What do I know about global warming?
Not much. I mean, I’m a ScienceBlogs addict, I’ve seen “An Inconvenient Truth,” and I’ve read Chris Mooney’s “Storm World,” but I still don’t feel that I know the issues in any depth.
The issues, as I see them, are inter-related – a change in one issue will ripple out to affect all of the others, much like a tug on one part of a spiderweb will distort the rest of the web – and perhaps tear it beyond functionality.
First, how do we know that global warming is occurring?
Second, how do we know that the warming is exacerbated by human activity?
Third, given #1 & #2, how can we as science teachers/communicators serve as trusted, reliable sources of information for the general public?
It’s my understanding that we know global warming is occurring through multiple areas of study. Ice cores from
(Which brings me to a pet peeve . . . in one of our readings – sorry, don’t remember which – the early Earth atmosphere was described in great detail. That’s the good news. The bad news is that there is *no* description to indicate *how* these details are known! If we’re to teach science as a process, why isn’t this information also included?)
It’s easy to see on the small scale how human activity undoubtedly influences the environment. But given the vastness of the oceans, and the towering summer thunderheads which seem to represent an atmosphere of incredible height, it’s more difficult for us relatively puny humans to visualize having any impact on the global environment. The “hockey stick” and CO2/temperature v. time graphs in the movie “An Inconvenient Truth” were explicit in their linkage of human activity to temperature change.
But global warming deniers have their audiences, too. Critics are quick to point out that in the 1970s, global cooling was our great fear. Last spring, a well-educated, open-minded FHSU faculty member sent me an email with a link to an ostensible global warming quiz. One catch – the quiz was decidedly at odds with accepted science, and was amateurishly, non-objectively written. Googling produced the fact that the ‘quiz’ writer is a well-known activist who works for the state of
So it looks like much of our job must focus on figuring out which sources of information are reliable, and which are suspect – which brings us to the last point.
We all labor under the “those who can’t, teach” misconception of ineptitude on our part. How can we convince our students – and by extension, their parents and our community – that we are a valuable scientific resource?
As science teachers, we have unique gifts: we are trained communicators with strong science backgrounds. As such, we should be outspoken within our communities in our support of accepted, mainstream science. But . . . as I mentioned before, we have *very* little credibility in the eyes of the public. I don’t have the first clue how to fix that situation, and I’d like to learn. Chris Mooney & Matthew Nisbet have addressed the issue of “framing” at their ScienceBlog, http://scienceblogs.com/intersection. By “framing,” we are called to know our science so well that we are able to relate science issues to our fellow community members in a manner that is accurate yet understandable. Needless to say, this issue has aroused great controversy, as some in the scientific community see this as “dumbing down” science.
However . . . think about sex. [Not in that way . . . ]
Think about explaining it to your kids! Describing “where babies come from” to a 5-year-old is much different than discussing the more complex issues with teenagers. It’s not that the 5-year-old is being given “bad” information – just that which is appropriate for her background knowledge.
It’s the same with science issues. We have to figure out how to express ourselves succinctly yet accurately when it comes to the science of global warming and human-related causes.
3 comments:
I have to agree with you about the lack information when it comes to the FACTS on this topic. There is so much that proves to be "sketchy" that I have a tendency, in class, at least, to have the students research both sides. I even went to the extent of having the kids watch "An Inconvenient Truth" and then research on the internet information to both support and dispell the information given within the documentary. We held a formal debate to present both sides. But, indeed, it IS frustrating to feel obligated to present information without backing, research, and data without purporting a "because-I-said-so" attitude (which is lame, as we know, in science).
Ah - so you were "teaching the controversy?"
What did the students get out of this - improved scientific knowledge, increased research skills, more focused arguments? Or did it devolve into a "he-said, she said" scenario?
True, we shouldn't have to build everything up from the discovery of fire forward - although my students are convinced I was present for that event. But we do need to be able to give them reasonable explanations that don't just gloss over the process used to derive those explanations.
(Gee, can ya tell I'm Hooked On Constructivism?)
I HAD to teach the controversy. I teach in an oil town. I had sooo many calls from parents calling me a tree-hugger and hippie. When I asked these parents to come watch "An Inconvenient Truth" with the class and watch the debate, do you think any of them showed up? Anyway, it was a difficult task keeping the kids away from OPINIONS in this endeavour. It was a good learning experience for them on researching information that had integrity, for sure. And for me, too.
Post a Comment