Climate change is a reason to go to alternate energy which changes the way people live and is a threat to their economic well being. Creative destruction that comes from wind and solar power are better in the long run for everyone, but let's not forget that no one is safe from its effects. Even highly educated journalists and publishers are being hurt by the more efficient and greener manner of delivering the news. As society becomes more efficient there is less demand for labor either in coal or journalism and then there is a push down in wages and employment while the sources of capital make more. If our society and democracy is to prosper, there needs to be a change for everyone to benefit from this increased efficiency and productivity. Current trends continue economically, we will see that history does not always move forward. The twentieth century was a bloody one that had world wars, genocide, fascism and communism. Fortunately the good guys prevailed at the end, but at what price.
1
Gwen Beatty argued to her teacher that the recent warming of the Earth could result not from the heat-trapping effects of gases released by burning fossil fuels like the coal, but from other, natural causes.
What other, natural causes does Ms Beatty have in mind?
In fact climate change skeptics have not suggested any specific natural causes. They offer no competing explanation for earth's marked temperature rise since 1880, other than the impact of rising greenhouse gas concentrations.
The climate change skeptics' claim that human action is not causing recent temperature rise is impossible to assess--and therefore should not be taken seriously--as long as the skeptics offer no explanation of their own for this temperature rise.
If they have a competing explanation, let's hear it. Then let's assess it.
If the greenhouse effect stands as the only explanation for recent global temperature rise that anyone can offer, it merits an assumption of validity.
In science we compete explanations for phenomena against one another, and award an assumption of validity to explanations that best fit the evidence, even if the fit to evidence is imperfect (which is almost always the case).
In this case the theory of anthropogenic climate change wins be default. There is no competing explanation at all for the change we observe--let alone a flawed explanation.
This means the skeptics' case is defeated. Skeptics should admit it.
What other, natural causes does Ms Beatty have in mind?
In fact climate change skeptics have not suggested any specific natural causes. They offer no competing explanation for earth's marked temperature rise since 1880, other than the impact of rising greenhouse gas concentrations.
The climate change skeptics' claim that human action is not causing recent temperature rise is impossible to assess--and therefore should not be taken seriously--as long as the skeptics offer no explanation of their own for this temperature rise.
If they have a competing explanation, let's hear it. Then let's assess it.
If the greenhouse effect stands as the only explanation for recent global temperature rise that anyone can offer, it merits an assumption of validity.
In science we compete explanations for phenomena against one another, and award an assumption of validity to explanations that best fit the evidence, even if the fit to evidence is imperfect (which is almost always the case).
In this case the theory of anthropogenic climate change wins be default. There is no competing explanation at all for the change we observe--let alone a flawed explanation.
This means the skeptics' case is defeated. Skeptics should admit it.
2
SGTEdmonds. really?
I don't think you understand how science works. It is true that scientists generally go by Occam's Razor when evaluating competing explanations for phenomena, but if someone offers a hypothesis -- i.e. -- that the earth is warming and it is in part due to human activity -- then that hypothesis has to be supported by evidence. The lack of a competing theory doesn't mean a theory wins by default. And there is a competing theory -- that whatever warming we have seen over the last 130 years or so -- a very short time frame by the way -- is simply normal variation. In fact, James Hansen admits that for the 20th century, there was no warming trend in the contiguous US, that the temp record looks like naturally occurring variation. Natural variation is the default explanation unless or until someone proves with a high degree of certainty that something else is happening.
ACGW proponents face several hurdles. First, the evidence that the global temps are rising is based in large part on estimates and extrapolations for large parts of the globe as large area had no ground temp stations until 1950 or later. A second problem is -- almost all of the predictions are not falsifiable in our life time. Third -- computer models built to predict the future are not inherently scientific even if scientists build them.
I don't think you understand how science works. It is true that scientists generally go by Occam's Razor when evaluating competing explanations for phenomena, but if someone offers a hypothesis -- i.e. -- that the earth is warming and it is in part due to human activity -- then that hypothesis has to be supported by evidence. The lack of a competing theory doesn't mean a theory wins by default. And there is a competing theory -- that whatever warming we have seen over the last 130 years or so -- a very short time frame by the way -- is simply normal variation. In fact, James Hansen admits that for the 20th century, there was no warming trend in the contiguous US, that the temp record looks like naturally occurring variation. Natural variation is the default explanation unless or until someone proves with a high degree of certainty that something else is happening.
ACGW proponents face several hurdles. First, the evidence that the global temps are rising is based in large part on estimates and extrapolations for large parts of the globe as large area had no ground temp stations until 1950 or later. A second problem is -- almost all of the predictions are not falsifiable in our life time. Third -- computer models built to predict the future are not inherently scientific even if scientists build them.
2
This article is alarming. Not because a student expresses opinions that are not fact-based but because we have teachers in the classroom who are not properly trained educators. Mr. Sutter participated in a program that puts scientists in the classroom without giving them the skills to teach. Putting down a student for her views is not teaching. As a former educator with a degree in Education I saw a teachable moment. Imagine if this teacher responded - ok- let's debate the issue - you take the position that climate change is a real threat caused by our actions and I will take the opposite view- we will debate the issue next week. Even if minds were not changed, real education would have taken place. Another teachable moment would be for the students to evaluate the weight of the evidence supporting each side and discuss the concept of the false equivalency of arguments.
3
Absolutely correct. This is a huge problem with Teach for America or Americorps. I have seen this firsthand. Critical thinking skills are needed and he is cutting that off at the pass. These students need to learn how to hear both sides and argue a point. However, this man chose not to allow that. Why? He is not an educator. He has no place teaching students.
When I find myself blocked by something that seems to be impossible, I tell myself, "pretend that it is possible". This immediately shifts that which was previously impossible to the realm of possibility. Within the realm of possibility, the conversation can continue. Until you and/or the listener reach that point the thought (or listening) process is blocked.
12
Most likely without your being aware of it, the thought you express echoes a remark often attributed to Robert Kennedy but which originates with the Serpent in Shaw's "Back to Methuselah":
“You see things; and you say, ‘Why?’ But I dream things that never were; and I say, ‘Why not?’”.
“You see things; and you say, ‘Why?’ But I dream things that never were; and I say, ‘Why not?’”.
Yes global changes are part of the worlds history. No doubt we are contributing but its a economical issue to many. Science be dammed! It is no use trying to change minds about this. Each group has "evidence " to assure their ideas. However, one area that is very clear and thats health. All of the gases from fossil fuels is like smoking all the time. Illnesses of all types, cancer, COPD, heart disease , asthma etc. There is no doubt about this, This is the subject that we ned to focus on and the billions of health care wasted because of this.
1
Not particularly surprised here. As in the old days of denying evolution, kids tend to follow the thinking of their parents, and don't immediately accept the (overwhelming) scientific evidence for what to them is a new theory...
1
The sight of neon colored creeks, emerald ash borers at their destructive work, flooding, storms, etc. is certainly thought provoking regardless of the observer’s ideological compass. Still, it's a mere snapshot, compared with what can be learned even from tree rings, or from the multinational analysis of tens to hundreds of thousand year old polar ice cores, e.g. GISP2 in Greenland or Byrd in Antarctica where temperatures, precipitation, atmospheric gasses, aerosols and other relevant parameters are analyzed in great detail. Google “ice core research”.
1
Science teachers should give children the exercise of debating flat vs. spherical Earth, and teach the history of the discovery of spherical Earth and those who were tortured and killed for thinking so. This will teach them how even plain truths can be difficult to prove, how easily a strident voice can overwhelm a reasonable one, and how much we rely on expert scientific opinion.
2
We do.
The student is correct. Some of the warming could be the effect of natural drivers. The most likely cause of non anthropogenic warming could be a decrease in cloud formation. Clouds function in a manner similar to Venetian Blinds letting more or less sunlight to warm the surface. There is natureal variation in average temperature. That is how the Little Ice Age ended. The temperatures started to rise and this was before the human population increase and before the major CO2 effluence of industrial sources.
So it is not just "perverse skepticism". The current crop of global climate models do not deal with cloud formation particularly well. Also the "predictions" we get are derived by weighting the output of two dozen different climate models. With variable weighting we could get the composite result to fit any set of data. From a scientific point of view that is not Good News.
So it is not just "perverse skepticism". The current crop of global climate models do not deal with cloud formation particularly well. Also the "predictions" we get are derived by weighting the output of two dozen different climate models. With variable weighting we could get the composite result to fit any set of data. From a scientific point of view that is not Good News.
3
If God doesn't fix it, technology will.
This is why the world does not ever seem to improve, because the generations are not improving. They cling to the same fantasies as their parents and their parents parents and infinity.
1
As the adage states, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.
There is only so much we can do after presenting the data and evidence that supports climate change. As a scientist with a PhD in ecology, I believe that one of the biggest problems is how we teach science in this country. A lot of people say that they were taught that science equates to truth and that science is based on facts. They argue that what they were taught as kids now is longer true and therefore why trust science.
This is not what science is. Science is constantly changing. Scientific theories change as more data and evidence get brought to light. Our understanding of the world is constantly changing because of science. Teaching students that science equals facts brings confusion when they are told at some later date that science is now saying something else. Science is not unchanging--this is the biggest point that needs to get across to all people, not just teenagers. Scientists go where the data and evidence lead us and we change our understanding of how things work as we get more data. This does not mean we were wrong in our original thinking but only that our understanding becomes more informed as we gather more information.
There is only so much we can do after presenting the data and evidence that supports climate change. As a scientist with a PhD in ecology, I believe that one of the biggest problems is how we teach science in this country. A lot of people say that they were taught that science equates to truth and that science is based on facts. They argue that what they were taught as kids now is longer true and therefore why trust science.
This is not what science is. Science is constantly changing. Scientific theories change as more data and evidence get brought to light. Our understanding of the world is constantly changing because of science. Teaching students that science equals facts brings confusion when they are told at some later date that science is now saying something else. Science is not unchanging--this is the biggest point that needs to get across to all people, not just teenagers. Scientists go where the data and evidence lead us and we change our understanding of how things work as we get more data. This does not mean we were wrong in our original thinking but only that our understanding becomes more informed as we gather more information.
5
It is, alas, not that simple. Have you looked at the books and study materials provided to home schoolers? They start with climate change denial propaganda in the third grade.
1
It sounds like Mr. Sutter did a great job of demonstrating patience and adjusting his teaching to meet the needs of his students. It is the job of the teacher to expose students to different ideas and evidence, even if they have trouble accepting it. It is the job of the teacher to listen, re-evaluate and to persist. Good job, Mr. Sutter. I only disagree with Mr. Sutter in two areas: 1) expressing concern that the White House website no longer contained a page on Global Warming; and 2) showing the video to counter Gwen's religious beliefs. As much as possible, personal politics and religion should be left out of the classroom, by the teacher in particular.
This teacher is a prime example of a teacher who takes his personal life into the classroom. He has graphically talked about the personal crisis that has happened in his life. This has no place in a classroom. He has also told others about his troubled youth which also has no place in the classroom. These kids are faced with their own sets of issues to deal with and hearing about what their teacher did and how they were a mess is totally unprofessional. I know this happens in his classroom.
I still don't understand where climate change belongs in a science class, unless we are talking about history.
Climate Science on warming provides none of the rigor of actual science such as a control or a testable hypothesis. It is like string theory, it might be true, but it falls outside the scientific method (currently).
Climate Science on warming provides none of the rigor of actual science such as a control or a testable hypothesis. It is like string theory, it might be true, but it falls outside the scientific method (currently).
4
Science is about discovery, without scientists asking questions there would be no learning. So why WOULDN'T climate change be included in the classroom? It's a relatively new and still somewhat unknown part of science, which means it applies even more to a classroom than the old, known standards...
1
absolutely Kyle. Unfortunately, most of the alarmists who claim they believe in science don't grasp the difference between controlled experiments and explanations given for natural phenomena. Moreover, they don't understand that if I make a prediction that something will occur by the end of the century (or mid century) that prediction is essentially not falsifiable until the time frame passes.
They also don't understand that post hoc explanations of phenomena are not science. They may lead to testable hypotheses, but by themselves are simply opinion.
Nor do they understand that anecdotal evidence is simply that -- an anecdote. It may lead to testable hypotheses but that's about it. And people using local weather events, attributing them to climate change and extrapolating to global climate is beyond absurd. Weather varies from year to year. Right now it's June in CT and I'm running my heater most nights. June. I guess that proves ACGW is a hoax.
They also don't understand that post hoc explanations of phenomena are not science. They may lead to testable hypotheses, but by themselves are simply opinion.
Nor do they understand that anecdotal evidence is simply that -- an anecdote. It may lead to testable hypotheses but that's about it. And people using local weather events, attributing them to climate change and extrapolating to global climate is beyond absurd. Weather varies from year to year. Right now it's June in CT and I'm running my heater most nights. June. I guess that proves ACGW is a hoax.
1
There is a strange disconnect with people like this student. Perhaps she and other people that think like her should be told the definitions of the words "fact" and "opinion."
1
As an English teacher who this morning read again a portion of an essay written by Kurt Vonnegut in 2005 about the guessing going on in government that takes the place of facts supported by evidence, it occurred to me that it's incumbent on English teachers to teach students the skills they need to argue rationally so students like Gwen can disagree, but disagree using her own resources not just what she's heard from her parents or in the community. At the same time, if we've done our job, then even though Gwen disagrees, she will understand that Mr. Sutter is arguing using facts supported by evidence as well. While this might not resolve their differences, it will perhaps help Gwen understand that opinions are not facts as Mr. Sutter reminds her and can't be used as such. If Gwen has had practice looking at arguments and debating their merits, then perhaps she will have the skills to make decisions that are not wholly based on what she's heard in the community and from her parents.
2
Studies show that 97% of the world's 12,000 climate scientists, in peer reviewed papers published between 1991 - 2011, have shown that human activity is causing climate change, and specifically global warming. And more recent peer-reviewed scientific papers probably increase that percentage.
Has the Scopes Monkey Trial come to Wellston, Ohio? It appears so.
Has the Scopes Monkey Trial come to Wellston, Ohio? It appears so.
I'm not convinced that this tells me anything beyond what many of us already assumed... that when push comes to shove, people who have vested interests (or emotional attachments to places that depend on resource extraction, in this case) will refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence linking GHG emissions to ongoing shifts in the Earth's climate.
I have to shake my head at how politicized this issue has become, in part because of the huge sums of money pumped into anti-climate-science organizations by obviously self-interested purveyors of fossil fuel (such as the Koch brothers).
As other commentators have observed, whether or not people "want" to believe that human activity is having big effects on the world's climate (and its ecology), the fact is that we are "in it" and, at some point, we will have to do something to mitigate its most deleterious effects.
Of course, the Koch brothers and the other naysayers won't have to worry, because they, like their contemporaries, will be dead.
I have to shake my head at how politicized this issue has become, in part because of the huge sums of money pumped into anti-climate-science organizations by obviously self-interested purveyors of fossil fuel (such as the Koch brothers).
As other commentators have observed, whether or not people "want" to believe that human activity is having big effects on the world's climate (and its ecology), the fact is that we are "in it" and, at some point, we will have to do something to mitigate its most deleterious effects.
Of course, the Koch brothers and the other naysayers won't have to worry, because they, like their contemporaries, will be dead.
2
Thank you, Mr. Sutter! There's nothing more important than teaching science to kids.
3
As a story of student and teacher engaged in learning, this article is encouraging. There are real intellectual exchanges, honest emotional reactions, and the learning process operates over time rather than by fiat.
But as a story of the politicization of knowledge and the attack upon teachers and intellectuals, this article is depressingly all-too-familiar.
Galileo was tried and convicted by the Inquisition in 1633 because his demonstrable scientific evidence proved that the Earth revolves around the Sun. That science threatened to undermine the belief system upon which the power of the Catholic Church depended. It was nearly 350 years before the Church was willing to admit it might have erred in sentencing Galileo to house arrest for the rest of his life.
In 1925, Tennessee biology teacher John Scopes was tried and convicted for teaching that biological evolution is real. He had challenged the Fundamentalist Christian ideology upon which the power of of Fundamentalism in the US depended. That struggle still goes on in contests over state-adopted textbooks and curriculum requirements, in attempts to require giving "Creationism" equal time with Evolution in public school biology courses, and in the popularity of a Kentucky Creation Museum that displays saddles allegedly used by humans to ride dinosaurs.
Now we have a federal administration intent on maintaining power in part by trashing scientific evidence and de-funding scientific research. Make America backward again!
But as a story of the politicization of knowledge and the attack upon teachers and intellectuals, this article is depressingly all-too-familiar.
Galileo was tried and convicted by the Inquisition in 1633 because his demonstrable scientific evidence proved that the Earth revolves around the Sun. That science threatened to undermine the belief system upon which the power of the Catholic Church depended. It was nearly 350 years before the Church was willing to admit it might have erred in sentencing Galileo to house arrest for the rest of his life.
In 1925, Tennessee biology teacher John Scopes was tried and convicted for teaching that biological evolution is real. He had challenged the Fundamentalist Christian ideology upon which the power of of Fundamentalism in the US depended. That struggle still goes on in contests over state-adopted textbooks and curriculum requirements, in attempts to require giving "Creationism" equal time with Evolution in public school biology courses, and in the popularity of a Kentucky Creation Museum that displays saddles allegedly used by humans to ride dinosaurs.
Now we have a federal administration intent on maintaining power in part by trashing scientific evidence and de-funding scientific research. Make America backward again!
2
Straight A student ? It sounds like she's struggling in Science.
The development of science in the last three centuries and its acceleration in the last has opened the eyes of many people to the workings of nature and to the effect that human activity has on them. The understanding of nature and reality is today not a matter of opinion but a matter of scientific proof. As science has advanced, inevitably, the beliefs in supernatural beings and powers have come into question. We know today for a fact that the biblical account of origins is fable. It is the obligation of educational institutions to teach science and rational forms of thinking. Teachers, of course, must be qualified to do it. It must also be understood that science is not a finished but a continuous project; science advances as the tools available to it are improved. Only if we respect the discoveries of science can we be in position to avert the calamities that humans can inflict on their own environment of survival. The world's population has ballooned in the last century thanks to modern science applied to health and disease prevention. Millions of prayers and witchcraft incantations for thousands of years before, could not prevent nature's way of balancing human numbers to nature's capacity to keep them alive. That ecological balance has been upset by science-based technologies of resource exploitation; science can offer possibilities of re-establishing it for the sake of human survival.
1
Good for Mr. Sutter!!!
1
The tragedy of this story is that Gwen does not appear to have been reared in an environment that cultivated independent thinking. If she were being reared in 1900 would she think that women should not vote since that was what the thinking among those in the halls of governments said. Does she think that women in Saudi Arabia and similar countries have enough freedom. Granted there is a difference in these ideas since climate change is based on scientific evidence and the others cultural norms. But, each requires an assessment using a willingness to be convinced by substantive arguments not blind belief.
Having taught biology for nearly 30 years at the university level I encountered similar resistance to teaching about evolution. Also, team teaching in my university's general education core program, all on the team encountered resistance to accepting stories of the Bible as something other than literal fact.
My teaching experience coupled with the push back to Mr. Sutter's teaching shows that political ideology is just as strong and resistant to change as is religious ideology. This is dangerous for civilizations around the world. I hope that as Gwen matures she will become more critical in her thinking. And, I wish Mr. Sutter well as he works toward mastering the art of teaching. It is not easy, but it is intellectually and emotionally rewarding if not financially rewarding.
Having taught biology for nearly 30 years at the university level I encountered similar resistance to teaching about evolution. Also, team teaching in my university's general education core program, all on the team encountered resistance to accepting stories of the Bible as something other than literal fact.
My teaching experience coupled with the push back to Mr. Sutter's teaching shows that political ideology is just as strong and resistant to change as is religious ideology. This is dangerous for civilizations around the world. I hope that as Gwen matures she will become more critical in her thinking. And, I wish Mr. Sutter well as he works toward mastering the art of teaching. It is not easy, but it is intellectually and emotionally rewarding if not financially rewarding.
1
Sun spot activity causes climate change. Even the mighty NYT cannot control
the sun. People iiving in areas with smog should try and clean their air,
but it will not affect climate change.
the sun. People iiving in areas with smog should try and clean their air,
but it will not affect climate change.
1
Gwen might want to play a round of, "what if I'm right?"
What if we go hog wild in lowering carbon emissions, but it turns out to be wasted effort because she is right? What do we get for our efforts? We get a cleaner atmosphere, the loss of some industries (mostly extractive) to the gain of others (alternative energy, mostly), a near end to oil spills, and end to the arguments and earthquakes caused by fracking, clean water in coal mining country, etc.
If we do nothing, but the climate science turns out to be true, we get increasing global temperatures, massive climate shifts, ongoing refugee crises, collapsing agriculture, sea level and acidity rises, warfare and terrorism resulting from failing resources, etc.
It has always seemed odd to me that conservatives, who by definition tend to like things the way they have been/are, prefer the path that may well result in global upheaval. The conservative course is, to me, to do everything in our power to alter the outcome if the climate science is correct... a.nd if it isn't, the benefits will far outweigh the costs
But the powerful (and wealthy) interests that benefit from the continued release of fossil carbon don't see it that way.
What if we go hog wild in lowering carbon emissions, but it turns out to be wasted effort because she is right? What do we get for our efforts? We get a cleaner atmosphere, the loss of some industries (mostly extractive) to the gain of others (alternative energy, mostly), a near end to oil spills, and end to the arguments and earthquakes caused by fracking, clean water in coal mining country, etc.
If we do nothing, but the climate science turns out to be true, we get increasing global temperatures, massive climate shifts, ongoing refugee crises, collapsing agriculture, sea level and acidity rises, warfare and terrorism resulting from failing resources, etc.
It has always seemed odd to me that conservatives, who by definition tend to like things the way they have been/are, prefer the path that may well result in global upheaval. The conservative course is, to me, to do everything in our power to alter the outcome if the climate science is correct... a.nd if it isn't, the benefits will far outweigh the costs
But the powerful (and wealthy) interests that benefit from the continued release of fossil carbon don't see it that way.
1
I noticed the article mentions "belief" with respect to climate science and the overwhelming consensus regarding the negative effects man continues to have on climate change. When the evidence is this strong, belief is unnecessary. I've yet to meet a person that has actually taken the time to examine and comprehend the evidence that denies it, including hundreds of former skeptics in the scientific community. I've yet to meet a pundit or social media poster that is doing anything more than parroting a talk show host, or offering as counterpoint some bloggers unverified assertions as "evidence."
You can find climate change denial echo chambers all over the Internet, where people exchange this increasingly expanding slag heap of ignorance and misinformation. As a scientist by background, it doesn't bother me that people are skeptical about the science, it bothers me that they are not skeptical of anything that agrees with their view.
You can find climate change denial echo chambers all over the Internet, where people exchange this increasingly expanding slag heap of ignorance and misinformation. As a scientist by background, it doesn't bother me that people are skeptical about the science, it bothers me that they are not skeptical of anything that agrees with their view.
1
Amazingly, in this age we live in, there are still people in the "I deny the facts" crowd.
3
This article made me very sad. Actually, I was forming tears as I read it. Poor Gwen probably sees climate change through the powerful emotional lens of loyalty -- or lack of it -- to her family. She has the brains to be a grade A student but the emotions of someone reared in a financially struggling us-vs-them household. She is probably not encouraged to think freely but to be loyal to a mindset. To agree with the science of climate change is to go against her family. The fact that she ran from her class is a powerful statement. Mr Sutter has touched a nerve and probably planted a seed.
143
What you are describing is brain-washing. Another form of Stockholm syndrome.
Sorry to disagree, but you were suckered by the article. This girl has seen data, she has also heard that not everyone agrees with the religious CAGW community which requires loyalty above all else. This girl cannot be suckered by her parents, unless her parents can make reasonable arguments. The article insinuates that her parents were broken down illiterate idiots who couldn't tell a mountain from a mole hill. It is disingeneous to put down a scientific argument by saying that anything who thinks anything else must be disadvantaged, poor, rural, uneducated. Well, I am a very well educated PhD elementary particle physicist from Columbia University in New York originally from a small town in Texas and find the approach taken by the climate scientists claiming that they know what the climate is doing to be unreliable. My reading of the data and the various physical processes they add to the analysis indicated that their models are inaccurate and it's obvious why. They leave out major variables in order to get a simplistic answer which is invariably wrong. To me, the problem is small and the reaction is not about the science but a worry that the global status quo which people have relied on to build cities, shanties, vacation homes next to the water are going to be damaged. When the Mediterranean was filled after the obstacle of the rock of Gibralter was breached, the ocean was 400 ft higher than it is today. Change is natural, but the effect of human CO2 is miniscule.
1
Has anyone considered the "What's in it for me" perspective. You are talking about people in regions who are sacrificing their economic strength for the greater good and offering nothing in return. They cant build subway cars in the Midwest?
3
That's precisely right and the cardinal mistake Obama made and which Hillary propagated with her condescending 'we're going to put a lot of coal miners out of work'. If done in a smarter way, Obama would have first laid the groundwork for clean industries in the coal mining regions before threatening the livelihood of the people living there. Attacking the problem from a positive angle would have all but ensured that the Democrats would sweep these states in the election. By essentially discarding the people living there, they may have sealed the fate of the country and the planet.
I hope the Democrats learn from this and are capable of formulating a more rational agenda next time - or on the next planet, for that matter.
I hope the Democrats learn from this and are capable of formulating a more rational agenda next time - or on the next planet, for that matter.
1
In the past century, many folks believed that asbestos and tobacco were safe. But with experience and science, humans realized that the negatives out-weighed the positives.
Points of view change, some more slowly than others. Even more slowly when the vast oil-funds of the Koch Brothers are funding dis-information campaigns.
Points of view change, some more slowly than others. Even more slowly when the vast oil-funds of the Koch Brothers are funding dis-information campaigns.
2
I'm not a teacher, but I think in this case, I would ask the student to defend her opinion and make it a learning experience. A straight-A student should be able to do that. On the other hand, some people will only accept climate change when the water goes over their heads.
4
the burden of proof lies with those who believe climate change is happening. In science, the burden of proof is always on those propose the theory and hypotheses. I could say that there are invisible objects rotating the earth that are from another planet that control our thoughts. It is up to me to prove that point, not on the rest of the world to disprove.
3
Mr. Sutter likely did that...however, sometimes students too can revert to cynicism and ideology.
1
I read this feeling nervous how it was going to end. Thankfully it ended much better than things did for Galileo.
4
The sight of neon colored creeks, emerald ash borers at their destructive work, flooding, storms, etc. is certainly thought provoking regardless of the observer’s ideological compass. Still, it's a snapshot, compared with what can be learned even from tree rings, or from the multinational analysis of tens to hundreds of thousand year old polar ice cores, e.g. GISP2 in Greenland or Byrd in Antarctica where temperatures, precipitation, atmospheric gasses, aerosols and other relevant parameters are analyzed in great detail. Google “ice core research”.
1
"As an alternative, Gwen took an online class for environmental science credit, which she does not recall ever mentioning climate change."
That is the mot alarming sentence in the entire article. An environmental science course that doesn't even mention climate change is like a physics course that never mentions gravity or an English Lit course that never mentions Shakespeare. How could such clearly deficient course possibly meet the requirements of the school as an alternative to classroom work.
That is the mot alarming sentence in the entire article. An environmental science course that doesn't even mention climate change is like a physics course that never mentions gravity or an English Lit course that never mentions Shakespeare. How could such clearly deficient course possibly meet the requirements of the school as an alternative to classroom work.
6
Perhaps environmental science teachers would have more success teaching climate science if they began with human evolution. The hypothesis that we are a eusocial species---evolved through group selection---explains well our difficulty to embrace logic and evidence which goes against the dominance hierarchy of our group. Almost instinctually, we feel the need to belong to a group. So, recognition of reality, which should be easy, comes hard.
2
The only problem with that is that those who deny climate change also deny evolution in favor of "intelligent design".
1
Hopefully, we won't have to endure a contemporary Scopes trial on climate change. If so, Mr. Sutter can depend on me to contribute to his legal defense fund. While I understand that bread and butter economic issues are of critical concern to many of our citizens, perhaps a better approach to confronting economic disruption and dislocation is to help promote investment in small and rural America and retrain citizens who have lost jobs due to the changing economy to embrace and engage the opportunities now emerging. In any case, denying science is not a productive course. Valid science is always iterative and developing. Educate yourself on the issues surrounding climate change. Denying it will not alter the fundamental point that it is happening.
1
Let's assume that the world's scientific consensus on climate change is wrong. Let's assume we do nothing to alter and limit CO2 gases. In 50 to 60 years, half the coastal cities are underwater, it looks like the polar ice caps will melt entirely, putting the entire state of Florida and major portions of low lying nations around the world under water. Then what? It would be too late.
The fact that we are trying to predict the future, on both sides of the equation, means that right up until the moment the water pours into your vacation house or we see five ft. waves cresting in Battery Park in New York, there can always be debate. An informed discussion can be helpful, especially for high school students.
Previously, it was the belief in evolution on which the cultural right seized as a point to deny science. If you think about it carefully, it does seem bizarre to imagine that the enormous complexities of life on earth came from this one process alone. Life invented itself? Even over the course of 100 million years, that seems difficult to swallow if you look at it apart from the evidence that, yes, it really did happen.
Some skepticism about global warming is healthy, especially in young minds searching for answers. Even if you can say that evidence shows to a very high degree of certainty, 95% for example, there is still room for questions and doubt. Asking and answering questions can provide a boost to clearer understanding and an undeniable acceptance of science.
The fact that we are trying to predict the future, on both sides of the equation, means that right up until the moment the water pours into your vacation house or we see five ft. waves cresting in Battery Park in New York, there can always be debate. An informed discussion can be helpful, especially for high school students.
Previously, it was the belief in evolution on which the cultural right seized as a point to deny science. If you think about it carefully, it does seem bizarre to imagine that the enormous complexities of life on earth came from this one process alone. Life invented itself? Even over the course of 100 million years, that seems difficult to swallow if you look at it apart from the evidence that, yes, it really did happen.
Some skepticism about global warming is healthy, especially in young minds searching for answers. Even if you can say that evidence shows to a very high degree of certainty, 95% for example, there is still room for questions and doubt. Asking and answering questions can provide a boost to clearer understanding and an undeniable acceptance of science.
4
Skepticism about global warming may have been healthy 20 years ago, but the evidence is no longer subject to doubt. Would you say skepticism about gravity is healthy?
1
Hey, you've made a wonderful point because...no one knows what gravity is. The cause and effect has never been fully defined nor explained. Einstein probably came closest to defining aspects of gravity that were previously unknown, but otherwise the search continues.
Personally, I don't doubt that global warming is real and a potential disaster for nations around the world, including our own. But what we are talking about is predicting the future based on current beliefs, assumptions and data. If we had perfect data for the last 10,000 or 100,000 or even 1,000,000 years, we could be, most likely, absolutely sure where we are going. Instead, we have data that is drawn from study of the available evidence, which is not the same as complete, hard data.
By challenging the available information and conclusions, it is my assertions that students would become stronger in fact based beliefs and better informed broadly about the issue.
Personally, I don't doubt that global warming is real and a potential disaster for nations around the world, including our own. But what we are talking about is predicting the future based on current beliefs, assumptions and data. If we had perfect data for the last 10,000 or 100,000 or even 1,000,000 years, we could be, most likely, absolutely sure where we are going. Instead, we have data that is drawn from study of the available evidence, which is not the same as complete, hard data.
By challenging the available information and conclusions, it is my assertions that students would become stronger in fact based beliefs and better informed broadly about the issue.
2
Not surprising. My daughter is a junior at one of Ohio's major state universities and in her political science classes debated the presidential election with fellow classmates that believed no woman (not just HRC) should hold the office of president.
The upside is that my daughter is experiencing the world outside of the northeast bubble and receiving an excellent education in the realities of the world.
The upside is that my daughter is experiencing the world outside of the northeast bubble and receiving an excellent education in the realities of the world.
3
Frustrating. Like all articles in the NYT, the only evidence offered for the link between CO2 in the atmosphere and global warming is an appeal to authority. If the case is so strong, will somebody please just make it?
Because I lack statistics, let's assume many, if not most scientists believe in god, and many, if not most religious leaders believe in science...those beliefs are not mutually exclusive. We should be tapping religious leaders to bridge the cultural gap with their congregations, bringing these students, and their families, into the twenty-first century. I could not believe that many of these kids had never been on an escalator...an incredibly narrow environment.
1
The joint study by the National Academy and Royal Society, received nearly 100% participation in a membership survey. When you remove the social sciences and just use the physical scientists and biosciences results, the yield is 93% and 94% atheist, respectively. Ad populum fallacies should be used in attempts to sway a debate, however. It doesn't matter what the majority "believes." It matters what evidence exists.
it is this kind of journalism that has caused me to be a NYT subscriber for over 30 years. This is a complicated topic. Climate change is not something to lecture down to students (or their parents) but needs to be explained within the culture that they live. Facts alone are not enough to overcome suspicion that scientists and government are conspiring to do away with a way of life. It is also important to admit that there has been natural climate change in the past and even if we cannot precisely quantity the human contribution to the change we are experiencing, we as stewards of God's Creation, should take actions to protect His Creation.
2
Maybe the focus should move on to why NOT develop cleaner and more sustainable ways of living? Maybe the focus should be on a social structure that better distributes the wealth of our society and its standard of living?
1
Thank you Gwen for demonstrating to your class the point that being a straight A student and being a critical thinker are two different things.
7
Uhhhhh....
Science in the classroom is based on evidence based scientific research.
In most classrooms Gwen is not going to fare well with alternative facts.
Science in the classroom is based on evidence based scientific research.
In most classrooms Gwen is not going to fare well with alternative facts.
3
I was born in the poorest county in Ohio-Athens County, OH.
Wellston was in our high school athletic league from Jackson County, OH. 29-33% live below the poverty line in the seven counties that make up southeastern Ohio.
COAL COUNTRY! Athens is home to Ohio University (not THE Ohio State University). We went to a prep school on the Ohio U campus and were pretty oblivious to what was going on in these poor counties.
Trump country? I’ll say! EXCEPT for Athens County where 1/2 of its citizens are college students at Ohio and was the ONLY blue county in the entire SE quarter of a state of 10 million, every other county around Athens went 78% for Trump.
My mom’s side of the family were fourth generation coal miners. Most never finished high school, many dropping out by 5th grade. Kids couldn’t WAIT to pick up the mantle of COAL.
This is Appalachia. My mother was a slim, athletic dietitian who ran the food service for all of Ohio’s dormitories. She was also involved in working with the overwhelming percentage of obese adults. Horrible combination of very poor nutrition (Every meal had biscuits soaked in hamburger gravy in addition to meat and potatoes 3X a day), no exercise, and jobs that sickened all with black lung disease. Just an extension of WV next door.
Trump will just make it all worse with his lack of knowledge and a PERSISTENT cry for all things coal. I understand this teacher’s frustration...I haven’t returned home in 32 years since the death of my dad age 62.
Wellston was in our high school athletic league from Jackson County, OH. 29-33% live below the poverty line in the seven counties that make up southeastern Ohio.
COAL COUNTRY! Athens is home to Ohio University (not THE Ohio State University). We went to a prep school on the Ohio U campus and were pretty oblivious to what was going on in these poor counties.
Trump country? I’ll say! EXCEPT for Athens County where 1/2 of its citizens are college students at Ohio and was the ONLY blue county in the entire SE quarter of a state of 10 million, every other county around Athens went 78% for Trump.
My mom’s side of the family were fourth generation coal miners. Most never finished high school, many dropping out by 5th grade. Kids couldn’t WAIT to pick up the mantle of COAL.
This is Appalachia. My mother was a slim, athletic dietitian who ran the food service for all of Ohio’s dormitories. She was also involved in working with the overwhelming percentage of obese adults. Horrible combination of very poor nutrition (Every meal had biscuits soaked in hamburger gravy in addition to meat and potatoes 3X a day), no exercise, and jobs that sickened all with black lung disease. Just an extension of WV next door.
Trump will just make it all worse with his lack of knowledge and a PERSISTENT cry for all things coal. I understand this teacher’s frustration...I haven’t returned home in 32 years since the death of my dad age 62.
137
I've been a high school science teacher.
I would simply say, both to the student and everyone else here, that it's fine (good even) that there are some students that want to (civilly) debate the meaning of the different evidences about climate change that are available. That should be a teacher's dream. They should be made aware that one just can't "prove" these things in the classroom (and actually someone should tell her that science never "proves" anything ever)
However, as a science teacher, your JOB should be to present the current consensus thinking of the world science community. The teacher is not himself a scientist, with his own research, so WHAT ELSE COULD a science teacher possibly teach??
Fundamentalists will say "teach the controversy", but there is only a certain amount of time in class. You can't spent more than a few minutes of any of the many alternative views, Although it would be fun to see whether we can convince ourselves with evidence that the Earth is round or energy doesn't come free, that would leave no time for Newton's laws. (which, by the way, are technically incorrect, but are still useful to learn because they help to understand a lot. Unlike the alternative climate theories, which are simply speculations)
I would simply say, both to the student and everyone else here, that it's fine (good even) that there are some students that want to (civilly) debate the meaning of the different evidences about climate change that are available. That should be a teacher's dream. They should be made aware that one just can't "prove" these things in the classroom (and actually someone should tell her that science never "proves" anything ever)
However, as a science teacher, your JOB should be to present the current consensus thinking of the world science community. The teacher is not himself a scientist, with his own research, so WHAT ELSE COULD a science teacher possibly teach??
Fundamentalists will say "teach the controversy", but there is only a certain amount of time in class. You can't spent more than a few minutes of any of the many alternative views, Although it would be fun to see whether we can convince ourselves with evidence that the Earth is round or energy doesn't come free, that would leave no time for Newton's laws. (which, by the way, are technically incorrect, but are still useful to learn because they help to understand a lot. Unlike the alternative climate theories, which are simply speculations)
66
Science never "proves" anything, but that's a bit esoteric for an introductory high school class without an explanation of "evidence" - which she apparently didn't get.
1
I hate to armchair teach, but often with these students, a quiet one-on-one and an understanding that they have to know the information is pretty effective. You can't change their minds in these situations, but instilling facts goes a long way.
1
This student and many others have found the flaw in anthropogenic climate change. It is presented, every time and in every place as 100% negative. There will be those areas and industries that will be helped by climate change, just as well as those areas and industries the will be hurt by climate change. There will also be areas not affected at all.
My problem is none of the above. Mine is world priorities. 20 million suffering from famine from war and crop failure. Someday, somewhere climate change may injure or kill someone, and it may cost allot of money. Then again maybe not. But 20 million don't have a choice, they are dying now.
My problem is none of the above. Mine is world priorities. 20 million suffering from famine from war and crop failure. Someday, somewhere climate change may injure or kill someone, and it may cost allot of money. Then again maybe not. But 20 million don't have a choice, they are dying now.
2
Climate change will result in more than 20 million suffering and dying from famine and crop failure. Areas that are prone to drought will have more severe droughts while areas that tend to get flooded will have more flooding. Food that could have grown in one area may not be able to anymore because of changes in environmental conditions. I understand that you think 20 million people suffering now is a bigger priority than climate change but what you fail to understand is that to prevent that number from growing in the future, climate change needs to be addressed now. With increasing sea level rise, ocean acidification, and increased quantity and severity of natural disasters, more areas are going to be prone to disasters than they are now. I don't understand how it can get more relevant.
1
Although I completely agree with the teacher, I completely disagree with his method of instruction. You don't teach a person anything by claiming "ex cathedra" privilege. Everyone, in fact, has had teachers who have been wrong about things. But even more, a teacher doesn't just spit out facts. His job is to teach his students how to learn about a subject.
He should have urged her on to discuss WHY she believes the climatologists are incorrect. Such a lively discussion would have had other students thinking for themselves. As for Gwen, I applaud her being so bold about sticking to her opinion, but I earnestly hope she does more research to come to a different conclusion.
He should have urged her on to discuss WHY she believes the climatologists are incorrect. Such a lively discussion would have had other students thinking for themselves. As for Gwen, I applaud her being so bold about sticking to her opinion, but I earnestly hope she does more research to come to a different conclusion.
1
He is not a teacher and he doesn't know the first thing about teaching high school students. Therein lies the problem.
I applaud Mr. Sutter's efforts. Perhaps he could improve his reception by students, if he explained that science does not pretend to teach "truth," but rather to use the best current models (or set of hypotheses) and in many cases expect that these models will continually improve as new research discovers limitations of existing models. Even well-established ideas about our universe sometimes clash with apparent truths, when viewed at quantum scales and states. Scientists often lack the humility to view their research results as eternal truths. Except for mathematicians, perhaps.
3
Bravo to Jim Sutter, and all teachers in such challenging times. I'm grateful that I taught controversial topics in history with the protection on a union. I despair for teachers like Jim Sutter teaching in states where he could be fired for teaching evidence based science education.
2
I think that climate change is real, but teaching it as a high school course is a trickle down from the liberal education that is predominant in our country. Kids need practical knowledge and skills provided to them at that age. It isn't brainwashing but it is done with a desire to influence and change a behavior or ideology. How does this prepare Gwen for college or joining the workforce? It doesn't.
1
This is the third recent article from the Times which thoroughly neglects Professor Naomi Oreskes & science writer Erik Conways' terrific explication of climate deniers "Merchants of Doubt"..... for goodness sakes the book was made into a movie that even young Times writers could understand.
That the Times writers of the last few pieces about climate change deniers completely overlooked Oreskes & Conways stunning yet easy to understand work speaks volumes about the quality of the Times science editorial staff.
That the Times writers of the last few pieces about climate change deniers completely overlooked Oreskes & Conways stunning yet easy to understand work speaks volumes about the quality of the Times science editorial staff.
1
I think one of the reasons for the "disconnect" in this article and the comments is a confusion between the fact and causes of climate change and the questions surrounding what can and should be done about it. Scientists mostly agree about the former, and it's certainly right to say that high school teachers should teach that as "established science," and that kids who challenge it for the sake of doing so are not really engaging in any valuable educational exercise apart rom proving their own ignorance. But as to what can and should be done about climate change? As to the extent which "drastic reductions in human carbon output" will actually forestall climate change and lock the earth into its present climatic context? As to how much we should spend on climate change or the environment generally, when we also have people who are starving and war-torn for unrelated reasons? As to how much of our environmental expenditures we should make on climate change, when we are every day pumping our own waste into the waters we drink and where we swim, for example? Those are tough questions that have answers properly in a combined political-scientific realm, and where judgment and opinion have some place in addition to fact.
1
This is an excellent story--thank you NYT! I hope Mr. Sutter continues doing this important work and finds joy in it.
2
Her comment about the White House website belonging to 45 betrays a mindset that no amount of evidence-based information can eradicate. No Gwen, everything in the White House--except the personal items brought by the commander in chief--belongs to the country as a whole, though we don't seem to have that anymore.
3
This is an excellent article - a poignant description from the belly of the beast. The issue confronting Mr. Sutter is the prevalence in Wellston Ohio of an entrenched religious habit of thought. Science is never about blind 'belief' - it is about collecting evidence and calculating the probability of outcomes. The weather service does not 'believe' that is will rain tomorrow, it assigns a 30% probability of rain tomorrow. I act upon this estimate because I read (for example in Nature journal) about the refined climate models developed over the past 50 years. I defer to the meteorologist's expertise.
In the matter of Climate Science v. Gwen Beatty I would step back a moment and ask some purely logical priors: Is it logically possible to affect the atmosphere of a planet? Certainly 'Yes'. Next: Is it logically possible that human activity could cause such atmospheric change? Again, certainly 'Yes'. Next question: How would we go about determining empirically the actual likelihood of these events? I would also take to some time to describe the models being used, and ask: How can we evaluate the validity of such models? Roll your own validation plan, as it were. Coming back to the original point: what has any of this got to do with 'belief'? The key step here is to move the conversation away from the religious framework entirely.
In the matter of Climate Science v. Gwen Beatty I would step back a moment and ask some purely logical priors: Is it logically possible to affect the atmosphere of a planet? Certainly 'Yes'. Next: Is it logically possible that human activity could cause such atmospheric change? Again, certainly 'Yes'. Next question: How would we go about determining empirically the actual likelihood of these events? I would also take to some time to describe the models being used, and ask: How can we evaluate the validity of such models? Roll your own validation plan, as it were. Coming back to the original point: what has any of this got to do with 'belief'? The key step here is to move the conversation away from the religious framework entirely.
3
A couple of things to unpack here... I think the approach to teaching climate science is alongside other debunked beliefs. Throughout the unit, you point out that even though a thing had been proven untrue, that people held on to their false beliefs. Some good examples to use: flat earth, earth as center of universe, dino extinction, Einstein's theories, etc.
Then you end with climate change. I also think that there is a legit argument to be made that we can't stop climate change, but that we should try anyway. We know that the exhaust from burning coal, gas, and trash is harmful to humans and eliminating that exhaust would improve our health. We also know that energy independence would make us a more secure nation. Why would we not work towards these ends anyway?
Then you end with climate change. I also think that there is a legit argument to be made that we can't stop climate change, but that we should try anyway. We know that the exhaust from burning coal, gas, and trash is harmful to humans and eliminating that exhaust would improve our health. We also know that energy independence would make us a more secure nation. Why would we not work towards these ends anyway?
1
Now retired, I taught the sciences for 30 years in "liberal" Marin County, Northern California. In the public system, parents from the local Coast Guard colony insisted their children not be exposed to teachings of evolution. Instead I was directed by the school board to give Creationism an equal platform for these children. Science is about critical thinking and the evaluation of evidence, the "Scientific Method". It's not, as the article points out, a matter of relative opinion. Thoughtful and stupid do not deserve equal time in a classroom.
I provided my "creationist" students a list of evolutionary arguments. Their job was to research the creationist rebuttal to each point and offer a solid argument debunking the evolutionary points. The human capacity for self deception is vast. Over the course of time, the majority came to see the difference between belief and evidence but chose to stick with the viewpoint they were taught at home and in church. But a window was opened in them as well, of tolerance towards those who did not share their beliefs. At that level, they were more intelligent than what I see in congress these days.
I provided my "creationist" students a list of evolutionary arguments. Their job was to research the creationist rebuttal to each point and offer a solid argument debunking the evolutionary points. The human capacity for self deception is vast. Over the course of time, the majority came to see the difference between belief and evidence but chose to stick with the viewpoint they were taught at home and in church. But a window was opened in them as well, of tolerance towards those who did not share their beliefs. At that level, they were more intelligent than what I see in congress these days.
171
When clouds are in the sky is gets cooler not warmer. Clouds are made of water vapor, and water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas, so what's up?
The Sun heats the Earth. Clouds absorb the Sun's heat and block most of it from reaching the earth preventing the Sun from warming the Earth. Clouds are 100,000 times more insulating than CO2, but carbon dioxide does the same thing as water vapor, just not as well. If you could increase CO2 in the atmosphere 100,000 times its present level however, it wold do the same thing as the clouds do. Make the Earth very cool, not very warm.
The Sun heats the Earth. Clouds absorb the Sun's heat and block most of it from reaching the earth preventing the Sun from warming the Earth. Clouds are 100,000 times more insulating than CO2, but carbon dioxide does the same thing as water vapor, just not as well. If you could increase CO2 in the atmosphere 100,000 times its present level however, it wold do the same thing as the clouds do. Make the Earth very cool, not very warm.
Rejecting hard evidence isn't only a function of orthodox religious beliefs, and wasn't always an attribute of Republican orthodoxy either. And not all deeply religious people deny climate change, Pope Francis included. It's become an us-versus-them social issue, destroying trust of well-meaning scientists who are accused of arrogance or of having mysterious agendas to confuse and misdirect the public through climate science.
Unfortunately industrialists like the Koch brothers have financial interest in denying climate change and publish real-looking articles using fake science. And Trump uses climate change denial to stoke resentment of Democratic intellectuals and energize his base. So before we can control our run-away climate problem, we need to control our political climate better. And at the moment, there doesn't seem to be much chance of that.
Unfortunately industrialists like the Koch brothers have financial interest in denying climate change and publish real-looking articles using fake science. And Trump uses climate change denial to stoke resentment of Democratic intellectuals and energize his base. So before we can control our run-away climate problem, we need to control our political climate better. And at the moment, there doesn't seem to be much chance of that.
2
I'm 17 and I KNOW everything.
2
As a scientist and as an evangelical, I find this article breathtakingly sad.
I have heard Trump supporters claim with pride that with Obama out of office there is less divisiveness around racial issues, divisiveness which of course was entirely due to Obama. Even if that were true, we have only replaced it with OTHER divisiveness due entirely to Trump.
I have heard Trump supporters claim with pride that with Obama out of office there is less divisiveness around racial issues, divisiveness which of course was entirely due to Obama. Even if that were true, we have only replaced it with OTHER divisiveness due entirely to Trump.
52
Maybe try this thought experiment with stubborn students: What would be the consequences if you were wrong in your deeply held beliefs about climate change, and scientists' warnings prove correct? What would be the consequences if I were wrong in taking the science seriously, and scientific warnings do not pan out? It seems to me that even die-hard skeptics, if they are interested in and capable of intellectual honesty, would have to admit that the consequences of ignoring dire warnings about our compromised global habitat would be far greater than the consequences of heeding them.
2
This is one situation where Donald Trump's standard response is appropriate: 'Sad!'
1
Living a hand to mouth existence (tangible), basic survival instincts settle in. Can't be worrying about an unseen gradual process leading to global apocalypse when your very own folkways face imminent extinction.
2
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on him not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair
When coal mining is how many from Wellston get their daily bread, it may be difficult to convince them that their livelihoods are destroying the air that they and everyone else breathe.
When coal mining is how many from Wellston get their daily bread, it may be difficult to convince them that their livelihoods are destroying the air that they and everyone else breathe.
2
The same reasoning is holding true for drug cartels, contract killers, hedge fund managers,...
Should we feel sorry for them, too?
Should we feel sorry for them, too?
As the adage goes, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.
I wish we could attribute this to being a stubborn teenager but there are adults who are just as adamant as Gwen that climate change is not real. When a person disagree with 99.99% of the scientific community, it doesn't make that person smart, it makes that person ignorant and blind to the facts.
One of the biggest problems people, not just teenagers, have a problem with is that science is always changing. We, as scientists, change our understanding of things as we gather more data--that is simply the nature of science. We go where the evidence leads us. This may be disconcerting for a lot of people who have been taught that science equates truth and I put much of that blame on how science in the US (and around the world) is taught. Science provides us with a way to get closer to the truth though we may never 100% understand all the nuances and interactions that occur in our ecosystems. But just because we don't understand 100% of what is happening does not make us wrong. Schools would do better to teach students that our understanding of the world through science is always changing, and that our theories about how the world works changes as we gain more data and evidence.
I wish we could attribute this to being a stubborn teenager but there are adults who are just as adamant as Gwen that climate change is not real. When a person disagree with 99.99% of the scientific community, it doesn't make that person smart, it makes that person ignorant and blind to the facts.
One of the biggest problems people, not just teenagers, have a problem with is that science is always changing. We, as scientists, change our understanding of things as we gather more data--that is simply the nature of science. We go where the evidence leads us. This may be disconcerting for a lot of people who have been taught that science equates truth and I put much of that blame on how science in the US (and around the world) is taught. Science provides us with a way to get closer to the truth though we may never 100% understand all the nuances and interactions that occur in our ecosystems. But just because we don't understand 100% of what is happening does not make us wrong. Schools would do better to teach students that our understanding of the world through science is always changing, and that our theories about how the world works changes as we gain more data and evidence.
2
The Bible teaches that pi = 3. Not 3.14159 So if a science or math teacher is confronted with student who says it is 3, what is she or he to do?
Unfortunately the Koch brothers, who fund Heritage and 100 other reactionary think tanks in the U.S., and who organized the Tea Party to purge congress of climate skeptics, are paying for the writing and distribution of those bogus texts.
I lived in Kansas for years. We had Christian evangelicals controlling the state board of education for two years and they were intent on doing away with the teaching of evolution and world history and sex education in K-12 public schools. The Kochs, got their long time stooge, Bob Corkins, a tool with zero experience in the education field, made the state Commissioner of Education. They want to dismember public education as well and with Betsy DeVoss as Secretary of Education and Trump in the White House, they may get their way. They favor subsidization of fundamentalist Christian madrassas, where economists that deregulation and low taxes on the richest Americans are the key to prosperity. They've funded and promoted other denialists to take over state school board, such as in Texas. So why doesn't the Times story mention their names? These are the guys whose predecessors burned Giordano Bruno at the stake, putting Galileo in permanent house arrest.
Fortunately I caught the worst theocrat of the Board of Education stealing $3,000 on a junket, hence helped their majority out of office.
Unfortunately the Koch brothers, who fund Heritage and 100 other reactionary think tanks in the U.S., and who organized the Tea Party to purge congress of climate skeptics, are paying for the writing and distribution of those bogus texts.
I lived in Kansas for years. We had Christian evangelicals controlling the state board of education for two years and they were intent on doing away with the teaching of evolution and world history and sex education in K-12 public schools. The Kochs, got their long time stooge, Bob Corkins, a tool with zero experience in the education field, made the state Commissioner of Education. They want to dismember public education as well and with Betsy DeVoss as Secretary of Education and Trump in the White House, they may get their way. They favor subsidization of fundamentalist Christian madrassas, where economists that deregulation and low taxes on the richest Americans are the key to prosperity. They've funded and promoted other denialists to take over state school board, such as in Texas. So why doesn't the Times story mention their names? These are the guys whose predecessors burned Giordano Bruno at the stake, putting Galileo in permanent house arrest.
Fortunately I caught the worst theocrat of the Board of Education stealing $3,000 on a junket, hence helped their majority out of office.
3
"Since March, the Heartland Institute, a think tank that rejects the scientific consensus on climate change, has sent tens of thousands of science teachers a book of misinformation titled “Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming,” in an effort to influence “the next generation of thought,” said Joseph Bast, the group’s chief executive."
How do you know this book contains "misinformation"? Have you even read it? Are you familiar enough with the research to be comfortable making such a claim? This one word tends to undercut the rest of an otherwise refreshingly open-minded report. So open-minded that I was, very frankly, astonished to find it in the otherwise staunchly alarmist NY Times.
And yes, I do think the hardest sell for the climate change alarmists is going to be school children, so many of whom tend to be skeptical of dogmatic assertions flowing from the mouths of their teachers. "Settled science" indeed. No child with any degree of intelligence would be willing to let such an assertion go unchallenged.
And by the way, none of the "signs of climate change" pointed to by the teacher tell us anything about their cause. No one doubts that global temperatures have risen, but even if that increase could be tied to extreme weather and the migration of certain insects, that would tell us nothing about whether or not CO2 emissions have anything to do with that warming. Since the teacher seems unaware of the distinction, he is not really teaching climate science.
How do you know this book contains "misinformation"? Have you even read it? Are you familiar enough with the research to be comfortable making such a claim? This one word tends to undercut the rest of an otherwise refreshingly open-minded report. So open-minded that I was, very frankly, astonished to find it in the otherwise staunchly alarmist NY Times.
And yes, I do think the hardest sell for the climate change alarmists is going to be school children, so many of whom tend to be skeptical of dogmatic assertions flowing from the mouths of their teachers. "Settled science" indeed. No child with any degree of intelligence would be willing to let such an assertion go unchallenged.
And by the way, none of the "signs of climate change" pointed to by the teacher tell us anything about their cause. No one doubts that global temperatures have risen, but even if that increase could be tied to extreme weather and the migration of certain insects, that would tell us nothing about whether or not CO2 emissions have anything to do with that warming. Since the teacher seems unaware of the distinction, he is not really teaching climate science.
I wonder how many people who don't believe in man made climate change are gamblers. People take coal mining jobs even though they know they're leaving their bodies open for disease, and working for companies who are supposed to be protecting them but aren't. It's the reality paying the bills now supported by delusion. The overwhelming need to take care of the here and now.
It's a shame that 45 million Americans are so broke and delusional that they can't entertain the possibility that maybe we are creating our own demise.
It's a shame that 45 million Americans are so broke and delusional that they can't entertain the possibility that maybe we are creating our own demise.
2
When Republicanism became a religion a few decades ago, the minds of its faithful worshippers collapsed into yet another medieval textbook of tribal spite, ignorance and self-induced end times.
The Party of Stupid is responsible for aiding and abetting these paranoid right-wingers who are afraid the government is coming to get their guns and coal.
Meanwhile, the Republican Party very easily took away their common sense and happily persuaded them into tilting at melting icebergs.
Sad.
The Party of Stupid is responsible for aiding and abetting these paranoid right-wingers who are afraid the government is coming to get their guns and coal.
Meanwhile, the Republican Party very easily took away their common sense and happily persuaded them into tilting at melting icebergs.
Sad.
18
So let's stop preaching to the choir and congratulating ourselves and each other for paying attention and keeping up with reality. I think this is a very important article, and the point, for me, comes at the end.
Local evidence is one of the biggest keys. Curiosity and paying attention are the things most needed. If there is a way to get students to look for themselves and decide for themselves based on what they see, that's key.
I part company with many scientists in feeling that weather is the thing that reaches everyone (and the migration of insect pests and diseases is a good piece of that). I know it's tricky, but learning about trends and tracking world weather over time gets people's attention.
The best PR money can buy, financed by the wealthiest industries on earth, is very rewarding for quarterly profits. Return on lobbying dollars is over 100:1, nice work if you can get it!
Meanwhile, many parts of coal country are rife with toxic effects from the extraction process, and that too can be brought in. It's the bosses who are replacing workers with machines and mountaintop mining. The jobs have moved to other industries, and they're not coming back. Coal like everything else is subject to market forces.
I wish the NYTimes regularly reported world weather events, as the trends are staggeringly huge, and worldwide suffering appalling. The front page should not be so cluttered with the daily Trump outrage that real news is crowded out.
Local evidence is one of the biggest keys. Curiosity and paying attention are the things most needed. If there is a way to get students to look for themselves and decide for themselves based on what they see, that's key.
I part company with many scientists in feeling that weather is the thing that reaches everyone (and the migration of insect pests and diseases is a good piece of that). I know it's tricky, but learning about trends and tracking world weather over time gets people's attention.
The best PR money can buy, financed by the wealthiest industries on earth, is very rewarding for quarterly profits. Return on lobbying dollars is over 100:1, nice work if you can get it!
Meanwhile, many parts of coal country are rife with toxic effects from the extraction process, and that too can be brought in. It's the bosses who are replacing workers with machines and mountaintop mining. The jobs have moved to other industries, and they're not coming back. Coal like everything else is subject to market forces.
I wish the NYTimes regularly reported world weather events, as the trends are staggeringly huge, and worldwide suffering appalling. The front page should not be so cluttered with the daily Trump outrage that real news is crowded out.
20
Climate denialism is like fundamentalism, it is rooted in emotion, not logic. You have to tread very carefully when when presenting contradictory information to a believer. This 'belief' is an act of tribal affiliation. Trump has been selected as the chief of this tribe, and so his acceptance of the Paris Accords would have been seen by tribal members as deep betrayal.
20
Excellent article. The next challenge is learning world history before FOX News Holocaust/ genocide deniers and delusional extremists rewrote it.
9
I remember in one of my high school history classes (late 1950's) how a fellow student would debate with our teacher about the "facts" presented in our history books as distorted state sponsored propaganda. Actually, he was right! Our science classes did not suffer from the politically infused propaganda that today's children now face. Science teachers, weather dealing with evolution or climate change, find themselves having to walk a thin line between teaching and preaching, not an easy task. This is a two cultures battle that will not end anytime soon. The lesson this story provides is that our society is, if not our civilization, in a momentous transition where greater access to information is not in itself a path to greater understanding.
6
Our science class in that era included Atom for Peace about how nuclear power was unlimited and cheap and might soon be powering our cars. 20 years earlier, science was promoting the idea that poor people were less evolved than rich people. 10s of thousands were sterilized in the US because scientist recommended cleaning the gene pool. Science always right? I don't think so.
1
Yes this teacher made a difference. But in the long run does his approach solve the underlying problem of science denial, or exacerbate it?
Infants quickly learn to "believe" in gravity (let go of an object and it drops to the floor). It makes sense that elementary students learn better by seeing and doing than being told and shown. But by high school, students must begin to understand that our world is complex and some phenomena are real even if only perceived by instruments and data.
Climate change denial may be the mistake that takes us down, but if it doesn't, will we be prepared to act on the next coming calamity that we can neither see, hear, touch or taste?
Infants quickly learn to "believe" in gravity (let go of an object and it drops to the floor). It makes sense that elementary students learn better by seeing and doing than being told and shown. But by high school, students must begin to understand that our world is complex and some phenomena are real even if only perceived by instruments and data.
Climate change denial may be the mistake that takes us down, but if it doesn't, will we be prepared to act on the next coming calamity that we can neither see, hear, touch or taste?
3
The climate change mania is fueled by a symbiotic relationship among three groups: scientists, national media and liberal politicians.
Science receives attention, publicity and respect from the media and environmental groups to which it is not accustomed. Of greater importance, the the climate issue brings in hundreds of millions of dollars in public and private grants. Since scientists doing the research are predicting what will happen in 50, 100, and 200 years they need not fear accountability.
The national media receives one of its greatest wishes: a doomsday story. This is a reminder of Paul Ehrlich's book, The Population Bomb, published in 1968, which predicted mass starvation in the seventies and eighties followed by all kinds of bad things. The media grabbed this doubtful prediction and ran with it, and Ehrlich's book sold over two million copies.
Unfortunately for Ehrlich, his predictions were not far off in the future, and he is held accountable.
And the liberal politicians have a good issue with which to hammer conservatives while courting environmentalists, and, again of greater importance, garnering campaign contributions.
Does climate change exist? Of course. Witness the Great Lakes. But that took 7000 years. Scientists predicting the climate and its consequences over a hundred years in the future? Don't think so.
Destruction of civilization within the next hundred years by nations detonating nuclear weapons upon other nations? A thousand times more likely,
Science receives attention, publicity and respect from the media and environmental groups to which it is not accustomed. Of greater importance, the the climate issue brings in hundreds of millions of dollars in public and private grants. Since scientists doing the research are predicting what will happen in 50, 100, and 200 years they need not fear accountability.
The national media receives one of its greatest wishes: a doomsday story. This is a reminder of Paul Ehrlich's book, The Population Bomb, published in 1968, which predicted mass starvation in the seventies and eighties followed by all kinds of bad things. The media grabbed this doubtful prediction and ran with it, and Ehrlich's book sold over two million copies.
Unfortunately for Ehrlich, his predictions were not far off in the future, and he is held accountable.
And the liberal politicians have a good issue with which to hammer conservatives while courting environmentalists, and, again of greater importance, garnering campaign contributions.
Does climate change exist? Of course. Witness the Great Lakes. But that took 7000 years. Scientists predicting the climate and its consequences over a hundred years in the future? Don't think so.
Destruction of civilization within the next hundred years by nations detonating nuclear weapons upon other nations? A thousand times more likely,
6
Interesting reference to the Great Lakes. You are using the cooling and warming cycle that they give evidence for to predict that the next such cycle will take thousands of years. Isn't that also predicting the future?
Now, if we can correlate various factors like the relative mix of gasses in the atmosphere with warming and cooling cycles in the past and if we understand the physics of carbon dioxide's effect on trapping heat, then don't we have a good basis for making predictions based on the rapid change in carbon dioxide input since the large-scale burning of fossil energy began a couple of generations ago?
Now, if we can correlate various factors like the relative mix of gasses in the atmosphere with warming and cooling cycles in the past and if we understand the physics of carbon dioxide's effect on trapping heat, then don't we have a good basis for making predictions based on the rapid change in carbon dioxide input since the large-scale burning of fossil energy began a couple of generations ago?
1
The mania that the earth is not the center of the universe was fueled by a symbiotic relationship among Galileo, his telescope and mathematics. Just saying.
1
Thank you to Mr. Sutter! I have been teaching about evolution and climate science for years. I find there is less resistance to evolution now but more to climate science. I received the Heartland Institute's book. It was slick and attractive and made me curious. A quick Google search showed they also argued that cigarettes don't cause cancer. It sometimes helps to point out who funds the deniers.
302
Someone sends you a book and you Google what you are supposed to think about it, rather than reading it? You do your students a disservice. Why not let kids stay home and Google everything when they have a question? At least they will have all the information they want in front of them. Not someone screening everything.
I show parts of the documentary "Merchants of Doubt" dealing with this and how ideology (in this case Free Market anti-Communism) can close otherwise very smart (in this case the two Fred's, Seitze and Singer) minds. Excellent lesson in meta-thinking.
1
This story resonates with me strongly. For over two decades I taught human ecology (ecosystems with humans in them) in universities in three different countries. Regardless of culture, one of the constants was that you may give all of abstract and rational arguments you want (“scientific”) but some students just will not get it (whether they abstractly agree with you or not) until that is they experience it directly in Nature.
How many of us, in the course of 24 hours, ever venture off of an exclusively human defined pathway? Because we don't, most of us, and consequently our kids, are deeply ignorant of fundamental reality.
For anyone engaged in this struggle, think deeply about how you can incorporate such direct experience into your curriculum. As this article shows, the problem all too often is one of identity. We no longer identify as part of Nature.
How many of us, in the course of 24 hours, ever venture off of an exclusively human defined pathway? Because we don't, most of us, and consequently our kids, are deeply ignorant of fundamental reality.
For anyone engaged in this struggle, think deeply about how you can incorporate such direct experience into your curriculum. As this article shows, the problem all too often is one of identity. We no longer identify as part of Nature.
1
For all of you who claim to "believe" in science, I say you are doing it wrong.
This confrontation in Sutter's classroom is another example of not so much conflicting opnions but in how people "know" things, and how they "know" they are right. Most of us (even high school science teachers) do not really understand most things, and typically base our knowledge and opinion on some type of authoritative source. We think we can trust the source, and therefor we trust the information. Conversely, if we don't like the source, we tend to dismiss the information. All quite human, but far from scientific.
Science often requires physical observations and unbiased measurements (not "facts"), along with logical and sometimes skeptical reasoning. At the core, science is always questioning (remember the falsifiable hypothesis?). This leads to healthy scientific debates (not legal or rhetorical ones), and gives us the best working solutions today, subject to change tomorrow.
To return to my opening point, there is no belief in science. Belief is arbitrary and not subject to evidence or debate. And claiming a belief in science often seems at least logically ungrounded, and often selective ("pro-science" for climate change issues, maybe not so much for GMO's or fracking).
This confrontation in Sutter's classroom is another example of not so much conflicting opnions but in how people "know" things, and how they "know" they are right. Most of us (even high school science teachers) do not really understand most things, and typically base our knowledge and opinion on some type of authoritative source. We think we can trust the source, and therefor we trust the information. Conversely, if we don't like the source, we tend to dismiss the information. All quite human, but far from scientific.
Science often requires physical observations and unbiased measurements (not "facts"), along with logical and sometimes skeptical reasoning. At the core, science is always questioning (remember the falsifiable hypothesis?). This leads to healthy scientific debates (not legal or rhetorical ones), and gives us the best working solutions today, subject to change tomorrow.
To return to my opening point, there is no belief in science. Belief is arbitrary and not subject to evidence or debate. And claiming a belief in science often seems at least logically ungrounded, and often selective ("pro-science" for climate change issues, maybe not so much for GMO's or fracking).
5
All high school students need to take a required course in critical thinking. They are growing up in a world where every issue seems to be a competition between opposing dogmas. Little wonder that they are at a loss of what to believe. They will need and use critical thinking multiple times a day. Teachers should take a critical thinking approach to any issues that are being discussed. They should welcome student's questioning of course topics and then work through the considerations in a way that helps the students develop their critical thinking skills and be able to come to better reasoned conclusions for themselves. Our future will depend on these future adults and there abilities to think critically.
19
A big bravo to James Sutter for taking on the often difficult task of educating young people and helping them to think through a complex subject. Some will inevitably be more open than others. Young Gwen may or may not come around to Sutter's point of view, but some will, and all will benefit from Sutter's challenges. The scientific facts should be combined with some economics. Ask Gwen how she feels about the US becoming a second rate actor in the renewable energy industry and seeing the jobs it creates going to China and Europe. Challenge her to explain the disadvantages of using wind and solar power if they become cheaper than coal, which is already the case with natural gas. I also hope he gets some reaction from the rest of the class concerning Gwen's skeptical views.
9
I'm not very critical of people who don't believe in climate change. I believe that climate change is real and caused by people--but why? It is not unusual for scientific papers to be incorrect--you can take the history of opinions about whether dietary fat is a bad thing or whether hormone replacement therapy is worthwhile as a examples. I have a PhD in a scientific area, and I will say that I haven't read the relevant papers, accessed the motivations of those writing them, looked at the quality of the models, etc., to see if they fall into the suspicious science category--the category, by the way, which is most heavily reported on in newspapers. So why do I believe? Ultimately, has a lot to do with having come from a tribe that believes in it, and because I happen to know several of the researchers involved. So it seems perfectly reasonable that if you grow up in a community where you know zero climate scientists--maybe even zero scientists--and the trusted people of their community don't believe in it, then you wont believe in it either. So this should really be treated as a profound problem, of how do people decide who to trust, rather than a trivial one of just communicating the right scientific information.
9
Mr. Sutter, you are doing what all great teachers do: Leaving your students with more questions than answers each day. You have done the opposite of failing "a little bit" with Gwen, who left in the middle of the year. You kept your commitment to provide her with scientific evidence. She will have no choice but to continue to grapple with how to respond to that truth, painful though it is to her family's sense of self. Thank you.
161
Whether people believe in climate change or not, whether it's a man-made phenomenon or created by God, there are changes taking place on earth that will have an affect on humans and the way we live our lives. To people who live in low lying areas that experience more and more flooding as years go by, the cause hardly matters. They are losing their homes. Rather than debate the causes, why not try everything and anything to lessen the impact--reduce emissions and pray. Whatever works.
3
A perfect example of a poorly prepared teacher out thought by a well prepared ignorant student. The case for the anthropomorphic warming of the planet is not merely well documented. It is established by the isotopic nature of the carbon found in CO2. There are no natural causes that can be cited that would allow this to happen. It is perfectly consistent with the idea that it's caused by burning fossil fuel - old carbon. The teacher should start with the chart of CO2 and climate and build on the actual science from there. Then, while the cited student might not change her mind, the other students will have seen her defeated. The teacher also fails to ask the obvious question - what evidence is there for some other cause? Another epic fail, since there isn't any.
9
There is plenty of evidence that the AGW proponents are wrong, if you bother to take a look, starting with their own debunked climate models and failed predictions. Those should give any fair minded person a pause. Money and ego can shape opinion, regardless of evidence; just look at how current nutritional science is contradicting and debunking what we've been taught for the past 40 years about or diet and health. The "consensus" claim of AGW is non existent and is an appeal to authority logical fallacy, if you bother to dig deep and take a look at what undergirds it.
There is plenty of science denial going around, starting with the people commenting here so smug in their beliefs that they feel free to call people who disagree with them names, rather than engage in critical thinking, just like the close minded religious people they sneer at.
Scientists can be spectacularly wrong and consensus can be arrived at due to group thinking and ego driven enforcement of conformity within these communities, rather than actual evidence.
There is plenty of science denial going around, starting with the people commenting here so smug in their beliefs that they feel free to call people who disagree with them names, rather than engage in critical thinking, just like the close minded religious people they sneer at.
Scientists can be spectacularly wrong and consensus can be arrived at due to group thinking and ego driven enforcement of conformity within these communities, rather than actual evidence.
2
The comparison with nutritional science is thought-provoking. When you come to think of it, evidence in nutritional science is quite hard to come by and the human body is at least as complex as the relationship between all the components that affect climate. Even if you use lab rats to control the variables, the game changes when you switch to humans. In the case of environmental science, once you get all the data from ice cores and such, you have a lot more certainty.
Perhaps the comparison between climate science and nutritional science would be more apt if climate science were tasked with explaining all climate change on all planets in the solar system.
BTW, if close to 100% of qualified people agree on something, how is that not a consensus?
Perhaps the comparison between climate science and nutritional science would be more apt if climate science were tasked with explaining all climate change on all planets in the solar system.
BTW, if close to 100% of qualified people agree on something, how is that not a consensus?
1
Science can't "prove" anything. Rather, it makes statements with defined levels of confidence. When prompted to "prove" something, people making an evidence-based argument need to make this point as clearly as possible. That does not mean that the overwhelming evidence can not be exceedingly clear.
"Proof" is not the threshold that science meets what arguing a point. Rather, it is a way to end the discussion. It is a countermeasure that distracts. It is the first and last resort of mislead youth, desperate mothers and fathers, cynical politicians, and well-paid lobbyists.
"Proof" is not the threshold that science meets what arguing a point. Rather, it is a way to end the discussion. It is a countermeasure that distracts. It is the first and last resort of mislead youth, desperate mothers and fathers, cynical politicians, and well-paid lobbyists.
1
This article reminds of all those bad B science fiction movies. The ones where the masses either claim "what do those SCIENTISTS" know? These aliens said they come in peace! Or the horde screams, "let's go see Dr. Frankenstein, he's a scientist and will figure this us out for us."
The point being that the ignorant either see science as the savior of the world, or the cause of the ruination of humanity. Neither extreme is correct. OPEN YOUR EYES. See the world as it is, not what someone says it is. Make an informed decision for yourself, not what your father or tRump says. And, if as the student chose, to not believe what everyone else around does. So be it. It will be her children who will have to deal with the consequences of her actions or inactions.
The point being that the ignorant either see science as the savior of the world, or the cause of the ruination of humanity. Neither extreme is correct. OPEN YOUR EYES. See the world as it is, not what someone says it is. Make an informed decision for yourself, not what your father or tRump says. And, if as the student chose, to not believe what everyone else around does. So be it. It will be her children who will have to deal with the consequences of her actions or inactions.
1
The education i had about the environment in a NYC junior high school in the 1970's still impacts how I live my day to day life. I don't remember the details, we studied pollution from fossil fuels, and something about recycling. I remember going to LGA to take pictures of airplane exhaust for a homework project. I also remember the terrible air pollution in NYC, things floating in the east river, and the stench of Flushing bay. Even if education puts a bit of doubt in a climate change denier's head, it will be for good in the future.
3
Thank heavens for this wonderful teacher. The lost lamb will return eventually!
3
If they want to know why their region lacks jobs, perhaps they should look at how their elders resist critical thinking skills and education - all things that help people live their lives thoughtfully and help secure employment.
It isn't any surprise that areas with the most extreme resistance to modern education (both from the politicians and the people who elect them), critical thinking, and reality are the ones that are struggling the most with unemployment, divorce, child poverty, teenage pregnancy, etc.
It isn't any surprise that areas with the most extreme resistance to modern education (both from the politicians and the people who elect them), critical thinking, and reality are the ones that are struggling the most with unemployment, divorce, child poverty, teenage pregnancy, etc.
12
Good article; important to remember how parents and circumstances can control and influence how their children learn. So far teachers like Mr, Sutter are not being run out of town by the parents but maybe that is because Mr. Trump has not read this editorial yet. (They're safe)
Imagine global warming being discussed in a home based education where the parents can play with the curriculum. How about in Creationist Christian school like Secretary Devos championed? I would gladly pay to hear Global Warming, the Bible and Donald Trump untangled in such a class.
The important thing here is that the teacher learned that the most effective method to get by the undue influence of the home environment was to have his students confront reality out in nature. No they can go home and agree with their parents and uncles and aunts to keep the peace around the dinner table. But as they leave the nest and start making decisions for themselves, at least they will have a bit of the truth to help them make earth friendly ones...
With a different president these same students might have been queuing up for jobs at the wind turbine or solar panel factory. Now they can queue up at MacDonalds for lunch... or to make lunch... They certainly won't be heading down into the coal mines... Still, good luck to them...
Imagine global warming being discussed in a home based education where the parents can play with the curriculum. How about in Creationist Christian school like Secretary Devos championed? I would gladly pay to hear Global Warming, the Bible and Donald Trump untangled in such a class.
The important thing here is that the teacher learned that the most effective method to get by the undue influence of the home environment was to have his students confront reality out in nature. No they can go home and agree with their parents and uncles and aunts to keep the peace around the dinner table. But as they leave the nest and start making decisions for themselves, at least they will have a bit of the truth to help them make earth friendly ones...
With a different president these same students might have been queuing up for jobs at the wind turbine or solar panel factory. Now they can queue up at MacDonalds for lunch... or to make lunch... They certainly won't be heading down into the coal mines... Still, good luck to them...
7
Mr. Sutter, Keep up your good work. I hope that you find peace and satisfaction in time.
3
Poor students don't appreciate being treated as test subject resume' boosting pit stops by condescending technocrats.
2
Ah, okay. You know what? I grew up poor, and I thank the challenging teachers who EDUCATED me for getting me out of the trailer park and into MIT. What you are advocating for here is a form of oppression by low expectations. You are the condescending technocrat here. You don't think we should trouble these poor kids with anything that will prepare them to succeed in the world.
3
As someone who went to high school in the Midwest, this article was depressing, but not surprising. I vividly remember the cognitive dissonance experienced by the more intelligent students as they attempted to reconcile what they saw in real life with what they'd been taught by family who cared more about indoctrinating them into the local lifestyle than raising them to be good people. These adults don't care if they ruin their own children's lives, as long as the kids don't run off to the big city where all the good jobs are. The adults don't see it that way, but that's the reality. The suicide rates among teenagers in these communities speak for themselves. If that bright 17-year-old girl couldn't handle a video in science class, the real world will be unbearably painful for her.
7
The simplest illustration of how CO2 heats the planet is to note that cloudy nights are warmer as the water vapor, also a greenhouse gas, keeps the daytime sun's heat from escaping to the night sky. CO2 does the same thing, but it is not visible, and it is always there, unlike clouds.
3
This is what education should be all about, presentation and discussion of all available information. Mr. Sutter is to be congratulated for allowing Gwen to present to the class her side of the argument rather than trying to indoctrinate his students. However, I fear that Gwen, despite her apparent brilliance, is not a "student", i.e., one who attends school to learn, rather she is a one who has herself already been indoctrinated by her mother and uncle, neither of whom is likely to be a climate scientist, and is merely regurgitating their biases.
4
This story illustrates that America's true problem is not so much Trump as it is the people who support him. Long after he's gone, they'll still be eager to be wrong and holding us back.
They illustrate what my father used to call the "cement problem" - they're thoroughly mixed up and firmly set.
They illustrate what my father used to call the "cement problem" - they're thoroughly mixed up and firmly set.
5
One detail in this article that I find extremely disturbing: the student who didn't like hearing what Mr. Sutter was telling her, who claimed she had a 'right to disagree,' left the class, and was permitted to take "an online class for environmental science credit, which she does not recall ever mentioning climate change." This is utterly egregious policy for any public school district: you don't like the material of a required course and you just find one with 'better facts' or more flattering material online, and take that instead? I haven't been in high school in a long time, but what i recall is that if you abandoned a required course in the middle for any reason, you failed that course. And if it was required for graduation, you just didn't graduate if you didn't pass.
498
Get ready for more bogus education under DeVos. This is right up her alley of locally controlled curricula.
This is really important if a high school diploma is to have any meaning. Parents who want their children to learn dogma rather than knowledge should home school them.
But that online course had "alternate" facts!
Very interesting article and interesting comments, as well. As a teacher of middle school students from diverse backgrounds, I have a sense of the difficulty Mr. Sutter faces in teaching the scientific evidence for climate change to this demography. These kids are just 'finding themselves' and will argue their points all day long - they enjoy the debate, and personally, I think it's valuable to their growth. But this whole argument brings to mind some early scientific history that I hadn't thought of in awhile - the accepted belief that the earth was flat, essentially a disc. As with climate science, Christians were among the principal doubters of the new theories that the earth was actually a spherical in shape, round like a ball. Just look at how long it took for folks to 'come around' -
2
Y'all (NYT) are pretty bold for opening up a comment section for this piece. I don't recall seeing one last night when I initially started reading this. Even with moderation, things could still get rather messy. I doubt I was the only one who snickered after reading this portion.
"He had chosen the video, an episode from an Emmy-winning series that featured a Christian climate activist and high production values, as a counterpoint to another of Gwen’s objections, that a belief in climate change does not jibe with Christianity.
“It was just so biased toward saying climate change is real,” she said later, trying to explain her flight. “And that all these people that I pretty much am like are wrong and stupid.”
Girrrrrrrlllll . . .
"He had chosen the video, an episode from an Emmy-winning series that featured a Christian climate activist and high production values, as a counterpoint to another of Gwen’s objections, that a belief in climate change does not jibe with Christianity.
“It was just so biased toward saying climate change is real,” she said later, trying to explain her flight. “And that all these people that I pretty much am like are wrong and stupid.”
Girrrrrrrlllll . . .
2
Unlike many of the social, political, and economic issues facing our society today, science and nature have a reality all their own. Nature doesn't care what people choose to believe. Scientific reality doesn't care about stupid presidents, offensive tweets, political speeches, think tank papers, or congressional hearings. Nature doesn't care about coal miners' daughters in high school classrooms. Those who deny the power of reality will ultimately be crushed by it.
339
Well, and that is why Trump is your President.
So maybe you'd better start caring.
So maybe you'd better start caring.
There is no morality in nature.
Christianity that doesn't promote the Golden Rule, bent on personal salvation, is also challenged in that way, to an uncomfortable degree.
Christianity that doesn't promote the Golden Rule, bent on personal salvation, is also challenged in that way, to an uncomfortable degree.
Only in America!
Yep, 7 Billion people believe in science-based facts and theories of global warming aka climate change. Same goes for evolution! But, those 20-40 million Americans who voted for the 45 think otherwise, with their high school degree and self-educated notions acquired through blogs and Facebook posts.
Because many Americans think those 7 billion people, including the scientifically educated kids, aren't *that* scientifically educated compared to US kids. The truth is, most Americans are so scientifically illiterate, that they don't even know they're wearing tin foil hats and live under the rocks. Check out the latest results of PISA tests and what's our rank.
No wonder the rest of the world laughs at us and calls us "bunch of idiots"!
Yep, 7 Billion people believe in science-based facts and theories of global warming aka climate change. Same goes for evolution! But, those 20-40 million Americans who voted for the 45 think otherwise, with their high school degree and self-educated notions acquired through blogs and Facebook posts.
Because many Americans think those 7 billion people, including the scientifically educated kids, aren't *that* scientifically educated compared to US kids. The truth is, most Americans are so scientifically illiterate, that they don't even know they're wearing tin foil hats and live under the rocks. Check out the latest results of PISA tests and what's our rank.
No wonder the rest of the world laughs at us and calls us "bunch of idiots"!
12
There needs to be a better way to discuss both positions than "is" and "is not!". Aren't there tools for taking all arguments into consideration objectively and then agreeing on some standard for crediting/discrediting them? Too many assumptions going in, without proper understanding of the audience, I'm afraid.
3
>“It’s his website,” she said.
What a snotty and impertinent comment! Was the teacher asleep on this one?
(1) The President doesn't "own" the WH website: the American people do. It needs to be managed in our interest. (2) Regardless, he has no right to censor vetted scientific information for political reasons. (3) Doing so is intellectually dishonest and immoral. (4) It is propaganda, not science.
What a snotty and impertinent comment! Was the teacher asleep on this one?
(1) The President doesn't "own" the WH website: the American people do. It needs to be managed in our interest. (2) Regardless, he has no right to censor vetted scientific information for political reasons. (3) Doing so is intellectually dishonest and immoral. (4) It is propaganda, not science.
23
I feel for the teacher. It must be time-consuming and spirit-consuming to have to refute each and every sentence these kids shout at him. The problem is IGNORANCE, but also a lack of basic RESPECT. Students can disagree with their teachers. I did, a lot, when I was young, but never in such disrespectful terms. I am a volunteer at my daughter's elementary school, and I am appalled at the way many students interact with their teachers. It is not that they shout insults at them, it is that they disregard them as figures of knowledge or authority. To many students, teachers are a nuisance, and so is school; they'd rather be playing football or watching video games, so the just grudgingly put up with them, and it shows. Goes without saying, this is most probably a reflection of the attitudes they see at home, but I digress.
3
@Sky Pilot: then who determined what is or is not on the White House website?
Obviously it is the President and his advisors/staff, because Obama had different things on the website than Bush 43, and it changes with EVERY Administration.
Gwen actually made a very astute comment.
Obviously it is the President and his advisors/staff, because Obama had different things on the website than Bush 43, and it changes with EVERY Administration.
Gwen actually made a very astute comment.
1
Republican party leaders take heart -- apparently there's no shortage of young my-ingorance-is-as-good-as-your-knowledge voters to help keep your party in power. Don't you love it when a plan comes together?
24
Iran and n Korea are not our real enemies, it's ignorance. We grimace at Muslims who only teach their young children the Koran, Saudi funded madrasas are a plague on humanity. Now people are finally realizing we in Merika have our own brainwashed zealots.
17
What a marvelous case study of succumbing to dimwittery.
This is not an original thought of mine, I am paraphrasing what others have said in a more erudite fashion: "Kids have not changed. They are kids, they know nothing. Nothing coming out of their mouths means much. Adults have changed. We think infants have wisdom, toddlers are geniuses, and high school kids are qualified to run the country."
I.e., we have collectively gone total bonkers (because this dimwit story appears in NY Times, and not on some dumb blog authored by a nihilist).
This is a case study that a 1000 years from now, archeologists and anthropologists will point to and say: "herein lies some strong evidence of why a once-great empire, like the Persian empire in 500 BC, was reduced to a third-rate power with only nuisance value. They let kids dictate discourse."
Yes folks, we have a petulant child in the white house. I guess soon, it will literally be a petulant child in the white house elected by adoring parents and their uncles and aunts.
Kalidan
This is not an original thought of mine, I am paraphrasing what others have said in a more erudite fashion: "Kids have not changed. They are kids, they know nothing. Nothing coming out of their mouths means much. Adults have changed. We think infants have wisdom, toddlers are geniuses, and high school kids are qualified to run the country."
I.e., we have collectively gone total bonkers (because this dimwit story appears in NY Times, and not on some dumb blog authored by a nihilist).
This is a case study that a 1000 years from now, archeologists and anthropologists will point to and say: "herein lies some strong evidence of why a once-great empire, like the Persian empire in 500 BC, was reduced to a third-rate power with only nuisance value. They let kids dictate discourse."
Yes folks, we have a petulant child in the white house. I guess soon, it will literally be a petulant child in the white house elected by adoring parents and their uncles and aunts.
Kalidan
11
Education, as transmitted through a 'teacher' has never been a matter of convincing. Rather it's merely showing--or offering 'students' a compendium of 'knowledge'; "This is what we know".
Therefore, to a great extent, there must be a willing attitude on the part of students to learn the aforesaid 'what we know'. Yet middel amerikan studentz are famous for their indifference to learning, bordering on hostility. So to assume that any given teacher should serve as a motivator for these people is prima facie absurd.
As the responsible adult, he/she should recognize the ones who want to learn, work with them, and let the indifferent pass away.
Therefore, to a great extent, there must be a willing attitude on the part of students to learn the aforesaid 'what we know'. Yet middel amerikan studentz are famous for their indifference to learning, bordering on hostility. So to assume that any given teacher should serve as a motivator for these people is prima facie absurd.
As the responsible adult, he/she should recognize the ones who want to learn, work with them, and let the indifferent pass away.
6
I LOVE that line, "It's like you can't disagree with a scientist or you're 'denying science'." Couched in that one statement is the cry of an entire, disaffected, alienated sub-culture that has been left behind in its ignorance. Yes, Virginia, you ARE denying science when you show contempt for smarter people than you who have actually studied an issue.
That said, very few in this population will be swayed by verbal affirmations of the truth. Humans need to have their noses rubbed in it, like most animals. This science teacher needs to take the kids on a field trip, look at growth rings, visit a sinking island, watch some polar bears eat their young. See how long this aggressively ignorant skepticism lasts in the face of reality.
That said, very few in this population will be swayed by verbal affirmations of the truth. Humans need to have their noses rubbed in it, like most animals. This science teacher needs to take the kids on a field trip, look at growth rings, visit a sinking island, watch some polar bears eat their young. See how long this aggressively ignorant skepticism lasts in the face of reality.
27
According to the article that is exactly what he did, within the budgetary and geographic constraints of a southeastern Ohio high school.
12
This science teacher is doing an amazing job with the resources he has. How do you propose he fund those field trips to see polar bears and islands sinking?
2
I would hesitate to say "smarter" ... I would say "better educated". You can disagree with a scientist: scientists disagree with each other and science is stronger for it. However, you better bring more than a set of superstitious beliefs and repeated truthy tropes, cite some evidence, form an alternative hypothesis, and otherwise make a reasoned argument from factual information contradicting that which is being presented.
These are not the behaviors of stupid people - they are conditioned responses to challenges to a worldview that cannot be justified by objective reality, and they know it. That such worldview has been pronounced sacred and not subject to question makes people resistant to actually learning how to present their thoughts and employ deductive reasoning.
These are not the behaviors of stupid people - they are conditioned responses to challenges to a worldview that cannot be justified by objective reality, and they know it. That such worldview has been pronounced sacred and not subject to question makes people resistant to actually learning how to present their thoughts and employ deductive reasoning.
2
She's a kid. To a certain extent, we are supposed to expect this kind of behavior.
The adults in Gwen's life, on the other hand, are the ones to blame. They are equipped with a fully developed frontal cortex and have no excuse to not educate themselves.
Their failure is an intellectual and moral one. And the example they set for Gwen is tragic.
The adults in Gwen's life, on the other hand, are the ones to blame. They are equipped with a fully developed frontal cortex and have no excuse to not educate themselves.
Their failure is an intellectual and moral one. And the example they set for Gwen is tragic.
35
When you have lost your job and believe it was due to a certain situation, it is not a matter of "frontal cortex". You have to understand people's existential situation before explaining science to them, and then do it in a way that relieves their anxiety first. Your "frontal cortex" comment is another example of the type of reductionism that impedes real scientific knowledge.
1
Sure, but the adults in Gwen's life most probably did not reach the level of education she has. It is up to her to overcome the feeling of betrayal she probably faces if she accepts the scientific facts on climate change, and then explain it to her elders. Of course, her elders will tell her she has been brain-washed. So she is in a difficult spot, and I don't blame her. But, if she is really, truly looking for the truth and not for excuses, she will eventually be able to see clear.
1
“It was just so biased toward saying climate change is real,” she said later, trying to explain her flight. “And that all these people that I pretty much am like are wrong and stupid.”
Yes, because you are wrong and stupid; and it's incredibly disappointing that this student was allowed to drop a high school class and not return to it. That certainly wouldn't have been allowed at my high school.
But I was raised by fundamentalist parents and I believed as they did that evolution was a bunch of ridiculous lies, then I grew up and became a lot less stupid, and so can anyone else who is willing to learn.
Yes, because you are wrong and stupid; and it's incredibly disappointing that this student was allowed to drop a high school class and not return to it. That certainly wouldn't have been allowed at my high school.
But I was raised by fundamentalist parents and I believed as they did that evolution was a bunch of ridiculous lies, then I grew up and became a lot less stupid, and so can anyone else who is willing to learn.
47
The principal may have judged that in order for learning to take place for the rest of the class High Drama Gwen needed to be out of there.
9
Gwen is clearly not stupid, but she is wrong. Labeling her stupid seems an unproductive way to reach her, imo. In my experience, insulting peoples's intelligence is not a good strategy.
1
It was an AP class; they are electives and yes you can drop them. She made up the coursework at home, on a computer.
Calling a minor child "wrong and stupid" -- wow! imagine if a conservative teacher said that to a child -- a black child -- they'd probably be fired.
It is interesting how "liberalism" has been twisted in the last 15-20 years to mean "whatever liberals say GOES, and nobody else is entitled to an opinion".
Calling a minor child "wrong and stupid" -- wow! imagine if a conservative teacher said that to a child -- a black child -- they'd probably be fired.
It is interesting how "liberalism" has been twisted in the last 15-20 years to mean "whatever liberals say GOES, and nobody else is entitled to an opinion".
More evidence of this country rotting from within. It's becoming dumber and dumber, and that's exactly what the Kochs and their ilk want.
43
YOUTUBE has a collection of videos where students and pedestrians on the sidewalk are asked a series of questions the answers to which are known (we hope) any 8th grader. If you dare spend five minutes and sadly realize we are a lost civilization. Search: Myworldisgettingdumber Peace.
1
Here is a test for Gwen Beatty: Gwen and her classmates bicycle to school behind the school bus for one month. Good exercise in idyllic Wellstone, filling their young lungs with soot and exhaust, and measure how long it takes to recover from it.
19
But irrelevant to CO2.
1
@Daniel R: like most typical snobby elitists in big blue cities.... you've never been to where this child lives. There is no heavy industry there. It's probably idyllic countryside, with hardly any traffic.
I think James Sutter did pretty well for a first year teacher, or any teacher for that matter. That is summed up in the next to last paragraph of the article:
"As they tried on dresses last month, Jacynda mentioned that others in their circle, including the boys they had invited to prom, believed the world was dangerously warming, and that humans were to blame. By the last days of school, most of Mr. Sutter’s doubters, in fact, had come to that conclusion."
If all the science teachers in areas with high numbers of climate change deniers were doing as well it would be wonderful. But the reporting here on the extent of attention to that subject, under the "Classroom Culture Wars" subheading, makes it clear that such efforts are far from universal in the US. It will take a lot more James Sutters.
"As they tried on dresses last month, Jacynda mentioned that others in their circle, including the boys they had invited to prom, believed the world was dangerously warming, and that humans were to blame. By the last days of school, most of Mr. Sutter’s doubters, in fact, had come to that conclusion."
If all the science teachers in areas with high numbers of climate change deniers were doing as well it would be wonderful. But the reporting here on the extent of attention to that subject, under the "Classroom Culture Wars" subheading, makes it clear that such efforts are far from universal in the US. It will take a lot more James Sutters.
266
Denying reality will not help the residents of this town. Nor will Donald Trump.
62
Gather the Wellston HS's Biology Dept. is under siege for teaching evolution! Hope 'Inherit the Wind' can still be read the Wellston's library, and our thanx goes out to Clarence Darrow and the Educator, John T. Scopes for keeping freedom of speech as well as science alive!
1
There is no empirical evidence for the projections of abnormal drought, floods, etc. Unfortunately too often educators conflate temperature measurements (empirical evidence) with authoritative evidence of future events. It is simply not the case.
I remember reading that in his last show for 1999, John McLaughlin's question in the McLaughlin Report was "religion or science? and the answer is .....science." A prescient question and answer for the 21st century from a former Jesuit priest.
17
It is very easy for the high and mighty to pat little people on the head and tell them that they shouldn't worry because clean energy jobs will eventually make up for the lost fossil fuel jobs.
But when a 55 year old is left unemployed, can't afford to move thousands of miles to where the clean energy jobs are located, where he knows no one and has no community, and where he can't afford to live anyway because the high and mighty who live there have zoned out affordable housing, that is anything but realistic.
We all watched as millions of jobs were lost to the "net positive" of free trade under Bill Clinton and W and the ups were not shared with the losers. Instead we had fake job retraining programs that accomplished nothing. The clean energy jobs mantra is just another round of phony propaganda.
If you want environmental responsibility, work for economic justice.
But when a 55 year old is left unemployed, can't afford to move thousands of miles to where the clean energy jobs are located, where he knows no one and has no community, and where he can't afford to live anyway because the high and mighty who live there have zoned out affordable housing, that is anything but realistic.
We all watched as millions of jobs were lost to the "net positive" of free trade under Bill Clinton and W and the ups were not shared with the losers. Instead we had fake job retraining programs that accomplished nothing. The clean energy jobs mantra is just another round of phony propaganda.
If you want environmental responsibility, work for economic justice.
18
It's a SCIENCE class, okay? And can you explain how kids are spozed to get decent jobs if they aren't taught basics, and never learn how to handle disagreements?
1
this is true. but denying science won't bring his job back, either.
2
If Frank wants economic justice, how about a job guarantee program like the one proposed by good old Tom Paine in 1797. The federal gov would become the employer of last resort. It would guarantee a decent job or paid training for such a job to everyone able to work.
There are plenty of things that need to be done--fixing roads & bridges, education, research etc. BTW there are plenty of support jobs in education and research that do not require a degree. As with unemployment benefits today, you could require each worker to show that he had applied for a comparable private sector job periodically.
How would we pay for it?
A) It would to a certain extent pay for itself.
1. When people are working, producing, & spending, they pay more taxes than when they are out of work. The money they spend provides jobs for others who also spend & pay taxes.
2. We could reduce much of what we currently spend on welfare.
3. It would raise private sector wages and thus taxes.
B) We could raise income tax rates on the Rich as we did during the Great Prosperity of 1946 - 1973. This would not only raise revenue, it would reduce inequality and financial speculation, both of which are bad for the economy.
C) We could sell Treasury bonds both to the public locking in low interest and to the FED which returns the interest.Since we would be producing more, there would be little inflation.
See http://www.levyinstitute.org/topics/job-guarantee
There are plenty of things that need to be done--fixing roads & bridges, education, research etc. BTW there are plenty of support jobs in education and research that do not require a degree. As with unemployment benefits today, you could require each worker to show that he had applied for a comparable private sector job periodically.
How would we pay for it?
A) It would to a certain extent pay for itself.
1. When people are working, producing, & spending, they pay more taxes than when they are out of work. The money they spend provides jobs for others who also spend & pay taxes.
2. We could reduce much of what we currently spend on welfare.
3. It would raise private sector wages and thus taxes.
B) We could raise income tax rates on the Rich as we did during the Great Prosperity of 1946 - 1973. This would not only raise revenue, it would reduce inequality and financial speculation, both of which are bad for the economy.
C) We could sell Treasury bonds both to the public locking in low interest and to the FED which returns the interest.Since we would be producing more, there would be little inflation.
See http://www.levyinstitute.org/topics/job-guarantee
6
This story inspires me as an aspiring environmental engineer, and reassures me that there is still hope in this generation.
74
How are the other kids in the class handling the information? Is Gwen typical or the exception?
5
Seee the next to last paragraph in the story and the information preceding it about Jacynda's change of mind.
4
Read the article to the end - it says the other students were also skeptical but by the end of the class, almost all of them had changed their views. Gwen was the holdout.
1
Let's correct this student about one thing related to the removal of facts from the White House website:
It's not "his website", it's "our website".
Perhaps we need a stronger focus on Civics as well.
Good grief.
It's not "his website", it's "our website".
Perhaps we need a stronger focus on Civics as well.
Good grief.
117
When Mr. Sutter lamented that information about climate change had been removed from the White House website after Mr. Trump’s inauguration, she rolled her eyes.
“It’s his website,” she said.
Unfortunately, Gwen is misinformed. It is our website, and hers, and the fact that the Trump Administration has shut it down, represents a theft of a resource that tax payers have paid for.
Yes, high schools needs Civics as badly as they need environmental science.
“It’s his website,” she said.
Unfortunately, Gwen is misinformed. It is our website, and hers, and the fact that the Trump Administration has shut it down, represents a theft of a resource that tax payers have paid for.
Yes, high schools needs Civics as badly as they need environmental science.
3
I sometimes wonder whether I am the only one who notices that Trump treats every aspect of the government and the Nation as if it were his own private business. He is the proverbial new CEO who has been hired with a "clean broom" approach. He is going to increase stock prices for his stakeholders. (Not!)
1
Thank you! YES! OUR tax dollars paid for all the research etc. that went into producing that website. It belongs to every citizen. HOW DARE this regime remove this information??? It's yet ANOTHER outrage against this country.
1
Perhaps biology classes in these parts of the country should begin on the first day with the question, "Breathing coal dust every day is good for one's health, true or false?"
32
Good point, but it leads me to another one. If you could choose whether to shut down the coal industry worldwide, or to take actions that would have the most impact on climate change, which one would you do? Coal certainly is a climate change contributor, and also an air polluter. It would be great, but costly, to shut it down. And if you spend your money shutting it down, you'd not have as much money to address all of the other fossil fuel issues that are greater contributors to climate change. There are big decisions to be made in this area, and they all have tradeoffs. We can all agree on the science but still have a lot to disagree about in terms of where to go from here. To the extent that a classroom teacher needs to wants to have a forum for the usual teenage inclination to disagreement and dispute, maybe the conversation should shift from "is climate change real?" to "what should we do, I anything, about climate change, in a world of nearly infinite needs and finite resources?"
2
This is a good example how an otherwise young, impressionable, and intelligent human being becomes willfully ignorant throughout their lives because of powerful familial indoctrination.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own set of facts. The First Amendment permits people to say and believe what they want but it does not entitle a bright student to receive straight-A's for providing factually incorrect answers? There are increasing reports of school systems in conservative Red States changing their curriculum to subscribe to widely debunked conservative memes that defy historically collaborated facts, scientifically based conclusions and commonly and popularly held beliefs. It should be alarming to everyone that familial indoctrination is being supported by institutional indoctrination. Dumbing down society to conform to a political ideology is how we end up with destructive, even evil forces.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own set of facts. The First Amendment permits people to say and believe what they want but it does not entitle a bright student to receive straight-A's for providing factually incorrect answers? There are increasing reports of school systems in conservative Red States changing their curriculum to subscribe to widely debunked conservative memes that defy historically collaborated facts, scientifically based conclusions and commonly and popularly held beliefs. It should be alarming to everyone that familial indoctrination is being supported by institutional indoctrination. Dumbing down society to conform to a political ideology is how we end up with destructive, even evil forces.
77
This girl would not be a straight-A student if she were in my science classroom. She has betrayed a misunderstanding, and indeed a rejection, of scientific method and the peer review process, and I would give her the same F I would give anyone else who failed to grasp even the simplest fundamentals of the course I was teaching.
457
I agree with you. We have deferred to stupid people for too long. they are so brain-dead that the only way to fix them is to separate them from their parents and their environment.
1
So no student may dare question you as at teacher....they must bow and scrape to your power to give them poor grades for having differing opinions from your own.
Obviously this young woman is highly intelligent and grasps PRINCIPLES and specifics very, very well. She is not just an A student in science, but in other subjects. That requires discipline and commitment -- studying and homework -- yet because her CONCLUSIONS differ from yours....you wish to punish her.
Obviously this young woman is highly intelligent and grasps PRINCIPLES and specifics very, very well. She is not just an A student in science, but in other subjects. That requires discipline and commitment -- studying and homework -- yet because her CONCLUSIONS differ from yours....you wish to punish her.
2
Her friend Jacynda seemed like the one who had actually made an effort to engage with the subject.
1
Maybe some of the resistance to belief in man made climate change is the thought that they and their families and communities are responsible for the looming disaster because they are coal miners and feel that they are being blamed for it.
1
Unfortunately ignorance starts in the home. So goes the parents, so goes the kids.
Not much a teacher can really do when a child spends most of their time in a family environment of denial.
Not much a teacher can really do when a child spends most of their time in a family environment of denial.
17
This classroom is Betsy DeVos' dream incubator. I certainly don't remember getting to argue about whether a science fact was real or not with my highschool teacher, nor were we allowed to run out mid class and finish with some easy on line course if we didn't agree. One would think these kids could see that their parents have no future in coal since it has been decades, before they were even born, that it has been an economically viable employer. One would also think seeing day laying on the couch all day would change their opinion about the future of his chosen profession. Do they not have the internet to show them the outside world and is Fox news the only tv they watch?
51
I do remember arguing with a middle school science teacher, because he was wrong. I knew he was wrong, and I proved it using science, and that only seemed to get me in more trouble. So much for that. I did something similar with a Harvard professor - he accepted my rebuttal and let me correct him in the second part of the lecture. The problem isn't that kids are allowed to argue with teachers - they need to have their facts straight, too. What these kids need to learn is that they can't bring "beliefs" to a scientific discussion.
3
It's quite likely that they do NOT have internet access. Broadband is in very few rural areas -- this is creating a huge divide in society that will only increase over time. Hence the NEED to treat broadband internet as a UTILITY, and apply the equivalent of the rural electrification act to it for our modern age, so that we leave NO citizens behind. In addition, yes FOX news probably IS the only news they get. Fox very adroitly decided to continue to broadcast in rural areas (despite, I believe, the fact they lose money in those areas -- in effect they subsidize it), because its backers WANTED the public influence that they would get because of it. In many rural areas, FOX IS THE ONLY NEWS SOURCE available. This is ALSO shocking and wrong. It's another reason to re-institute the Fairness Doctrine, and to fund PBS/NPR etc. fully, and insist on something akin to a VOA for rural America. Our media is in the hands of a very few very powerful billionaires, and ALL our media is diminishing. Check out, e.g. : http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/6/4/1667859/-How-conservative-propaga...
1
So scientists from 194 countries might be wrong about climate change because science CAN BE wrong? At what level does the overwhelming science convince this girl? She won't believe climate change science but she'll believe in a man in the sky?
21
Interesting how the climate change advocates have somehow solidly claimed the moral high ground, and castigate anyone who is not a true believer with calls of being ill informed, idiocy and even being unpatriotic. Given that climate is very long term, it is good to look at the medieval warming and the mini ice age when earth's temperatures changed significantly without much help from us humans. Skepticism and deep pondering of even 'certain' tenets is a good thing, as many, including Einstein , have shown.
1
The kid is right. Don't believe everything someone tells you just because they say it is science. Forty plus years ago they told us that we were running out of energy, that we were using up all of the fossil fuels, and that we had to conserve energy, or else there would be none. Fast forward, that turned out to be nonsense. We have more oil than we know what to do with, and we now realize that all of that energy crisis stuff was a hoax. You have to ask yourself, who makes money if it is true? Well, apparently there is quite a bit to be made if people buy into this climate change business. Ditching the Paris accord will save a ton right there. Clean energy people have a stake in it. Governments who can levy all kinds of extra fees and taxes for fight climate change are licking their chops at the prospect of the extra revenue. Companies ask you, would you like to pay more to decrease your carbon footprint? Oh sure, where is that money going, except straight into their own pockets. This too shall pass, but in the meantime, these people are awfully tiresome.
4
Actually, I ask myself who stands to profit by denying that the climate is changing. Try it some time.
7
Last year I put a solar electrical system on my roof. The return on that investment before the tax credit is around 12 percent. What other investment would provide such a return. The tired argument that green energy means higher costs has become laughable. Electric cars are the next big thing, just watch what happens at GM and Tesla. Yes scientists can be wrong, of course, but that's an argument to critically examine the evidence behind the science, not to make hand waving rejections of it.
8
And if you are right, the US has moved jobs from the coal industry to clean energy jobs, with a few left behind. If you are wrong, the planet will be changed forever, with millions displaced or left with no means of survival.
Is there really a choice here?
Is there really a choice here?
3
“What if we’re not the cause of it? What if this is something that’s natural?”
This is a perfect example of 'whataboutism'. If she doubts the science, she needs to come up with an alternate theory and find the evidence for it, not just ask questions ('what about aliens? what about invisible pink unicorns?') that lead nowhere.
This is a perfect example of 'whataboutism'. If she doubts the science, she needs to come up with an alternate theory and find the evidence for it, not just ask questions ('what about aliens? what about invisible pink unicorns?') that lead nowhere.
32
I feel more sympathetic to Gwen than many of the responders here. She is being victimized in a sense by her family and put in the position of either being loyal to them, or a traitor if she accepts the science. As a young woman who already experienced the loss of her father, this is a devastating position to be in. Of course she will choose her family. At least for now. Hopefully, as a straight A student, she will go on to college. If her horizons were to open further beyond her family, so would her opinions.
Keep in mind the other girl's father blaming the environmentalists for the loss of his coal job. That is patently false. New and better technology is killing dinosaur coal. These people have been fed lies all their lives to the point it is ingrained.
Keep in mind the other girl's father blaming the environmentalists for the loss of his coal job. That is patently false. New and better technology is killing dinosaur coal. These people have been fed lies all their lives to the point it is ingrained.
375
I am also sympathetic to Gwen while championing Mr. Sutter. I think this article beautifully shows the difficulty of the dialogue because of the power of other factors in our personal backgrounds. But it is encouraging to see the dialogue taking place and that many kids are having an open mind to listening to all the facts.
Or she could be the only adult in the class. The subject matter seems a little to complicated for the teacher to handle, so he just pontificates. He should keep his opinions to himself and build a context for all the claims and counterclaims of this very complicated issue. All the CO2 man put into the air is just 3% of the total from dying plants, etc. And its effect is far smaller than that of water. Remember: you can't be green without CO2.
1
I think people are being spiteful and cruel to a young girl -- a minor child -- who is showing great courage in thinking for herself and sticking to an unpopular opinion.
Now, at 17, I believed plenty of stuff that I later found out was not true, or I simply changed my mind about. Gwen will grow and change as she matures and attends college. But I hope she retains her feisty willingness to THINK FOR HERSELF.
BTW: whether you think it was right or wrong is OPINION, but it is a fact that environmentalists and their agendas shut down the coal mines and threw thousands out of their jobs.
Now, at 17, I believed plenty of stuff that I later found out was not true, or I simply changed my mind about. Gwen will grow and change as she matures and attends college. But I hope she retains her feisty willingness to THINK FOR HERSELF.
BTW: whether you think it was right or wrong is OPINION, but it is a fact that environmentalists and their agendas shut down the coal mines and threw thousands out of their jobs.
1
""When she insisted that teachers “are supposed to be open to opinions,” however, Mr. Sutter held his ground.“It’s not about opinions,” he told her. “It’s about the evidence.”"
Somewhere along the way too many students have learned that the utmost value lies in "opinions." Evidence is not needed nor does it matter. I get this all of the time in my classes. It would be nice if students questioning the evidence was a sincere effort to know more; skepticism is a key to critical thinking, which can lead to a change in thinking OR make students more critically aware of WHY they think what they think. But it seems these days, any questioning is merely an attempt to assert strongly and repeatedly what one already believes, regardless of any new information or alternative ways of thinking about situations, informations, etc. Of course, this is not the case with all students, as Jacynda (and it seems many of her classmates) illustrate.
Somewhere along the way too many students have learned that the utmost value lies in "opinions." Evidence is not needed nor does it matter. I get this all of the time in my classes. It would be nice if students questioning the evidence was a sincere effort to know more; skepticism is a key to critical thinking, which can lead to a change in thinking OR make students more critically aware of WHY they think what they think. But it seems these days, any questioning is merely an attempt to assert strongly and repeatedly what one already believes, regardless of any new information or alternative ways of thinking about situations, informations, etc. Of course, this is not the case with all students, as Jacynda (and it seems many of her classmates) illustrate.
2
Galileo faced a similar problem.
32
Galileo was far from the first to rebel against the scientific beliefs of HIS day. (And yes, they were an orthodoxy as well, and thought they could NEVER be wrong!)
Ask about the young medical researcher, who discovered the true case of ulcers was NOT "stress" nor "Type A personalities" but BACTERIA in the stomach lining. His findings were rejected for years, and he was widely mocked by his fellow researchers.
How about the many, many doctors and scientists and researchers who told women FOR YEARS to use Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT)....when in fact, it caused cancer?
How about the recommendations for women to have yearly mammograms -- recently debunked by science -- but organizations like Susan G. Komen have BROWBEATEN the medical industry into still doing them, and Obamacare into still paying for them? that's not based on science, folks. That's based on EMOTION.
Ask about the young medical researcher, who discovered the true case of ulcers was NOT "stress" nor "Type A personalities" but BACTERIA in the stomach lining. His findings were rejected for years, and he was widely mocked by his fellow researchers.
How about the many, many doctors and scientists and researchers who told women FOR YEARS to use Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT)....when in fact, it caused cancer?
How about the recommendations for women to have yearly mammograms -- recently debunked by science -- but organizations like Susan G. Komen have BROWBEATEN the medical industry into still doing them, and Obamacare into still paying for them? that's not based on science, folks. That's based on EMOTION.
2
Scientists told us cigarettes were addictive and caused health problems such as lung cancer, heart disease, and emphysema. Big business (the tobacco industry) testfied before Congress and denied the claims, saying the evidence was inconclusive. We now know the scientists were right and the tobacco industry was lying.
Scientists told us that multiple brain injuries in football can cause permanent brain damage and long term health problems in players. Big business (the NFL) testified before Congress and refused to acknowledge any such link. We now know the scientists were right and the NFL was lying.
Scientists have been telling us that human activity is causing climate change. Big business (the fossil fuel industry) has been trying to make us believe that the scientists haven't yet proven the case, and are trying to use their Republican shills to convince us.
Do we have any doubt this time that the scientists are right and big business is lying to us yet again?
The truth is that the Republicans know they are lying about climate change, but are too afraid of being taken down by a primary challenge from the Koch brothers and the fossil fuel industry to do what they know is right. Let's hope they get voted out of office before they do irreparable harm to our planet.
Scientists told us that multiple brain injuries in football can cause permanent brain damage and long term health problems in players. Big business (the NFL) testified before Congress and refused to acknowledge any such link. We now know the scientists were right and the NFL was lying.
Scientists have been telling us that human activity is causing climate change. Big business (the fossil fuel industry) has been trying to make us believe that the scientists haven't yet proven the case, and are trying to use their Republican shills to convince us.
Do we have any doubt this time that the scientists are right and big business is lying to us yet again?
The truth is that the Republicans know they are lying about climate change, but are too afraid of being taken down by a primary challenge from the Koch brothers and the fossil fuel industry to do what they know is right. Let's hope they get voted out of office before they do irreparable harm to our planet.
2
The author ignores a very important point. It's not just the Native Americans that have had their culture deliberately attacked by government schools. These teenagers understand very deeply that schools are a tool for indoctrination, used by people who seek to,destroy their culture.
5
If that "culture" is ignorance, then I say by all means destroy it with lessons about critical thinking.
2
I admire Mr Sutter, he stuck to it, and opened the eyes of many of the students. It's a tragedy that there are disbelievers but the headline is crude, it sweeps up all "students" as being so. NYT - a slap on the wrist for a Fox News style headline.
18
Mr. Sutter deserves a medal. Gwen, although able to make good grades, chose to flee rather than stand up for her beliefs. I rather suspect that the emotional toll of acknowledging that humans are responsible for a great deal of the damage being done was just too much for her, so she ran away to where she felt safe. Very much like her parents.
Thankfully her friends seem to be more open to facts... especially when they see with their own eyes what is going on. Not sure how drawing a flag helps her in science, but I'm sure mr. trump does.
Thankfully her friends seem to be more open to facts... especially when they see with their own eyes what is going on. Not sure how drawing a flag helps her in science, but I'm sure mr. trump does.
31
She walked out of a film she found offensive. She did not refuse to stand up for her beliefs; in fact this whole article is about how hard she worked to present her beliefs to her teacher, who then mocked her for not accepting HIS beliefs 100%.
If she had walked out of a movie that demeaned women, or put down a minority race....would you say the same thing about her? Or praise her to the moon?
If she had walked out of a movie that demeaned women, or put down a minority race....would you say the same thing about her? Or praise her to the moon?
1
"After fleeing Mr. Sutter’s classroom that day, Gwen never returned...'That’s one student I feel I failed a little bit,' he said."
No, Mr. Stutter did not fail that student. He did his job, presented her with facts, and conducted field trips as illustration. The people who failed her are her parents. If they hadn't indoctrinated her with religious fantasy, political grievances, and suspicious resentments, then she would have been receptive to the facts presented to her.
Reflecting on my own experience at a fundamentalist evangelical school, I further extend the blame to the student for not doing the job of educating herself separately from her parents or teachers. At her age, I questioned everyone and everything. So you know what I did? I went to my local library and read. I then got on a bus and traveled to the comparatively giant UCLA library and read some more. I began reading news magazines in doctors' offices. I started stopping by newspaper dispensers to scour the stories I could see through the glass window. Eventually, I broke away from my upbringing and formed my own world view based on the actual facts of it, gleaned from a wide variety of sources as well as the reality unfolding daily.
It's time to start holding families and the citizens they produce fully responsible for themselves. If they choose to remain in ignorance, they have no one to blame but themselves and no right to impose that ignorance on the rest of us choosing to live in reality.
No, Mr. Stutter did not fail that student. He did his job, presented her with facts, and conducted field trips as illustration. The people who failed her are her parents. If they hadn't indoctrinated her with religious fantasy, political grievances, and suspicious resentments, then she would have been receptive to the facts presented to her.
Reflecting on my own experience at a fundamentalist evangelical school, I further extend the blame to the student for not doing the job of educating herself separately from her parents or teachers. At her age, I questioned everyone and everything. So you know what I did? I went to my local library and read. I then got on a bus and traveled to the comparatively giant UCLA library and read some more. I began reading news magazines in doctors' offices. I started stopping by newspaper dispensers to scour the stories I could see through the glass window. Eventually, I broke away from my upbringing and formed my own world view based on the actual facts of it, gleaned from a wide variety of sources as well as the reality unfolding daily.
It's time to start holding families and the citizens they produce fully responsible for themselves. If they choose to remain in ignorance, they have no one to blame but themselves and no right to impose that ignorance on the rest of us choosing to live in reality.
1
i tip my hat to a young man in a rough teaching position. it must be hard to know evidence does not back up the religious faith required of it's participants. the young children learning about the world they are about to inherit see the hypocrisy they have always wondered about. it is hard having ones eyes opened to truth. but these young people see and know they have a rough task ahead of them and theirs. nothing changes except how rapidly the next generation figures out the game. That is what the game of life and evolution is all about.
I thought it was pretty straightforward: she's terrified of the prospect of climate change and the catastrophe that may well result. Do you blame a young kid for being scared to death? But where some are spurred to action, she's responded with denial. The more info she's given, the more defensive she gets. The subject triggers the 'fight-flight' response.
Do what counselors do: 1) avoid argument. 2) express empathy. 3) develop discrepancy 4) support self-efficacy.
Do what counselors do: 1) avoid argument. 2) express empathy. 3) develop discrepancy 4) support self-efficacy.
6
Perhaps Mr. Sutter needs to offer one simple homework assignment to these students - write a short personal essay on Neil Degrasse Tyson's perfect line, "the good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
19
Make all the children watch this week Segment about "Paris Climate" by John Oliver. It is available on Youtube. Yes, It has some bad language. But, It explains the problem humorously which everyone can relate.
5
“It’s like you can’t disagree with a scientist or you’re ‘denying science,”’
Of course, you can disagree, Gwen. But to do so rationally and logically you must provide scientific proof, which means statements that can be substantiated by scientific evidence that can be reproduced.
You cannot disagree using logic based on emotions, no matter how strongly felt.
You cannot disagree by citing fantasies, no matter how beloved.
Gwen cannot provide any acceptable scientific evidence, so she argues, sulks and becomes a "runner" when topics don't agree with her deeply held beliefs.
But she can't run away from the terrible damage burning fossil fuels is doing to the world.
Of course, you can disagree, Gwen. But to do so rationally and logically you must provide scientific proof, which means statements that can be substantiated by scientific evidence that can be reproduced.
You cannot disagree using logic based on emotions, no matter how strongly felt.
You cannot disagree by citing fantasies, no matter how beloved.
Gwen cannot provide any acceptable scientific evidence, so she argues, sulks and becomes a "runner" when topics don't agree with her deeply held beliefs.
But she can't run away from the terrible damage burning fossil fuels is doing to the world.
34
Thank goodness I read all the way to the end of this piece. Thank you, Amy Harmon, for yet another great example of New York Times journalism.
4
When I was in high school in the early 1960's, there used to be a lot of talk about "brainwashing." It was something the Communists did to American children if they got a chance. Watch out! Now we have an entire major political party brainwashing America's youth. They're called Republicans. Down is up and red is the best color. Deficits don't matter unless a Democrat is in the White House. Tax cuts for the rich pay for themselves. Poor people don't need health care. Even middle class people don're really need health care. But it's very important that those with millions and even billions of dollars get more tax breaks because they take that money and create jobs for people in Michigan, and Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, and Kentucky. That's why there are so many blue collar jobs there. Down is up and red is good.
28
"Fortunately" for Mr Sutter? Only if he'd rather be right than endure the disastrous effects of propaganda, willful ignorance and fuzzy thinking.
He is a real hero actually sacrificing time and money to do something that may make a difference.
He is a real hero actually sacrificing time and money to do something that may make a difference.
15
It all comes down to family loyalty. Sutter's lessons force people like Gwen into a dilemma - 'believe what he's saying and believe my family is stupid, or reject what he's saying and hold my family in high regard.' Surprisingly, I could related to this issue. There weren't many Indian Americans when I went to high school in the Philly suburbs. Our comparative cultures teacher did a unit on India which was terribly unflattering and while some aspects of it were undoubtedly true, I felt very defensive. Cultural sensitivity and providing teachers with the right training and right materials will go a long way.
8
Thank you, Mr. Sutter.
As a former teacher who had to deal with a parent who would not allow her student to read The Crucible because it was about witchcraft, I understand.
The anti-intellectualism, anti-authority, anti-inquiry environment makes your job difficult, but do not give up. Our country needs caring teachers like you.
As a former teacher who had to deal with a parent who would not allow her student to read The Crucible because it was about witchcraft, I understand.
The anti-intellectualism, anti-authority, anti-inquiry environment makes your job difficult, but do not give up. Our country needs caring teachers like you.
528
Ironically, the schools wont let children read the Bible because it is about God, but no one blinks about that
1
In an unfortunately common, and misleading statement, the article says 2016 was "a year that turned out to be the warmest Earth has experienced since 1880, according to NASA." This statement actually says "1880 was warmer than 2016." Is that what was intended? Or do they mean, "2016 was the warmest year since records began, in 1880"?
4
I have spent more years in education than James Sutter has been alive. Often teaching controversial subjects.
Mr. Sutter is not teaching. He is proselytizing. To the New York Times, Gwen Beatty is an obstacle to climate change. On the contrary she is a voice, probably in the wilderness, insisting on proper educational standards at the front of the classroom.
“Proper” on climate change means laying out the facts. From both sides. That does not preclude the instructor from expressing his or her opinion and the reasoning behind that opinion. But if, and only if, the instructor makes clear that the opinion expressed is a personal opinion.
Bravo to Gwen Beatty.
Mr. Sutter is not teaching. He is proselytizing. To the New York Times, Gwen Beatty is an obstacle to climate change. On the contrary she is a voice, probably in the wilderness, insisting on proper educational standards at the front of the classroom.
“Proper” on climate change means laying out the facts. From both sides. That does not preclude the instructor from expressing his or her opinion and the reasoning behind that opinion. But if, and only if, the instructor makes clear that the opinion expressed is a personal opinion.
Bravo to Gwen Beatty.
74
Climate change is a scientific issue. Science is not about opinions, it's about facts and evidence. If you want to disprove climate change, you'll have to bring conclusive evidence that disprove all the scientific work done about it so far.
Or you might want to argue that, since some people have the opinion that the Earth is flat, any teacher telling his student that Earth is round is also proselytizing, and should be "sharing opinions from both sides".
Or you might want to argue that, since some people have the opinion that the Earth is flat, any teacher telling his student that Earth is round is also proselytizing, and should be "sharing opinions from both sides".
17
I am confused. Isn't the whole point of this piece that the teacher is covering the scientific evidence that exists that the planet is experiencing climate change? Are you suggesting that there is a preponderance of scientific evidence that refutes that this change is not happening? What is the other scientific "side" that would get equal time?
What to do about climate change - whether nothing, something or everything - is where we enter the policy realm, and opinion.
What to do about climate change - whether nothing, something or everything - is where we enter the policy realm, and opinion.
16
There aren't two sides, though. No one calls for the flat earth hypothesis to get taught in schools.
Ms. Beatty is sadly likely to get crushed in the wheels of a world she refuses to think critically about.
Ms. Beatty is sadly likely to get crushed in the wheels of a world she refuses to think critically about.
20
What do you expect from young people growing up in a home that has Faux News on all day?
This story is just another story about the two Americas
The teacher is educated and from a city
The students are from low information homes in a rural area
This story is just another story about the two Americas
The teacher is educated and from a city
The students are from low information homes in a rural area
13
Sick and tired of reading about morons. Fake news!
3
This article highlights one of the real problems in coal country is false hope that a bygone era of heavy coal mining will return by ignoring climate change. Climate change, the environment, and the decline of coal are separate issues intertwined for political necessity. More than 99% of the coal mines in Eastern Ohio have been abandoned. Those were business decisions that reflect the reality of profitability. Some mines were no longer useful, but for the most part gas and oil became preferable. There was no vase left wing conspiracy to destroy the industry with climate change rhetoric and environmental regulations. Just The same plain old system of capitalism that cares more about profits than people.
I feel sympathize, but to allow their hardships to also inhibit their children's ability to learn and grow beyond the limits of their small coal town is just wrong.
I feel sympathize, but to allow their hardships to also inhibit their children's ability to learn and grow beyond the limits of their small coal town is just wrong.
76
Hang in there, Gwen! Science is tough, and conventional wisdom is often wrong. Make your teachers prove their points. And look into the science yourself, to the extent possible. Trust your instincts, but back them up with real knowledge and research, not blind trust in authority. Respect your teacher's views, but make him respect yours by providing facts and figures made available by a wide variety of scientists and researchers.
113
Did you read the part where facts and figures frustrated this child to such an extent that she abandoned the class? It was the most signifnact part of the reporting.
203
Or perhaps she wasn't accustomed to being challenged so effectively.
The article also notes that school is a time for self-knowledge and identity formation. “What people ‘believe’ about global warming doesn’t reflect what they know,” Dan Kahan, a Yale researcher who studies political polarization, has stressed in talks, papers and blog posts. “It expresses who they are.” The student needed a helpful counselor too.
But public-school science classrooms are also proving to be a rare place where views on climate change may shift, research has found. There, in contrast with much of adult life, it can be hard to entirely tune out new information.
The article also notes that school is a time for self-knowledge and identity formation. “What people ‘believe’ about global warming doesn’t reflect what they know,” Dan Kahan, a Yale researcher who studies political polarization, has stressed in talks, papers and blog posts. “It expresses who they are.” The student needed a helpful counselor too.
But public-school science classrooms are also proving to be a rare place where views on climate change may shift, research has found. There, in contrast with much of adult life, it can be hard to entirely tune out new information.
9
It is frustrating when biased interpretations of facts and figures are forced on a student who may not yet have the ability to counter them effectively. I don't know that is what happened here, but it happens often enough that the thought immediately springs to mind. Either she learns to see beyond the group-think, or she remains frustrated. Or she gives up and submits.
It's all about how we think. Sure, science has been wrong before and it will be wrong again but it is a self correcting process that leads us to the most likely answer based on evidence. I can't prove my momma is my momma. There could have been a devious plot involving stolen babies and forged birth certificates that I can't prove didn't happen. Yet the evidence I have overwhelmingly leads me to the conclusion that my momma was my momma. An opinion is worth nothing if not backed by evidence.
22
AJL You can prove your momma was your momma. Take a DNA test.
2
Their parents and state government do not believe in evolution, think that sex before marriage is avoidable, and also believe if only they all carried guns there would be no possibility of terrorism. Science denial IS their fundamental belief system.
59
In the end, it doesn't matter what you believe ... Those floods, and greenhouse gases, and glaciers don't care. They and science march on. The big question is, no matter what you think the cause is: natural or man made, do we have the capacity to do something about it? That question should mobilize everyone, skeptics included.
89
Having lived two years in the U.S., one in the 80s and one in the 90s, my feeling is that education is the place where it all began going wrong in America. When you allow religious teachings to affect science teaching (as with evolution) truth becomes relative, a matter of opinion. Thus the unwillingness to see facts as facts has become a new religion for many Americans. Hence the inability to grasp the human role in climate change and hence Trump.
163
Not hard to see why Trump publicly declared his love for the "poorly educated."
12
Having lived my entire life in the US I completely agree with you! But what will it take for so many Americans to agree?
Thank you.
What ever happened to a strict separation of "Church and State"? One of the pillars of our democracy and success of our constitution.
This country needs a whole lot less religion, and a whole lot more spirituality.
God bless -
What ever happened to a strict separation of "Church and State"? One of the pillars of our democracy and success of our constitution.
This country needs a whole lot less religion, and a whole lot more spirituality.
God bless -
8
SCIENCE DOES NOT CARE WHAT YOU BELIEVE
To quote a popular Tee Shirt
“The World is Flat”
We still have more than a few folks who still “believe” this..
“The Sun Revolves Around the Earth”
Over 25% of Americans believe this today ! (Survey from the; National Science Foundation)
“Humans are the result of Intelligent Design and NOT of Evolution”
This is “still” heavily debated by many religions . . . not scientists !
“Global Warming is NOT from Human Activity”
Really ! . . . Well, even Oil and Energy CEO’s know this is not true, however, there is a small group of deniers who adamantly “Believe” that human activity is not the cause of Global Warming – or if there even is Global Warming.
Belief Systems are nearly impossible to breach. Science, Facts, Evidence to the contrary of a belief system is usually completely powerless in changing one’s “opinion” on what is true . . . . or NOT !
Today, with far too many people getting their news from “Troll-Ridden” Social Media Sources.
To hear of this heroic story of Mr. Sutter break through “the wall of ignorance and misinformation” is heartening . . . but is it enough - -
How do we get through !
To quote a popular Tee Shirt
“The World is Flat”
We still have more than a few folks who still “believe” this..
“The Sun Revolves Around the Earth”
Over 25% of Americans believe this today ! (Survey from the; National Science Foundation)
“Humans are the result of Intelligent Design and NOT of Evolution”
This is “still” heavily debated by many religions . . . not scientists !
“Global Warming is NOT from Human Activity”
Really ! . . . Well, even Oil and Energy CEO’s know this is not true, however, there is a small group of deniers who adamantly “Believe” that human activity is not the cause of Global Warming – or if there even is Global Warming.
Belief Systems are nearly impossible to breach. Science, Facts, Evidence to the contrary of a belief system is usually completely powerless in changing one’s “opinion” on what is true . . . . or NOT !
Today, with far too many people getting their news from “Troll-Ridden” Social Media Sources.
To hear of this heroic story of Mr. Sutter break through “the wall of ignorance and misinformation” is heartening . . . but is it enough - -
How do we get through !
38
Maybe these poor people in coal country should heat their homes in the winter with indoor coal stoves to prove how safe coal is. In a few years they'l have an answer and some scientific proof because they will have conducted their own study and wouldn't have to count on those wacky scientists.
33
For a straight A student, this student is not very smart. Apparently does not know anything about the process of science, weighing evidence, and critical thinking. As the old Chinese proverb goes, "it takes a fool to ask a question and a thousand wise men to answer it."
75
Perhaps A's are given out mostly to those who agree/support the dominant cultural mentality or the academic standards for the school district are not very rigorous.
1
She is forced by Ohio law to go to school, not to trust teachers. She gets educated at home from people she trusts. At home, she would be straight A-plus. One guesses, in schools where a teacher would fairly grade a climate skeptic's paper, she might not be a straight A student.
1
If James Sutter is "God's gift to Wellston," then so is Gwen Beatty. Her attachment to her family and community is very moving. May she find a way to use her brains and grit in their service. Some stubborn can be a great asset.
80
No one in the world Gwen shares knows everything. Everyone in the world Gwen Beatty shares has degrees of open- or closed-mindedness. Some like excuses. Gwen Beatty excuses her choices by making a religion of family prejudices. The school assists by giving her straight A’s. Gwen Beatty is not likely to study at MIT or Ohio State University’s agriculture college where science is king. At those schools, the last question students ask, what would my parents think? You are right that Gwen Beatty is a gift to Wellston, God’s forever-coal-country-town.
1
Questioning authority is how you LEARN.
It doesn't mean you are always correct, but the BEGINNING of learning is in saying "why? maybe this is not true? how do I know what is a fact and what is just a politically correct belief"?
A student who questions a teacher is not WRONG. The point of education is to creating thinking, questioning, curious adults.
It doesn't mean you are always correct, but the BEGINNING of learning is in saying "why? maybe this is not true? how do I know what is a fact and what is just a politically correct belief"?
A student who questions a teacher is not WRONG. The point of education is to creating thinking, questioning, curious adults.
2
the problem wasn't with the knowledge or wisdom of the scientific epistemology being taught, nor the quality of the child's mind, it was an emotional problem of identity. All kids must deal with the fact that those who bore them, who care for them, who raised them, are imperfect and not all knowing authorities. When confronted with the facts, the only conclusion, if she was to keep her respect for her parents, was that the science was wrong. She'll probably grow out of it, but it may take 30 years. Unfortunately, the world may not last that long.
2
The story about how Mr. Sutter's 17 year old student, Gwen, became so agitated by a documentary about climate change that she bolted out of the school reminded me of an op-ed that appeared in this paper a few years ago, written by a Muslim novelist who described his rage as a 13 year old student in the Netherlands when his teacher discussed freedom of speech:
"One day in history class, the fatwa against Salman Rushdie became the subject. Our teacher talked about freedom of expression; I talked about insulting the Prophet...
...I remember standing up, my voice rising as I struggled to make an argument about the holiness of the Prophet to me and my community. And the more Mr. Fok responded with cold and rational analysis the angrier I got. Didn’t he get that this was about more than reason and common sense? Didn’t he get that mocking the Prophet was a moral crime?
My classmates looked at me like a madman. By then I was standing and shouting. I’d never felt such anger before. This wasn’t about a novel, this was about me. About us. I wanted revenge. Mr. Fok just looked at me, amazed by my temper and a bit annoyed, and dismissed me from class."
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/14/opinion/the-anger-of-europes-young-ma...
Irrational, illiberal beliefs, whether they be in support of theocracy, in opposition to climate science, or whatever, are easily transmitted to children. The ease by which parents can brainwash their children is disturbing.
"One day in history class, the fatwa against Salman Rushdie became the subject. Our teacher talked about freedom of expression; I talked about insulting the Prophet...
...I remember standing up, my voice rising as I struggled to make an argument about the holiness of the Prophet to me and my community. And the more Mr. Fok responded with cold and rational analysis the angrier I got. Didn’t he get that this was about more than reason and common sense? Didn’t he get that mocking the Prophet was a moral crime?
My classmates looked at me like a madman. By then I was standing and shouting. I’d never felt such anger before. This wasn’t about a novel, this was about me. About us. I wanted revenge. Mr. Fok just looked at me, amazed by my temper and a bit annoyed, and dismissed me from class."
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/14/opinion/the-anger-of-europes-young-ma...
Irrational, illiberal beliefs, whether they be in support of theocracy, in opposition to climate science, or whatever, are easily transmitted to children. The ease by which parents can brainwash their children is disturbing.
183
Climate change is either right or wrong. If it is right all those people opposing it now will be proven to be idiots. If it is wrong, we will learn more about the way the earth's climate works and we will have dodged a bullet.
By taking precautions now, we have a small cost today to avoid possible catastrophe later. And we will reduce deaths from air pollution.
It really is a no brainer.
Opponents like Gwen are engaging in what the Catholic Church used to call wilful ignorance. She shows the importance of culture and reinforces the point that cultural relativism is arrant nonsense.
By taking precautions now, we have a small cost today to avoid possible catastrophe later. And we will reduce deaths from air pollution.
It really is a no brainer.
Opponents like Gwen are engaging in what the Catholic Church used to call wilful ignorance. She shows the importance of culture and reinforces the point that cultural relativism is arrant nonsense.
64
I think the reality is much more optimistic than the story that is painted in this article. I've taught environmental economics at Texas A&M for 20 years, a quite conservative student body. Each semester we conduct an anonymous survey of the students about several topics at the beginning of the course. One of the questions is about anthropogenic climate change and from 2006 - 2017 there was a strong trend from an average of "3-not sure" to "2-Agreee." This trend was apparent in both the beginning-of-semester and end=of-semester responses.
In short, in my experience the majority of the students now come in with some understanding of climate change and believe the science. Sure there are still outliers like Gwen, whose core beliefs make the scientific truth uncomfortable. But the majority start college with knowledge and to some extent are already convinced. High school teachers like Mr. Sutter are the heroes of this story and they are making a difference. I would even say that goes back earlier than that. Most freshmen in college today learned about climate change in grade school. The skeptics can't beat that; the science will win in the end.
In short, in my experience the majority of the students now come in with some understanding of climate change and believe the science. Sure there are still outliers like Gwen, whose core beliefs make the scientific truth uncomfortable. But the majority start college with knowledge and to some extent are already convinced. High school teachers like Mr. Sutter are the heroes of this story and they are making a difference. I would even say that goes back earlier than that. Most freshmen in college today learned about climate change in grade school. The skeptics can't beat that; the science will win in the end.
51
I agree. I think the real question is what do we do about it, if anything. The Paris Accord was 'much ado about nothing', mostly virtue signalling.
1
As a science teacher, I love how Mr. Sutter showed them the old phone and video games to prove his point that science data collection techniques have changed. Students understand that kind of visual demonstration. They are a generation that needs to see in order to believe. My 6th grader students here know climate change is real. They see their beaches disappearing, the rains and hurricanes stronger each year, the temperatures increasing...for them it isn't about what the future will be, it is about what we will do to be able to keep living on an island.
They were saddened last week when they heard that President Trump pulled out of the Paris agreement. The US is not in a place where other countries or citizens are looking up to them for leadership. I am empowering my students with knowledge and asking them to come up with solutions for the future. They are the generation that will have to be the visionaries to save our humanity.
They were saddened last week when they heard that President Trump pulled out of the Paris agreement. The US is not in a place where other countries or citizens are looking up to them for leadership. I am empowering my students with knowledge and asking them to come up with solutions for the future. They are the generation that will have to be the visionaries to save our humanity.
95
What next? Hi school students doubting the existence of Higgs Boson because the evidence is based on statistical models? Obviously not, because the revenue of oil and gas companies in not connected to the non existence of Higgs Boson.
42
What a missed opportunity for the teacher. He could have encouraged his bright inquisitive student to dig into the literature and find the methodological weaknesses, questionable premises and faulty logic--and there's plenty there for her to discover--in a rigorous way. He could have praised her skepticism, which is fundamental to the way that true science should be evaluated. But he was far less interested in getting her to think like a scientist than he was to change her mind and have her think like a high school teacher.
87
AP courses have to cover a very rigorous set of standards prior to them taking a cumulative exam in May. Unfortunately, there isn't always time to engage in that type of depth.
You assume that this girl has an open, questioning mind.
Can you imagine what would happen if this occurred on EVERY subject?
Does smoking really cause cancer? Who knows? Show me the evidence and prove it. (Apparently, former presidential candidate Bob Dole still wasn't sure as of a few years ago.)
Does sex cause pregnancy? I'm not sure. My grandmother says otherwise. Show me all the research and let me dig into the "facts."
Does the sun really set at night? Or does it just disappear for a few hours? How can we know for sure?
Why does it rain? Have you ever seen water literally come out of a cloud? Maybe it just comes from heaven?
Is oil really a fossil fuel? I mean, did dinosaurs even exist? Did you ever see a dinosaur turn into oil? Who can know for sure?
Is the earth really round? There are literally thousands of people who think it's flat and think the evidence is fake.
Good grief, nothing would get taught if teachers had to lay out the facts and figures from every study ever done on every topic. At some point, you just can't allow yourself (and the other students) to be sidelined by those who choose to remain vehemently ignorant.
Does smoking really cause cancer? Who knows? Show me the evidence and prove it. (Apparently, former presidential candidate Bob Dole still wasn't sure as of a few years ago.)
Does sex cause pregnancy? I'm not sure. My grandmother says otherwise. Show me all the research and let me dig into the "facts."
Does the sun really set at night? Or does it just disappear for a few hours? How can we know for sure?
Why does it rain? Have you ever seen water literally come out of a cloud? Maybe it just comes from heaven?
Is oil really a fossil fuel? I mean, did dinosaurs even exist? Did you ever see a dinosaur turn into oil? Who can know for sure?
Is the earth really round? There are literally thousands of people who think it's flat and think the evidence is fake.
Good grief, nothing would get taught if teachers had to lay out the facts and figures from every study ever done on every topic. At some point, you just can't allow yourself (and the other students) to be sidelined by those who choose to remain vehemently ignorant.
1
Students should be able absorb facts. Proven facts. The girl's assertion that the teacher should consider "other views" of science are indicative that her school didn't fail her, her parents did.
55
I grew up in a Republican family and thought that I too was a Republican. As a senior, I took a course in American political thought at Skidmore. It was a time when Republicans actually had an intellectual core, and I recall nothing that favored one political party than the other. (A course in European politics had already convinced me that third, fourth, and fifth parties were not beneficial.) Our final exam was to identify whether we were a Republican or a Democrat and why. So I dutifully began listing the points I would make to show I was a Republican. And as I wrote them down, I realized, for the first time that I was a Democrat.
Never underestimate the importance of education.
Never underestimate the importance of education.
178
To me the issue is, what can humans do to mitigate the progressive instability of climate.
I don't need to ascribe climate variability to human activities to see the need for that.
I don't need to ascribe climate variability to human activities to see the need for that.
10
When I was a high school senior in Hattiesburg, Mississippi in 1967, the world history teacher (also the school's head football coach) taught that the earth was 8,000 years old and that the text book was wrong. His proof was a string of bible verses. He seemed a little embarassed; those were the days before corporate "creation science" became so militant. It was a valuable learning for me about trust, skepticism, generational conflict and the limitations of education. I have not forgotten it after 40 years. Thanks, Coach Ward.
Yes, our children are the future but, alas, they are also the past.
Yes, our children are the future but, alas, they are also the past.
14
This is the way ideas change, one conversation at a time. Like many young people, including myself at that age, when it comes to politicized issues young people believe what they are taught by their parents and community upon whom they depend. In some families, disagreeing with your family is to risk your status in it. Enter Mr. Sutter who bravely challenges their beliefs by presenting scientific ideas, data and facts. It is natural that there would be some pushback from these students.
What is telling is that when he showed them how climate change was affecting them personally, many of them came around. Studies show that most people do believe the climate is changing, they just don't believe it will affect them or have been convinced by their favorite shock jock that it is too late to do anything about it.
What is telling is that when he showed them how climate change was affecting them personally, many of them came around. Studies show that most people do believe the climate is changing, they just don't believe it will affect them or have been convinced by their favorite shock jock that it is too late to do anything about it.
22
Science education apparently now involves memorizing facts that have been decided by higher authorities and not in asking questions. I can feel this teacher's frustration in being asked to prove his facts. This teacher would lose his mind if his class included questioners of known facts like Galileo, Einstein, Steve Jobs or Elon Musk.
7
How do you know it doesn't? And really , Jobs and Musk aren't scientists or researchers and certainly not intellects in Einstein's or Galileo's league.
1
The teacher used facts, the student refused to believe them. If someone asked you to prove that the world was round and then you did but they still didn't believe you, what else would you be if not frustrated? There is nothing wrong with asking questions but there is something wrong when you take the evidence right in front of you and then come up with a wildly wrong conclusion--that isn't science.
8
This article does not describe a student who is asking questions. She's making pronouncements - "scientists are wrong all the time," "teachers are supposed to be open to opinions," "It's like you can't disagree with a scientist or you're 'denying science," "It was just so biased toward saying climate change is real..and that all these people that I pretty much am like are wrong and stupid."
This is defensive behavior of someone who feels personally attacked. I cannot imagine any of the people you've listed here responding this way to an intellectual challenge.
This is defensive behavior of someone who feels personally attacked. I cannot imagine any of the people you've listed here responding this way to an intellectual challenge.
8
Most of the Jr. High students I polled in the class I was substitute teaching in did not know the difference between climate and weather. I bet a lot of adults don't either, which adds to the confusion.
18
Just just a quick thank you for this article. More like this please.
21
Ms. Beatty has offered a hypothesis -that climate change may be purely natural an unaffected by human behavior. This is a scientific assertion and must be supported by experimental research in order to be validated. It's perfect opportunity for Mr. Sutter to allow Ms Beatty and the rest of the class to continue the scientific method and collect evidence that either supports or invalidates her hypothesis.
4
Indeed. However, the hypothesis that current warming is caused by natural factors is supposed to be the default / null hypothesis. The onus is on those claiming that warming is not natural to prove their assertion, not the other way around. Natural warming and cooling have occured frequently, and Arctic melting, rapidly retreating glaciers, and changing weather patterns are not in any way distinct to our current time period. So the student is, in fact, correct to question the teacher's assertion that what we have experienced is somehow different from all similar occurrences that have happened in the past. And she would be correct to cast a skeptical eye on the strength of the evidence presented.
A few questions she might ask the teacher would include at what point anthropogenic CO2 is supposed to have become a dominant driver of the climate? The IPCC pegs this as from 1950 onwards. That being the case, given the graph presented in the article, she might ask why the earth warmed sharply from ~1910-1940, when CO2 levels were essentially unchanged from pre-industrial times. Why did the earth then cool from ~1940-1970, when CO2 levels began to grow significantly? The earth warmed significantly from ~1970-2000, but how/why was this different from the warming of 1910-1940? And why did the earth's temperature essentially flatline from 2010-2015 while CO2 levels skyrocketed, jumping up only in 2015-2016 during a super El Nino? These would be good questions.
A few questions she might ask the teacher would include at what point anthropogenic CO2 is supposed to have become a dominant driver of the climate? The IPCC pegs this as from 1950 onwards. That being the case, given the graph presented in the article, she might ask why the earth warmed sharply from ~1910-1940, when CO2 levels were essentially unchanged from pre-industrial times. Why did the earth then cool from ~1940-1970, when CO2 levels began to grow significantly? The earth warmed significantly from ~1970-2000, but how/why was this different from the warming of 1910-1940? And why did the earth's temperature essentially flatline from 2010-2015 while CO2 levels skyrocketed, jumping up only in 2015-2016 during a super El Nino? These would be good questions.
1
Well put. Kudos.
Education on these subjects takes place one classroom, and one mind, at a time. Kudos to Mr. Sutter for investing his time and expertise in building a better America.
31
Thes are smart kids. It is refreshing to see students questioning the science, or lack thereof, of global warming/climate change. Despite what Barach Obama has said - the science on global warming/climate change is far from settled. Anyone who follows the IPCC reports knows that they have repeatedly had to backtrack on some of their claims and have recently downgraded the climate sensitivity of CO2 (and may have to do so again). Chapter 2 of their latest report also says that there is no evidence for any increases in the numbers or severity of tropical storms including hurricanes and major hurricanes or floods. The debate now among real climate scientists is how much of the recent warming is caused by man and how much is from natural factors, of which there are many.
5
Oh nonsense. the key is the fact of climate change and that it is all in the same direction whether natural or man made. We might survive natural climate change since it is relatively slow. But Man made is fast. You are debating angels on the head of a pin .
5
Reflexively saying "I don't believe it" is not the same thing as questioning the science.
6
It would be more refreshing if people would finally grasp that science is not a religion. Religion is about revelation: "This is true because god said so." Science is a process. It is all about questions: "This is what we think is true; here's how we arrived at that conclusion; but is there another explanation?"
When you applaud students for questioning the science, you are applauding the scientific method itself. If you said to a scientist, "More recent data suggest that what you thought ten years ago is wrong," her response would be, "Duh." (If she's polite, she would merely think it.)
The question of whether humans cause a little or a lot of global warming is moot. Instead of wasting time by arguing over increments, let's face the fact that we have all the evidence we need to agree that we DO have an impact, and focus our energies on mitigating the damage as much as possible.
When you applaud students for questioning the science, you are applauding the scientific method itself. If you said to a scientist, "More recent data suggest that what you thought ten years ago is wrong," her response would be, "Duh." (If she's polite, she would merely think it.)
The question of whether humans cause a little or a lot of global warming is moot. Instead of wasting time by arguing over increments, let's face the fact that we have all the evidence we need to agree that we DO have an impact, and focus our energies on mitigating the damage as much as possible.
4
I've been a science educator for 40 years. Teaching science ideas and theories has always been a problem when they clash with religioun. But there is something about the Era of Internet Conspiracy Theories that has injected a new level of vitriol and wild skepticism into high school classrooms that creates new challenges. Sometimes it seems like teenagers trying ideas out for effect. But students really need to learn the tools to evaluate the science, and see it as a evolving process of evidence gathering and synthesis. Moreover, since science is a very different epistemic system than that of religion, the two will inevitably sometimes conflict.
One tack that Mr. Sutter could take is:
Here are the facts and evidence as I understand them and as synthesized by the best minds studying climate change. It is your job as students in this SCIENCE class to learn this material, as I guide you to through the preponderance of evidence. That is what you will tested on and what your grade will be about. Your beliefs are your own. But you also have larger roles as citizens of Wellston, Ohio, the US, and the planet Earth to think things through and act and vote accordingly. Let's get together in 10 years and see what we think.
Mr. Sutter, new teacher or not, seems to be doing a really good job. Thanks Mr. Sutter.
One tack that Mr. Sutter could take is:
Here are the facts and evidence as I understand them and as synthesized by the best minds studying climate change. It is your job as students in this SCIENCE class to learn this material, as I guide you to through the preponderance of evidence. That is what you will tested on and what your grade will be about. Your beliefs are your own. But you also have larger roles as citizens of Wellston, Ohio, the US, and the planet Earth to think things through and act and vote accordingly. Let's get together in 10 years and see what we think.
Mr. Sutter, new teacher or not, seems to be doing a really good job. Thanks Mr. Sutter.
31
While the article starts out as if there is no hope it ends with Gwen accepting something that is emotionally very difficult. Despite her young age her intellect overcame her prejudice which gives one a reason for hope. I also think Mr. Sutter is has taken on a very difficult task. Learning how to teach well under difficult circumstances requires more than just college training it requires years of experience preferably with the help of an experienced mentor. If he has convinced a few students he has done well and should be proud of what he has accomplished. There will always be difficult students but it will get easier over time. If Gwen goes off to college and makes it in the wider world she may in time come to appreciate what Mr. Sutter did and even thank him.
291
I must have missed something. I didn't see her accepting the science of climate change at the end. I thought she said "I know," to the statement that her friends were believing in climate change. That statement doesn't mean she believes. She simply changed the subject and asked for help with her dress. I don't think her opinion changed.
1
My take on this is that Gwen did NOT accept the role of human activity on climate change. She dropped the class and substituted an online class that that did not mention climate change. It was her friend, Jacynda who did the 180. This article left me feeling profoundly depressed. Bravo, Mr. Sutter for caring and trying.
3
I hope so for her sake. If you change she'll be looking for McDonald's and minimum wage obeying orders because that's what religious people do, over these have priests.
1
Teachers like Mr. Sutter need to play a long game. Be decent. Care about the kids. They will change their minds about many things in the next decade of their lives. If they remember you as a kind, engaged teacher, they will think about what you taught them, no matter how much they rebel in the moment.
33
Is the resistance to human environmental responsibility simply inevitable once Christianity is marketed as "Someone" else taking the blame, if you really, really, truly believe, Wendy?
Prosperity Gospel, for example, can't make you rich unless you're already connected (Aristotle:), but...getting away with anything can be seen as a great return on investment, especially when all you have to do is not pay attention.
Prosperity Gospel, for example, can't make you rich unless you're already connected (Aristotle:), but...getting away with anything can be seen as a great return on investment, especially when all you have to do is not pay attention.
15
I think the teacher may have been more effective if he had some understanding of the socio-economic strata these kids and their families dwell in. This is the kind of topic that demands a team taught approach--where the science teacher works with an economics teacher and an English teacher and a history teacher and looks at how the changing environment affects not only the air we breathe and the world we inhabit but how it affects and will affect how we earn a living in the future. Some recognition of that might have persuaded Gwen. Failure of the principal here in her approach to teaching a controversial subject (at least in some parts of the country).
21
Whole heartedly agree with this teaching approach. We all need to come together as a nation and truly understand where we all are coming from - to gain insights and perspectives and empathy. There has to be respect. We need to stop and listen to one another. Yelling, bullying, name calling, using scare tactics only promote anger and fear. We, as a nation, are better than that.
3
As the teacher named in this article, I want to assure you that the teachers and administration at Wellston do cooperate in a broader, cross disciplinary approach to not only environmental issues, but numerous other socioeconomic issues. Not only do I live in the area I teach, but I run several after-school programs for my students and volunteer in the area.
1026
I really like your pedagogical approach to teaching. The integrated approach is a good means to cover a multitude of core principals. It does require teachers committed to the process and the time needed to plan the curriculum. I also think that letting students decide that the change in climate is human caused or not is important.
To me it is quite obvious that humans affect the environment. I am not as sure that what we are experiencing is all human caused. Over time the climate has changed. Perhaps stating that human activity may be one more block in the structure of the changing climate and that humans should use their best efforts to have a smaller impact on the environment would start a less polarizing learning curve .
I think the kindergarten rules,"1. Take only what you need for a project, 2. Clean up after you are finished, and 3. Treat all with respect, " should be followed rigorously.
To me it is quite obvious that humans affect the environment. I am not as sure that what we are experiencing is all human caused. Over time the climate has changed. Perhaps stating that human activity may be one more block in the structure of the changing climate and that humans should use their best efforts to have a smaller impact on the environment would start a less polarizing learning curve .
I think the kindergarten rules,"1. Take only what you need for a project, 2. Clean up after you are finished, and 3. Treat all with respect, " should be followed rigorously.
7
It is really sad that so many sound, independent scientific conclusions can so easily be dismissed by people who rely upon assertions from industry apologists or cranks.
There is a need for empathy for those whose families have suffered as their industries have become less viable, but conclusions drawn from peer-reviewed science deserve respect. As with any peer-reviewed study, those conclusions are certainly subject to challenge, but only by presentation of evidence to the contrary, in an equally peer-reviewed setting, not simply by some self-interested party just saying so. As Upton Sinclair noted "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
Poverty seems hereditary, along with visceral anger over the roots of that poverty, which of often stands in the way of breaking free of that vicious cycle. Education and knowledge is the only way to effectively overcome that hurdle.
There is a need for empathy for those whose families have suffered as their industries have become less viable, but conclusions drawn from peer-reviewed science deserve respect. As with any peer-reviewed study, those conclusions are certainly subject to challenge, but only by presentation of evidence to the contrary, in an equally peer-reviewed setting, not simply by some self-interested party just saying so. As Upton Sinclair noted "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
Poverty seems hereditary, along with visceral anger over the roots of that poverty, which of often stands in the way of breaking free of that vicious cycle. Education and knowledge is the only way to effectively overcome that hurdle.
95
So well put, your response. I excerpted from it and posted to my FB page.
Follow the money. Another NY Times story Sunday outlines how the Koch money has deeply influenced this issue. #sad
Christianity is deeply embedded in these rural communities. They've been taught that the world is governed by unseen powers of good and evil, requiring faith but no evidence. It is possible to honor both religion and the scientific method, but to do so requires a degree of nuance that they surely don't get from their parents and their preachers.
If water can become wine, why can't coal make a comeback and the earth shrug off its tendency to get warmer? Sutter is battling an implacable belief system. It now holds sway at the national level, bringing us toward a new Dark Ages. Someday, if we survive as a species, there will follow a new Enlightenment. Not this school year, though.
If water can become wine, why can't coal make a comeback and the earth shrug off its tendency to get warmer? Sutter is battling an implacable belief system. It now holds sway at the national level, bringing us toward a new Dark Ages. Someday, if we survive as a species, there will follow a new Enlightenment. Not this school year, though.
707
You are correct. This is one reason why I taught college courses on science and religion for over 25 years. Most of the time in those courses was devoted to making sure that students achieved a refined, nuanced understanding of scientific method. Students who came from evangelical or fundamentalist backgrounds encountered great difficulty with such issues.
6
Going to have to disagree with you by purporting that Christianity is embedded in these communities. It is a type of regressive branch of Christianity. I am a Christian, and I was brought up in a variant of Christianity that from the beginning emphasized the importance of respecting and guarding all of God's creation, animals and environment included. We studied articles about how to make employment decisions that would reflect our values of not hurting another human being or harm the environment. Other than that, I believe your comment is very valid and cogent. But I think we have to move the conversation forward in terms of how do we convince the swathes of brainwashed, willfully ignorant, and psychologically and economically vulnerable populace that is for Trump, like these coal country people, and others here in the United States.
I'm going to report that what's needed in these communities is a public-private partnership that creates jobs in the green economy, e.g. Solar energy, environmental remediation, new technologies in agriculture, and other innovations that promote both economic independence and environmental protection. On top of that, the religious cultural elements then would be swayed to support these kinds of initiatives. What we have had in the last half-century is a brand of Prosperity Gospel "Christianity", not in the spirit of Jesus teachings of not serving two masters, Mammon and God.
I'm going to report that what's needed in these communities is a public-private partnership that creates jobs in the green economy, e.g. Solar energy, environmental remediation, new technologies in agriculture, and other innovations that promote both economic independence and environmental protection. On top of that, the religious cultural elements then would be swayed to support these kinds of initiatives. What we have had in the last half-century is a brand of Prosperity Gospel "Christianity", not in the spirit of Jesus teachings of not serving two masters, Mammon and God.
You say it is possible to honor both the scientific method and faith-based, evidence-free omniscient notions of good and evil—but you don't say how this is possible. Truthfully I don't think a devout person can ever fully trust the scientific method, as science has directly contradicted scripture many times.
2
And sugar doesn't make you fat either!
17
It actually does not if you eat it in moderation along with everything else that's edible.
2
Nice article, showing warmth and respect to both sides of the discussion.
I do wish for the United States that you will find a way to keep fossil-fuel corporate money out of your politics, and to keep politics out of your schools.
Best wishes from Europe.
I do wish for the United States that you will find a way to keep fossil-fuel corporate money out of your politics, and to keep politics out of your schools.
Best wishes from Europe.
24
... but please don't keep science out of the schools -
1
Excellent writing!
A smart teacher and a smart student. I wish the best for both of them.
A smart teacher and a smart student. I wish the best for both of them.
7
Three thoughts: Shame on all those (Al Gore comes to mind) for politicizing and hyping climate change. It's too important. News reports that link every (unrelated) weather event to climate doesn't help.
#2 Please, never write "believe" when referring to climate science or evolution. These are not belief systems.
And lastly, teachers are better off doing real science in their classrooms so students understand the process and crucial thinking that has led to climate models; understanding evolutionary processes; that vaccines work and don't cause autism; and that GMOs are safe. Sadly, few science teachers have participated in research so don't themselves understand this.
#2 Please, never write "believe" when referring to climate science or evolution. These are not belief systems.
And lastly, teachers are better off doing real science in their classrooms so students understand the process and crucial thinking that has led to climate models; understanding evolutionary processes; that vaccines work and don't cause autism; and that GMOs are safe. Sadly, few science teachers have participated in research so don't themselves understand this.
17
@Diane Bellis
Al Gore did not politicize climate change, Republicans did. Where was the politics in showing the evidence for global warming? Al Gore was serious about the environment long before Republicans started to bash him (his 1st environmental book was published in 1992, after years of accumulating knowledge).
Al Gore did not politicize climate change, Republicans did. Where was the politics in showing the evidence for global warming? Al Gore was serious about the environment long before Republicans started to bash him (his 1st environmental book was published in 1992, after years of accumulating knowledge).
9
Agreed about the dangers of hype vs. sober science. The pushback here is primarily ego-based: people being told for so long by people far away that they're dying, no-good, stupid, superstitious etc. and then you have a lot of people who really don't understand the mechanisms of climate change themselves, preaching it with the same thoughtless fervor of any religious belief.
Gwen needs to learn more about her emotional reactions to things and then, if she still wants to fight, she should pick better ground to fight on - such as the many, many things that "the other side" does that are not reality-based either.
Gwen needs to learn more about her emotional reactions to things and then, if she still wants to fight, she should pick better ground to fight on - such as the many, many things that "the other side" does that are not reality-based either.
1
#1 All weather events are related to climate.
#2 What are they then?
#3 What is "real science" as opposed to what Mr. Sutter is teaching? And his previous job was evaluating environmental risk, as an environmental scientist.
I know what you're trying to say, but you aren't saying it. And before you decide that Al Gore's advocacy "hyped" climate change, you are going to need to show that it isn't as bad as he said it was. Sadly, it may be worse.
#2 What are they then?
#3 What is "real science" as opposed to what Mr. Sutter is teaching? And his previous job was evaluating environmental risk, as an environmental scientist.
I know what you're trying to say, but you aren't saying it. And before you decide that Al Gore's advocacy "hyped" climate change, you are going to need to show that it isn't as bad as he said it was. Sadly, it may be worse.
7
We have plenty of research showing that people simply reject what they don't want to believe. In fact, showing them data, more often than not, hardens them in their stances. Fortunately adolescents can be more open-minded and are generally more curious. In the case of these students, Sutter is planting a seed. In most of their cases, as the evidence of the world around them continues to mount, that seed will produce adults who embrace what science is showing, rather than rejecting it merely because their fathers worked in coal.
169
"A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion, still!"
1
Mr. Sutter, you are a hero! Thank you!
381
Yes, a hero who pushed an A student out of science class.. great job!
1
This is America writ small: a well-educated adult teacher with all the facts, trying to patiently explain them, and an ignorant student, childishly screaming "NO!" in response. But both feel equally justified, and we all pretend they both have something to contribute to a "conversation."
394
So, according to this "science" teacher a single warm winter is now proof of AGW? Isn't that counter to everything the IPCC claims? Would a cold winter or two be viewed as proof that the theory of AGW was false?
If that is the level of "science" taught by this gentleman the whole class needs to quit his class.
If that is the level of "science" taught by this gentleman the whole class needs to quit his class.
8
Not sure what you read, but the author of the article, not Mr. Sutter, who pointed out that the Earth hit a record for the warmest year since 1880, beating previous records set in the preceding two years to show that there is a definitive trend of warming that is getting harder to ignore.
Being sceptical is great. But the disrespect of the teacher so evident in your post is exactly the kind of contempt for the professionals who teach our children that undermines the education system in our nation. Our students are so far behind in the sciences compared to the rest the world and the teachers dedicating their careers to.change that should be commended and given the resources to do that job.
Being sceptical is great. But the disrespect of the teacher so evident in your post is exactly the kind of contempt for the professionals who teach our children that undermines the education system in our nation. Our students are so far behind in the sciences compared to the rest the world and the teachers dedicating their careers to.change that should be commended and given the resources to do that job.
115
I believe the article was clear that he was trying to make the additional science content salient in an immediate way-- like most good teachers. It was implied that more content was being conveyed.
10
The article doesn't say he made that claim.
Most teachers will lose a student at the beginning of their careers. As they gain experience, they become more able to challenge students in positive ways. The sad part is that this teacher is on a 3 year contract. By the time his contract expires, all the experience gained will be lost to that school.
24
This is just a terrific story!
13
This teacher is a gem... each of us has to do his or her own part.....
69
If climate science had not been turned into a over politicized religion then perhaps we could focus on the actual science and the consequences of its predictions.
Once again the name calling, moralizing and hand wringing gets in the way of practical solutions to real problems.
Once again the name calling, moralizing and hand wringing gets in the way of practical solutions to real problems.
6
Talk to the folks on the right...Heartland/AEI/CEI/FNC/etc.. If they had listened to reputable climate scientists all along we'd have better climate policy, a better informed public and be further along in the fight to mitigate CO2.
Rather, they've promoted crappy science, have fought against science/reality tooth and nail and fooled many, many people in the process and mucked things up horribly.
Rather, they've promoted crappy science, have fought against science/reality tooth and nail and fooled many, many people in the process and mucked things up horribly.
2
Leaders of the GOP accepted that 'religion' as recently as 2008. Hmm,what changed? The science and evidence have only gotten firmer.
2
I would be curious to know where Gwen decides to go to college. A lot of teenagers might have embedded beliefs, most certainly influenced by what they hear from family and friends. From the descriptions of her questions and behavior, she might end up just fine, particularly as her peer group expands. It does not sound like Gwen would be immune to more refined notions of standards of evidence. Maybe she'll get the chance to find out?
So depressing.
Thank you Fox News, and AM radio charlatans.
Thank you Fox News, and AM radio charlatans.
192
The problem with this lesson/unit of instruction is beginning with claims and evidence---which, if emotions are involved result in counter-claims and counter-evidence. You could continue this back and forth, but, it becomes an argument over evidence--which, again, when emotions are involved---will never be agreed upon. Now to the genius of John Dewey---instead of beginning with claims and evidence, begin with a real world problem---say, videos of a day in the life of citizen or student in China going to work or school wearing a masks from pollution. Begin there, and then, look for solutions to that problem, never mentioning climate, but instead focusing on how a scientists would frame the problem and then proceed to solve it, using real world data from China. At some point in this analysis, you will come across pieces of information that would reveal that what is happening in the air around Beijing is man made, is causing an obvious change in the ability to breathe in the city, and, again, not mentioning climate, could be solved with less reliance on carbon based fuels---actually, as a teacher, I would draw this chain of causality over a course of weeks, with mini-lessons/demonstrations, on each facet of the smog in Beijing. This is not to say you will change minds, but, at least for a few weeks, you study a problem, instead of shouting emotions at each other.
34
@ACJ,
Bravo; wonderful approach!
Bravo; wonderful approach!
1
Mr. Sutter doesn't need videos of China, he has a perfectly good neon-colored river in these students' own town.
5
This may come as news to you, but the good citizens of Beijing are not choking on CO2. There are plenty of things in the Beijing air that are harmful to humans. CO2 is not one of them.
Moreover, the air in China could be most obviously improved by adding scrubbers to China's many coal plants. This would involve the local authorities actually enforcing their own environmental regulations for coal plants, rather than taking bribes to allow unscrubbed pollution into the air.
All of this would be interesting. However, none of this, if taught correctly, would result in the students believing the dogma that Mr. Sutter is hoping to teach them.
Moreover, the air in China could be most obviously improved by adding scrubbers to China's many coal plants. This would involve the local authorities actually enforcing their own environmental regulations for coal plants, rather than taking bribes to allow unscrubbed pollution into the air.
All of this would be interesting. However, none of this, if taught correctly, would result in the students believing the dogma that Mr. Sutter is hoping to teach them.
1
I find it distressing when people disavow the shrinking of ice caps and glaciers around the world. On one hand, we love our family and respect their work but on the other hand, it has taken many contributing factors to impact our environment and we all need to acknowledge those factors.
1
plenty of observable evidence of the damage that fossil fuels are causing. Good that this teacher is challenging his students to look it over and make some conclusions. Gwen sounds like a smart girl struggling with this evidence and the convictions of her community that have depended on coal mining. She will figure it out. When she does and others in her community do too that is when they will have a chance to change. Maybe she should visit Pittsburg.
4
Pittsburgh
"She will figure it out."
Are you willing to let your children and grandchildren suffer the environmental consequences until Gwen and her anti-knowledge ilk are willing to admit they were wrong?
Are you willing to let your children and grandchildren suffer the environmental consequences until Gwen and her anti-knowledge ilk are willing to admit they were wrong?
5
Read "The Death of Expertise" by Tom Nichols - gives great explanation as to why this kind of thing is happening.
I know we like to think of human beings as being a special species, and that it is our responsibility to save the weak and sick. But there is a reason it's called survival of the fittest - only the strong should survive.
I know we like to think of human beings as being a special species, and that it is our responsibility to save the weak and sick. But there is a reason it's called survival of the fittest - only the strong should survive.
6
Can we get "the Donald" into this class?
15
When Jacynda spends the time and effort to study science, learn all the basics and principles, does field research, reads all the leading papers and books and then, does her own research over a course of years, invests her life's work, time and energy into the subject, if after all that she still is of the opinion that human industrial emissions and C02 cannot effect climate change maybe, just maybe we will listen. Until then, she is an overindulged teenager that is being fed way to much garbage by her family and should not be the subject of a NYT article just to prove that American ignorance is alive and well. The planet not so much.
7
Jacynda came around. It's Gwen who still thinks CO2 does not affect climate change.
7
She should have been assigned to read the primary research papers and to write papers on them. And, no, she should not have been allowed to "take an online course." If it was an advanced placement class, than it should be more like college instruction, in which there would have been additional readings assigned. Based on the writing in this article, appears the students do not know the fundamentals of the scientific method. I learned that in 6th grade science class in a rural Ohio school district. Big fail in Ohio education. Someone should be asking Governor Kasich about that!!
4
I think you're confusing Jacynda and Gwen.
1
Unfortunately, the conservative media and culture will aggressively nurture Gwen's feelings of "victimization" to pull her into their culture of faux grievance and victimhood. Feeling like a poor martyr is very seductive to a young person, and the tactics that the modern "conservative" movement uses to lure young people in is not unlike the tactics of cults.
If she is pretty enough, she will end up writing online columns for the Federalist and LifeSiteNews and make speeches at CPAC and become one of the lucky few who are able profit professionally off the conservative movement cult. (Movement Conservatives LOVE to prop up pretty young "independent" [sic] thinking women, no matter how insipid their thought trains, just to say "look, we have young people and women on our side too!").
But most likely she will spend her life aggrieved and ignorant, and unable to advance in an educated society because of it.
If she is pretty enough, she will end up writing online columns for the Federalist and LifeSiteNews and make speeches at CPAC and become one of the lucky few who are able profit professionally off the conservative movement cult. (Movement Conservatives LOVE to prop up pretty young "independent" [sic] thinking women, no matter how insipid their thought trains, just to say "look, we have young people and women on our side too!").
But most likely she will spend her life aggrieved and ignorant, and unable to advance in an educated society because of it.
43
Most likely hers is a future of unwanted pregnancies, clinical obesity, type 2 diabetes and addiction to opiates — just the way she was raised to be.
5
A teacher who can feel really good about his work!
16
Adages came to be because they express a general truth. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
We are still fighting the Scopes trial, 90 years later, and the entrenched anti-eveloution viewpoint has not changed despite rafts of supporting evidence, which the model of evolution have predicted.
Gwen's reaction - that everyone is "biased toward saying climate change is real" and that they think she and the people she is like are "wrong and stupid"- explains how she is entrenching herself in the canned counterarguments available and not trying to think through the real issues. Agreeing with evidence is condemning people she loves to being wrong. So the entrenched belief becomes a proxy for hard work, small government and self-sustainability, even though they are totally unrelated.
But wrong they are. We can debate what to do about climate change, but not that it is real, that the oceans are warmer, temperatures are increasing, ice is melting. We can debate what will happen as climate changes. But fact is fact, and one day, even if Gwen hangs on to her flat earth ideals, she is going to experience reality.
Teachers are going to lose people. Ideas will be rejected. People will cling to a 6000 year old planet, to the belief that vaccines cause autism, to the belief that humans have no real impact on environment - to the modern day equivalents of flat earth and earth centric orbits. That is the nature of man: we cannot make people think.
We are still fighting the Scopes trial, 90 years later, and the entrenched anti-eveloution viewpoint has not changed despite rafts of supporting evidence, which the model of evolution have predicted.
Gwen's reaction - that everyone is "biased toward saying climate change is real" and that they think she and the people she is like are "wrong and stupid"- explains how she is entrenching herself in the canned counterarguments available and not trying to think through the real issues. Agreeing with evidence is condemning people she loves to being wrong. So the entrenched belief becomes a proxy for hard work, small government and self-sustainability, even though they are totally unrelated.
But wrong they are. We can debate what to do about climate change, but not that it is real, that the oceans are warmer, temperatures are increasing, ice is melting. We can debate what will happen as climate changes. But fact is fact, and one day, even if Gwen hangs on to her flat earth ideals, she is going to experience reality.
Teachers are going to lose people. Ideas will be rejected. People will cling to a 6000 year old planet, to the belief that vaccines cause autism, to the belief that humans have no real impact on environment - to the modern day equivalents of flat earth and earth centric orbits. That is the nature of man: we cannot make people think.
26
Cathy She's an A student. She can obviously 'think', in all the usual senses of the word.
The problem is that she has not been raised around the custom of 'intellectual honesty', i.e., of understanding what it is that one really thinks is true or false.
People around her spout canned opinions, as you say, instead of their own genuine ones, which like her most probably don't even know. So she doesn't really 'get' the idea of truth or reality at all.
Science is really the sole field of human endeavor which is aimed entirely at discovering objective reality & is unconcerned with issues related to self-worth. I'm afraid this essential impersonality may be one reason why it is a relatively unpopular field of study.
And it's why the sort of person who can admire a creature like Trump generally denigrate science & scientist as elitists, eggheads, politicized liars & anything else they can think of.
The problem is that she has not been raised around the custom of 'intellectual honesty', i.e., of understanding what it is that one really thinks is true or false.
People around her spout canned opinions, as you say, instead of their own genuine ones, which like her most probably don't even know. So she doesn't really 'get' the idea of truth or reality at all.
Science is really the sole field of human endeavor which is aimed entirely at discovering objective reality & is unconcerned with issues related to self-worth. I'm afraid this essential impersonality may be one reason why it is a relatively unpopular field of study.
And it's why the sort of person who can admire a creature like Trump generally denigrate science & scientist as elitists, eggheads, politicized liars & anything else they can think of.
2
Cathy says: "That is the nature of man: we cannot make people think."
I disagree. Making people think is precisely the role of the teacher.
It is difficult, and not always successful, but it is our only hope.
Kudos to Mr. Sutter, thank you.
I disagree. Making people think is precisely the role of the teacher.
It is difficult, and not always successful, but it is our only hope.
Kudos to Mr. Sutter, thank you.
2
What a fantastic teacher. The kids are so lucky to have someone who is so passionate about science and teaching.
Jacynda should take Gwen on the nature walk and show her what is happening to their environment.
Jacynda should take Gwen on the nature walk and show her what is happening to their environment.
47
Try viewing human interaction with the Earth's climate from a human nature perspective. We usually manage to make things worse. Why would our effect on climate be any different?
4
Thanks NYT for this nuanced and sympathetic report from a Trump stronghold, one that avoids condescending to its subjects. As a scientist and teacher, I applaud Mr. Sutter's efforts. Of course it's exasperating to see such strong scientific evidence rejected. But Gwen's sincerity and intelligence, and her real distress, come through clearly, as do the terrible economic pressures on the people of Wellston. Sadly, in the end all of us and our children are going to be affected by climate change, whatever we believe about its causes.
976
It seems you're saying it's OK to reject the evidence, to be eager to be wrong, as long as you're sincere in your eagerness to be wrong...
1
NY Times only reflects the complete moral and intellectual bankruptcy of American center and left; i.e., every point has an equally meritorious counterpoint. At another time, they would have devoted equal space to discussing how and why slavery was a good thing and defensible because it produced a better future for people once living in Africa. At another time, they would have argued the merits of women staying barefoot and pregnant, because it was mentioned in their daily horoscope. Now they are arguing that kids know everything and equally meritorious as painstakingly produced empirical evidence. The American right is turning fascist at an alarming rate; the American center and left has abdicated all moral responsibility of reporting facts (without getting into spurious moral equivalence).
1
Congratulations on a brilliant essay. To Gwen and her class:
Hooray for you! True science is not done by the 99%, it's done by the 1% who have the nerve to follow their star (sometimes literally!)
I have learned this in the course of 80 years of living; but most of that life has been based on what I learned during my first 20 years. For it is then that one learns to doubt, to question, to believe, to seek, and when to use each approach For the natural world can be very deceptive, and scientific truth is often hard to come by. When I was in high school and even in college in the 1960's, Plate Tectonics was a fringe theory. Now any bright grade-school student can look at the map of South America and Africa and see the obvious way they used to fit together. When I was born in 1936, scientists were at a loss to explain why our Sun was still burning after millions, let alone billions, of years. Within your lifetime, doctors have discovered that stomach ulcers are caused by a bacterium, not by eating the wrong food. There no longer is any question that smoking is bad for you - at least smoking tobacco; the jury is out on marijuana. In my youth, it was well known that dinosaurs were cold-blooded and slow; we know better now. And on and on.
So don't give up. Don't stop questioning - but do the hard work that eventually will add to the body of our knowledge.
God bless you in your endeavors.
Sincerely,
Franklin Halasz
Albuquerque, NM
Hooray for you! True science is not done by the 99%, it's done by the 1% who have the nerve to follow their star (sometimes literally!)
I have learned this in the course of 80 years of living; but most of that life has been based on what I learned during my first 20 years. For it is then that one learns to doubt, to question, to believe, to seek, and when to use each approach For the natural world can be very deceptive, and scientific truth is often hard to come by. When I was in high school and even in college in the 1960's, Plate Tectonics was a fringe theory. Now any bright grade-school student can look at the map of South America and Africa and see the obvious way they used to fit together. When I was born in 1936, scientists were at a loss to explain why our Sun was still burning after millions, let alone billions, of years. Within your lifetime, doctors have discovered that stomach ulcers are caused by a bacterium, not by eating the wrong food. There no longer is any question that smoking is bad for you - at least smoking tobacco; the jury is out on marijuana. In my youth, it was well known that dinosaurs were cold-blooded and slow; we know better now. And on and on.
So don't give up. Don't stop questioning - but do the hard work that eventually will add to the body of our knowledge.
God bless you in your endeavors.
Sincerely,
Franklin Halasz
Albuquerque, NM
2
Skepticism is good, provided it extends equally in all directions and yields in the face of sound evidence. I wonder, though, if the student's religious teacher is subject to the same skeptical questions as is Mr. Sutter, the environmental science teacher.
In any case, while the view of these students -- or, let it be said, their parents -- might be touted by the President and a large coalition of anti-science GOPs today, they will not fare well in tomorrow's economy. Even the traditional energy companies are turning the corner on global warming. Sadly, these students have every opportunity to advance in this world, but they are willfully choosing to be left behind.
In any case, while the view of these students -- or, let it be said, their parents -- might be touted by the President and a large coalition of anti-science GOPs today, they will not fare well in tomorrow's economy. Even the traditional energy companies are turning the corner on global warming. Sadly, these students have every opportunity to advance in this world, but they are willfully choosing to be left behind.
199
It's deja vu all over again (thanks Yogi), only this time the climate change deniers are playing the role of the creationists who deny evolution. There are none so blind as those who will not see, or if you prefer the Biblical version: Jeremiah 5:21 Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not.
133
People have begun to think that they are experts in everything because they can find confirmation for whatever theory they want on the internet. Confirmation bias now becomes an intellectual venue shopping expedition.
260
Social scientists use the term "motivated cognition" to refer to beliefs that are strongly influenced by ideology, attitudes, values, emotions and needs rather than evidence. Such beliefs are often distortions of reality and can abruptly determine what is perceived. Many cognitive biases are related to it such as selective perception, groupthink, and confirmation bias. Such beliefs, if held by primary reference groups, are very hard to change as evidenced by the article. The new field of "collective intelligence" attempts to study how groups can foster smart problem solving and critical thinking or fall into static, rigid belief systems and policies where ignoring reality is valued.
60
@Jim Bean. Thus racism, thus misogyny.
1
Roger Ailes and his Fox News creation = whole segments of the population afflicted with "motivated cognition". You don't have to go to southeast Ohio to see this.
2
The climate change issue is almost becoming a taboo subject for polite conversation because it is so emotionally charged. When it comes to ones livelihood survival overrides logic. The most serious problem our country faces is the lack of JOBS, and this is where our energy should be focused. Lack of jobs leads to an increase in crime, as we see in Chicago. How in the world can you expect the poverty stricken people in this article to analyze empirical data when they do not know where their next meal is coming from?
18
There is no shortage of jobs in the US. There is a shortage of low skilled jobs that pay a living wage and an education system in many places that prepare people for the jobs of the future.
And if people, like this young lady, allow political or religious dogma from preventing their comprehension of and ability to analyze scientific data, they are ill prepared for any job.
And if people, like this young lady, allow political or religious dogma from preventing their comprehension of and ability to analyze scientific data, they are ill prepared for any job.
11
@John: Empirical data is the most likely thing to lead them to their next meal.
2
What lack of jobs? There are signs everywhere around me looking for workers. Are they all high paying lifetime jobs? No. one has to have a need skill or education for those but they are there also. There is a shortage of math and science teachers on the secondary level but an excess of grammar school teachers. There is a shortage of teachers for the handicap. CT Educational Association lists hundreds of jobs open at the moment. There is shortage of nurses. There is a shortage of drivers with CDI (long distance large trailer)) licenses. There is a shortage of pharmacists. One has to fill a needed occupation. Chicago? those committing crimes isn't becaus eof lack of jobs but because of lack of skills. They chose to leave schools early. Also the drug business driven by the drug consumer gives them an out which leads to crime. 27% of Chicago students don't graduate from high school. Whose fault is that? teachers from Chicago and the more successful suburbs all graduate from the same teaching colleges. does Chicago year after year hire the poor teachers? I doubt it. How about pointing the finger wher eit belongs at the students themselves and families they come from. My local high school where most years, every graduate goes on to college has a daily absentee rate of 2%. 16 miles away an inner city that's ranked in the top 10 cities as to poverty a daily rate of 19%. The days of showing up at the factory, no diploma, and you will be hired is over. Get a skill, get a job.
4
So sad to see such willful ignorance in someone so young. Running and hiding from the truth is a strategy doomed to failure. Even in America, evidence based science will eventually win out, making fools of deniers like this poor girl.
340
As a former high school educator, I am not giving up on Gwen. High school students can still change and most likely will. When I was in high school I didn't think anyone could ever get to the moon! I do believe in global warming and even if I didn't, I would think there's no harm in curbing emissions and run-offs from mines and industrial sites. Trump's policy of curbing coal mine regulations will eventually come back to haunt these very people. Their drinking water will be polluted and their children will bear the burden of living in a toxic environment. It is sad but it will take some years before they face up to that. Although I think the Paris Accord is largely symbolic, Trump still shouldn't have taken us out of the agreement. It is a question of leadership which he can't seem to grasp. He is leading, but in the wrong direction.
7
I prefer a skeptical view like hers 1000 times better than the view of the students who mindlessly accept anything they are told. I believe climate change is real and it is in part caused by human activity, but i dispise the use of the words "denier" and "scientific consensus". being denier is a virtue, not a weakness, and consensus means nothing.
Climate science is way too complex to be addressed in high school. They should be studying science history and doing actual experiments to learn what science is supposed to be. Publishing propaganda is not science, it would be fine in a social science class, not hard science. If you think this student could challenge this teacher you might want to see what a real hard scientist could do.
10
Science is not propaganda.
82
I agree.. And actually a lot is still unknown. And realistically who is going to reduce his CO2 footprint. (You fly in airplanes don't you?) A really good volcanic explosion like the one that caused the year without a summer, 1816-- could be fun... Didn't another one wipe out the dinosaurs. Not that release of particulate?? into the atmosphere actually cooled things off. How I don't know how this would work with the CO2 already out there. The teacher might not know quite as much as he thinks he knows. And I have no idea how we can escape the conclusion that more people on the planet -- two billion more my 2050 will lead to more climate change.. but some how only going green ever gets discussed. It's not all about producing electricity.. How about going off gird?? there is the issue of deforestation to create more farmland. and IMO the US has miserable land use policies.
3
Climate science is not more complex than calculus, which is taught in our high school. As the article pointed out, many of these kids will not go on to a four-year college. If not now, when?
25
At least some of the students were convinced by the data (better than many adults). Gwen is correct in questioning the models, but she failed to understand she needs to present a logical alternative explanation and hypothesis based on the actual data if she wants people to believe climate change is not caused by humans.
360
Which not too reliable data set are you talking about? And few reject the idea that humans effect the climate, they do reject that CO2 is so dangerous that massive costs are required.
4
Phenomenon other than human activity also affect the planet. Look up year without a summer. PS a lot of ideas like carbon exchanges are just nonsense devised to make more $$ for Wall Street. We have made advances. New cars are so much more fuel efficient than were the old ones. New bulbs, new appliances. But many of us raise our carbon footprints by long distance airplane travel.
Precisely. It's not enough to stand there and say, "I don't believe the science". You've got to offer an alternate hypothesis that can be tested. I hope Mr. Sutter pointed that out. This topic is a great opportunity to teach not what to think, but *how* to think.
9
Fortunately for Mr. Sutter, Gwenn will live long enough to see evidence of things she now denies. The main one being: how will she deny rising ocean levels when cities like New Orleans and Miami become uninhabitable in her lifetime?
206
Since that won't be happening she probably won't have to do that, and perhaps something other than CO2 has an effect. You really think that humans won't do something to adapt??? And New Orleans is already below sea level, has been for a long time.
7
Some of us would consider both cities close to uninhabitable already esp. NOLA in the summer. BTW just looked up NOLA and sea level-- most of city 2-7 ft. above sea level with a few parts 7' below. Build on stilts??? Move the city to higher ground? Flooding in Houston is another fun topic.. And in NYC it's a good thing they did not get rid of the old MTA exits at South Ferry as the new ones were completely decommissioned by Hurricane Sandy.
6
Easy. She won't ever visit any of those places, so anyone who says they're disappearing underwater is "just lying". In any case, "It's all because of natural causes anyway, everyone around me says so, nothing to do with us".
5