I was sitting at home in my pajamas, glossily checking Facebook, when I saw a status update that caught my attention. It alluded to homework which forced a student to prove that global warming is a hoax. Eyebrow raised, I investigated. Turns out, a public school teacher in my state, Utah, gave this assignment to students last week:
“Write a 2-page paper exposing the myths of global warming, and giving scientific information show that global warming is not the major catastrophe the media would have us believe. Must include a full bibliography and include a copy of your highlighted sources.”
Of course, I had to sleep on this before I trusted myself to react.
The next morning, I decided I needed a couple of questions answered before I could decide what to do about this. Here’s what I asked and what I found out:
Q: Was the teacher giving some sort of clever lesson aimed at waking the students up to the overwhelming evidence in favor of global warming? A: No. In fact, the teacher specifically told the students that they could NOT turn in a paper to the contrary or they would receive no credit.
Q: How could the teacher get AWAY with this? A: The teacher isn’t getting away with it. Disciplinary action is being taken by the school.
Here is an image of the assignment, complete with doodles:
So I threw this crazy thing out there for some feedback. What could we gain from this teacher’s mistake? I posted it to a couple of energy-oriented email list serves, to see what they had to say. I could not believe the response it invoked. Even a leader in national efforts to push “clean coal” expressed incredulity. I then emailed this to a few other people outside of Utah and found immediate interest in covering the story. There was a common theme among those that replied: they want the name of the teacher, the location of the school, and they want everyone to know that this insane indoctrination cannot go unpunished.
Before I could do anything like that, I had to know where this was coming from. Finding something like this by chance is the same as finding an ant in your picnic basket — for every one you see, there are a lot more.
If Utah had a queen ant, it would logically be the Governor, right? Well, it turns out, that works. Global warming is my new Governor’s number one concern, but not for the usual reasons: “For anybody to say that the debate is over [regarding man-made global warming] is to not be out in the marketplace and see that the debate is raging,” [Governor] Herbert said last week. He plans to “have a healthy discussion and develop policy that makes sense going forward on some kind of cost-to-benefit analysis.” It seems our governor wants to figure out how credible scientific evidence is by measuring it against the impact it has on your wallet.
Obviously this teacher’s (now infamous) assignment it is indicative of a greater problem, but how can it serve as a meaningful tool to fix that problem? Should we go after the offender? Why or why not? That’s what this is about, right? Let me grab my glasses and plaid wool jacket for the next three paragraphs:
As I see it, the desire to bring justice to an ethical violation such as this is raw human energy. In this emotional response lies the power that fuels a movement. This high school assignment and the sheer audacity it represents give this passion a target. But we must ask ourselves, whenever our torches our lit, how will our next move achieve climate justice?
The climate movement is finally on the offensive, and it feels good. (See www.glenmcarthybeck.com, and joewilsonisyourpreexistingcondition.com, for example.) The well-funded opponents of reason have been cheating, by forging letters to Congress, legislating from the corporate-sponsored pundit’s chair (if that isn’t anti-American, what is?), and faking grassroots campaigns. What is worse, they have been winning. (A weakened climate bill and Van Jones are couple of casualties.) The climate movement has been, until recently, hesitant to embrace an approach that may be confused with this embarrassing garbage.
Good for the teacher! We need thousand more such people willing to state the truth.
Whilst the teacher was wrong to be so single minded, (he should have done a compare and contrast perhaps), I suggest this really is a very rare occurrence and the real indoctrination of kids comes from the warmers who insist on pushing Al Gore’s “documentary” into the curriculum. It comes from the Al Gore trainees who are indoctrinated to the hilt and are evangelising the lies that Gore has put out.
Harbinger you hit the nail right on the head. Ash Anderson should look inward before throwing stones. There’s much more evidence for the warming we had that peaked in 1998 being a natural occurence than there is any connection to mankinds activities. Global warming has jumped the shark and its proponents are looking for ways to get out and save face as the earth continues to cool.
I agree with harbinger. When Obama uses the public schools to get his message out, or when any other such action happens, no one dares cry of one-sidedness. On the other hand, when anyone has enough to courage to speak the truth about climate change, that person is considered a fool. Wake up everybody. Climate change isn’t about carbon dioxide- it’s about money. Those crying the loudest also happen to be those who stand to profit most. I live 10 minutes from Mr. Gore, and, trust me, his lifestyle seems to suggest he could care less about the environment.
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/
Global Warming: Man or Myth – the Science of Climate Change
Historian of science, Naomi Oreskes of UC San Diego, states “Scientific knowledge is the intellectual and social consensus of affiliated experts based on the weight of available empirical evidence, and evaluated according to accepted methodologies. If we feel that a policy question deserves to be informed by scientific knowledge, then we have no choice but to ask, what is the consensus of experts on this matter.”
Climate change has been extensively researched and the overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that the observed modern day global warming is unprecedented and is very likely caused by humans. Although there is little serious debate between climate experts, many in the general public still think that these scientists are unsure about climate change and the role that humans have played in modern day global warming. The Website above summarizes some of the key research that has led scientists to their overwhelming consensus while also addressing some of the unfounded claims by climate change skeptics and denialists.
The only plausible explanation is that today’s warming is primarily due to human activities. The increase in greenhouse emissions can easily account for this warming. There is robust evidence for the man-made global warming. There are no other known sources of warming that can explain the observed modern climate change. People that claim there is no warming or that the warming is not caused by humans have offered no credible alternate hypotheses. Yes, these folks make claims but none of the claims has stood up to scientific scrutiny. Because I see/hear much disinformation from well-intentioned folks, I feel it is my duty to try to educate people on this very important matter. Unfortunately, it is an uphill battle because most of the real science is discussed in hard-to-read scientific journals and most of the bad science is easily accessible on Web pages, blogs, and other forms of mass media. Worse, there are political organizations such as The Heartland Institute that present themselves as scientific organizations but these organizations are directly and indirectly funded by the fossil fuel industry and others that stand to lose if greenhouse gas emissions are reduced.
It is fine to be skeptical, but it is never fine to be a denialist. A skeptic is willing to hear both sides and is honest with his assessment of the information. A denialist blindly accepts everything that supports his opinion and immediately discards everything that does not. Carefully read my Global Warming site with an honest, open mind. Then weigh what I am discussing with what you have heard and where/who you have heard it from.
This article does a great job of showing your ignorance. There is no proof that we are experiencing global warming. There is even less proof that CO2 is causing any type climate change. The truth is that the earth has been cooling for the past 10 to 12 years. The group that has done an amazing job of predicting climate change is those that study solar activity.
People like you have bought into Al Gore’s church of global warming. People like you are too lazy or to ignorant to actually do a little research to see what is actually happening around you. Al Gore is not a scientist and has repeatedly refused to debate a real scientist because he knows his data is made up. The average temperature right now is about the same as in 1900. This does not show any signs of global warming. Thinking people realize that there will be fluctuations in the temperature. Weather does not stay the same, which means it will go up and back down on its own.
Here is something that I really want you to think about. You will need to quit drinking the AL Gore kool-aid before you attempt this. Al Gore uses 18 times the national average of electricity (electricity is a huge contributor to the production of CO2). He rides around in a gas guzzling Limo all by himself. Gore rides around in a private jet that creates more CO2 in one trip than the average family car produces in a year. If Al Gore believed that CO2 caused global warming, don’t you think he would actually attempt to decrease his humongous output of CO2?
What an Excellent job by the school by disciplining the teacher. We would not want a teacher actually teaching kids to think for themselves. It is so much better to have kids that are mindless drones that follow faulty science that has no basis in scientific fact.
Teaching students to question what they are being told makes them thinking adults that will make informed decisions. This scares the heck out of the global warming hoax crowd. This group needs ignorant sheep that they can easily herd where ever they want them to go not independent thinkers
harbinger:
Deflecting focus by pinning blame is a sophomoric, obstructionist game. It really is not of any dispute that the earth is going through unprecedented environmental changes that threaten most life forms, regardless of cause. To politically polarize this fact is to distract and paralyze; precisely when we need lucid action at it’s most inclusive and compassionate. It does no harm to critically think our way through this, whether in schools, churches, family groups or nation states. It does a great deal of harm to prevent critical thinking, particularly about global warming. Anything less than our most intelligent, spiritually comprehensive action, by anyone, is potentially endangering everyone.
Public school propaganda takes many forms, and is by no means rare, but this example is an appalling shame.
Here’s to crazy climate change, the misfit, the rebel, the troublemaker. It’s not fond of rules and it has no respect for the status quo. You can misinterpret it, understand it, glorify or vilify it, about the only thing you can’t do is ignore it, because it changes, always has and always will. It helps push the human race forward, and for that matter it pushes all living species forward. Without climate change, species would have no incentive to adapt and evolve. In climate change I see genius, because it’s crazy enough to think it can change the world, and it does.
Science will prevail in the end. Not something like this that is made without reliable time sources, and reliable temperatures even today. There is not enough knowledge to say what is happening with earth(we don’t have reliable data) and even less what is driving it.
Does anyone know the name or subject of the class that received the assignment? Perhaps it was Debate 101 or something similar. Learning to be a good debater can demand lessons presenting something you may not personally support. These kind of exercises may be in the form of having pro life students defend abortion and pro choice ones defend the right to life. Giving this assignment does not mean the teacher does not believe in global warming. It does mean that this teacher expects these students to hone their research skills, learn to write effectively and present material properly. Other classes that might receive this kind of assignment could be a Speech class, a Power of the Media class, etc.
You use words and phrases that are biased and pejorative to your opponents: “overwhelming evidence in favor of global warming”, “crazy thing”, “insane indoctrination”,, “ethical violation”, “sheer audacity”, “embarrassing garbage”. Not the language of a scientist, but a demagogue or zealot. Not impressive, either. Indeed, you leave no doubt that only unalloyed acceptance of the AGW proponents’ perspective is acceptable to you.
The teacher you present as the enemy may have ignored the Socratic ideal of opposing viewpoints, but so have you. Do you likewise complain of the teacher who demands papers detailing the horror of impending climatic doom? Didn’t think so. What makes you think you are superior in reasoning to him, then, when you hold an equally exclusive, although opposite, conclusion about the nature of the world? A false appeal to authority? Indeed, he called you no names, but you seem to have no lack of venom to pour on him, without even attempting to engage him in discussion. Oh, that’s right: you consider the discussion over.
Pity. That’s how respect for science dies, at the hands of a control movement. Even the scientists who claim no ideology, but simply refuse to call the discussion over, are painted as irrational and enemies of mankind.
Funny thing, though: while the Western world squabbles over the future cost of energy, it’s the little babies in the under-developed world who will die for lack of cheap energy and the prosperity it brings with it, and the left just doesn’t care. Yup. Real funny.
I’m not impressed.
Tom in Oregon City
The teacher should have randomly split the class into two groups, one writing papers supporting AGW, the other writing papers against it. What the teacher should have asked is for the students to find 2 pages of evidence linking CO2 to increased temperatures. Just kidding, that would be a dirty trick, no sense sending the kids on a wild goose chase… But it would get the point across.
Or the teacher could have assigned a particular aspect to each of several groups of 4 or something. Like find evidence of positive feedback with H20 vapor in nature (nada). Find evidence of negative feedback (winner). Find evidence of shrinking antarctic ice (oops, sorry!). Find evidence of world-wide higher temperatures during the HCO (easy), etc. This could have been a very good “teachable moment” to question authority and look at evidence as opposed to manufactured consensus, it might have even inspired a young new scientist.
But I can see from your unscientific gibberish that you have no interest in having students learn, you simply want green indoctrination, which is not supportable from the evidence, which most intelligent students will learn anyway by the time they mature enough to look at science instead of propaganda.
Good luck. It’s very difficult to manufacture evidence where none exists, though often much easier to convince people there is evidence when it is non-existent. Propaganda can work, just witness all of our history and english-major politicians who have no inkling of science, and see how easy it was to make the less intelligent ones believe!
I agree with harbinger.
Had the teacher asked for a comparitive essay on the supporting and non supporting science, it would have properly illistrated to the students that the AGW agenda is entirely political.
They would have discovered on their own that the science supporting man made global warming is very weak and the science supporting natural warming is very strong.
It is high time we stopped feeding school kids propaganda about climate change and went back to real science and teaching healthy sceptisism and the scientific method.
I think EVERY teacher who sets an assignment on Global Warming should ensure students have the opportunity to cover both sides of the story.
The article expresses outrage over the teacher trying to indoctrinate students. What about the indoctrination of the ‘warmers’ ON A SYSTEMATIC BASIS ALL OVER THE WORLD????
I wonder how many teachers have set the exact opposite task of demonstrating that global warming is a problem, is caused by man and needs to be dealt with as a priority. In such instances would the response be the same i.e. “How could the teacher get AWAY with this? A: The teacher isn’t getting away with it. Disciplinary action is being taken by the school.” I think not, but why not? I agree that a more ideal task would be to “look at the science and come to your own conclusions”, but even this would probably be considered unacceptable by the Alarmists. How science is being degraded by idealism!
Actually, this is a great tool for teaching research. As the majority of the internet gate keepers and traditional reseach web sites divert any global warming searches to pro AWG sites, and the Vast majority of scientific publications hold pro AWG views, obtaining peer reviewed research that would support the assignment would be difficult. It is available, and more is becomming available every week.
Because there is no scientific proof that human activity contributes in any way to the warming of the earth (see, e.g., http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/atmospheric-solar-heat-amplifier-discovered) and, in fact, the earth has been in a period of cooling for at least the last decade, the idea that a teacher should be disciplined for teaching his students the truth is asinine.
Ash Anderson,
A very eloquent post if I do say so. But you need to pull your head out of the sand and realize that it’s not just the radical extremists like Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh that are pointing out the facts. Cognitive Dissonance compels you to defend what Al Gore et al purport to be a moral imperative, but there is more to this issue if dig deeper.
They told us that as the Arctic melted it would continue to melt more due to less reflective sea ice available. But the ice went from a minimum in 2007 to nearly 1.5 million square KMs more today. How can that be? Without the reflective ice the waters were to get warmer and melt MORE ice, not less. http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.jpg
They say that Arctic temperatures are rising 2.5 times faster than the rest of the planet. Yet the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) tells us that Arctic temperatures have been stable since 1958. Check out the compiled animation of Arctic temps dating back to ’58.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/04/dmi-arctic-temperature-data-animation-doesnt-support-claims-of-recent-arctic-warming/
We are told that the warmer the oceans get the more CO2 will trap the heat in the atmosphere causing the planet to warm. It turns out that the warmer the oceans get, the more heat is radiated into space. If climate models assume the former vs the latter, then their validity is called into question.
http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/seminars/pdfs/lindzen.choi.grl.2009.pdf (p.3 – Figure 2)
The AGW community tells us that since the air isn’t warming any more that the ocean must be taking up all the heat and will release it at some future date. In fact there is evidence from the Argo network that says there is no heat build up. http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/Marine_Atlas.html
In the end, there appears to be more science and uncertainty than we are being told by the MSM. And I have yet to hear anyone try to explain these facts away. Instead it is more common for someone to come out and say, “we needed to correct that data.” And then the original data just seems to vanish. Reproducible science that follows the scientific method is what we should be striving for. There should be no secrets. http://www.sott.net/articles/show/191265-McIntyre-versus-Jones-climate-data-row-escalates
So torture your teacher if you must, but I would feel more comfortable knowing whether spending our money or mitigation is practical or, in the event climate is beyond our control, should we save it for adaptation.
MrC
Of course Climate Change is a load of hot air, It’s just the latest in a long line of scare stories put forward by the media and politicians. Previous disasters that never were include new mini ice age, BSE, salmonella, organised satanic child abuse, y2k etc etc. As long as these stories sell papers and throw the spot light on politicians, they’ll keep inventing new ones. When the hysteria of man made global warming eventually dies out. They’ll invent a new scare to sell more papers and make politicians look important.
Harbinger stole my thunder. Yes the teacher is wrong to force his or her opinion on the students and by the same token so is any teacher who pushes the AGW agenda. It’s the double standard that troubles me. Nothing good ever comes from indoctrination.
The debate is over. The “teacher” should be fired as should all others who speak out against the consensus.
Why are we so upset that teachers give out assignments to students to build an argument for a position they don’t necessarily agree with? This is Forensics 101. You don’t know whether it was an exercise in argument, a scientific debate, or “indoctrination.”
What are you so scared of? Are you frightened that your righteous theory of “Earth Good, Man Bad” may actually have some evidence against it? Do you need AGW to be correct?
If the “debate is over” then these kids will all fail the assignment, because they will be unable to find evidence for the proposed position. Ah…I see the source of your concern…..
I have to agree with you on one point: unless this is a debate class (where your position is chosen for you and you must defend it), the prompt is unacceptable. You should have to choose a side and support it with factual evidence. Both sides are supportable in an argument.
The world is warming, but there is no direct evidence that CO2 is responsible. Models say that CO2 is the cause, but climate models have a very poor power for prediction, and even if they modeled the past perfectly (which they do not), that is no guarantee of future performance.
Now, in the action, there are also conflicting viewpoints. The costs of carbon reduction are high, and when you are talking the affairs of states, costs are measured in lives. Every penny spent on an expensive, unreliable solar panels versus a cheap, reliable gas generator or even cheaper charcoal fires (now illegal in Chad, by the way) is one penny less that can be spent building roads, paying doctors, or getting medicines. Carbon restrictions will greatly increase the costs of many goods, and people will die because of it. Global warming, on the other hand, has positive aspects as well as negatives. The positives are shown in historical records: longer growing seasons, more water-efficient crops (due to higher CO2 levels), and general prosperity due to mild winters. The negatives are less well-supported historically and are primarily based off estimated changes in rainfall. The extreme claims are just stupid (polar bears can live without ice, Venusification ignores little things like the entire fossil record, and the ocean is too heavily buffered to change its pH more than a few hundredths of a point) and shouldn’t even be mentioned.
Based on historical data (and a good measure of back-of-the-envelope linear extrapolation, which is arguably MORE accurate than complex modeling due to fewer locaitons for error), I believe that we are safe in assuming that warming from CO2 will be small, less than 3F over the next century assuming that CO2 has been responsible for all of the past century’s warming. At this level, the costs associated with carbon reduction greatly exceed the costs of letting it warm. As the costs are ultimately paid in human blood, I think that it is best to let it be.
I did favor the anti-side a bit highly there; a balanced scientific paper would present both sides in greater detail, but I felt that it was important that you hear a counterpoint. Climate change is a debatable subject, both in its source and what should be done.
As a student in the ’60s I took a debate class in which we were first required to prepare arguments on side A of a specific issue. We would debate thusly. Then we were required to prepare arguments on the opposite side, and debate from the opposite side.
Learning to rigorously consider *both* sides was excellent training in critical thinking, something which seems to have fallen out of fashion. Fortunately I had the example of my uncle, who was educated in a Jesuit College and had thus mastered the technique of switching sides in the middle of an argument, to encourage me.
I see the *objections* to the teacher’s assignment to be indicative of the real problem, the widespread unwillingness to consider both sides of an issue.
To the author, ask yourself this, “Why do I believe that global warming is man-made, is unprecendented and will result in catastrophy unless we do something?” Consider today to be the first day on your journey to true enlightenment. If you earnestly try to find the answer to that question with an open mind you just might be surprised at what you find.
@harbinger -
You are most probably correct. I somehow doubt – based on the tone of the author’s post – that this kind of grave concern was or will be levied if and when Gore’s film is played in the school. However, I would argue that it is often a valuable exercise in critical thinking to attempt to argue a position you might disagree with. I recall receiving several such assignments during my school career and having my position assigned for me. Doing this forces a student to learn how a good argument is structured so that they can be a more critical thinker and a more persuasive debater in real life.
As to the specifics of the author’s apparent position; this post appears to use the typical strawman often used when trying to quell debate on the topic of anthropogenic global climate change (nee warming). Almost NONE of the legitimate skeptical scientists refute the overwhelming evidence that the Earth has warmed over the course of the last couple of centuries. While the skeptics seem to be more interested in the various cooling interludes than the proponents are, there is actually very little disagreement about the data that the Earth is warmer than it was.
However, the skeptics are not “denying” the warming. What they are questioning – and where there is substantial doubt about the interpretation of the available data – is that human activity is even noticably responsible for the accepted and admitted warming. It is unfortunate that the author does not realize or acknowledge this important distinction that properly frames the required debate and which makes the observation that, “[the] governor wants to figure out how credible scientific evidence is by measuring it against the impact it has on your wallet” very reasonable. If people are not causing the warming, then how can we be expected to stop it?
First and foremost, regardless of what you believe about Global Warming, this is not the manner in which you debate a scientific topic. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Sadly, however this is not the authors objection. Furthermore what his objection IS is sad and pathetic.
The author insists throughout the article that Global Warming is an indisputable fact. Meanwhile the topic of the article is that someone IS disputing it, and THE GOVERNOR OF THEIR STATE AGREES. Clearly the author has already been indoctrinated to the alarmist point of view. Here he is repeating the usual talking points, apparently oblivious that he is reporting on ACTUAL FACTUAL events that contradict them. Unphased by this he goes on to specifically call this out as indoctrination, when it is actually FREE THINKING. Indoctrination is telling someone that the accepted version should never be questioned (exactly what HE is doing). An exercise forcing you to see someone else’s point of view is quite the exact opposite. He is also apparently unaware of who holds the opposite point of view. Through the entire article he seems flabbergasted that ANYONE would question Global Warming. Meanwhile, weekly polls show that some 50% of Americans don’t buy it or believe the facts are misrepresented.
I do love this article though because it gives a glimpse of what I have predicted for a while. The alarmists, through heavy alarmism have given some legs to this issue. However when called on the facts they have dodged, ducked, and asserted a great many falsehoods. But this “logical ponzi scheme” can only go on for so long. Eventually points have to tie in. Eventually the implications of the assertions must also be proven, and the implications of those assertions proven as well. This is how real science works. And since Global Warming is Pop Junkscience, I knew it wouldn’t be long before the whole issue imploded on its lack of logic. The authors incredible contradictions are just one such example of that. Note that he cannot talk about the “issue” as he has been indoctrinated to it, in the context of reality, without everything being a bold and blatant contradiction and all lines of logic being reduced to single points. You get what you pay for…
I wish this article was 100 pages long. If everyone got a real glimpse of the lunacy fostered by the hardcore “Greens” then maybe we could get this albatross off of our necks, our economy, and our policies once and for all.
Unless this was a debate class, the prompt was unacceptable, and it should have been a “take a position” paper. If it was a debate class, then it is perfectly acceptable.
There is a logical and reasonable argument that the costs of carbon mitigation are worse than the costs of global warming. The costs are concrete (energy poverty, the entire population much poorer), but the benefits uncertain at best (how certain are you of being able to eliminate warming). Certainly, the worst possible case is the one our governments are trying to impose, where carbon reduction schemes undermine our ability to adapt, enrich the trading markets, and delay CO2 by mere days.
One thing I’ve learned in the year or two since graduation. While the “do something” instinct is strong, very often the “do nothing” option is your best bet, especially when “something” is extremely disruptive. It isn’t very fulfilling, but it’s the right thing to do.
The class was not a debate class. The teacher was genuinely requiring students to prove that global warming was false. This was not a critical thinking assignment. According to one student, he said that a “devils advocate” paper would not be accepted. (That is, a paper supporting global warming.)
The homework does not require students to “prove that global warming is a hoax”. It specifically requires the student to identify myths popular in the public debate associated with the case in favour, of which even an IPCC scientist would admit there are plenty, and to discuss claims of “major catastrophe” in the media, which is distinct from global warming and projections of climate change by responsible scientists.
Some example could be the myth that the greenhouse effect operates on the same physical principles as a greenhouse, which was proven to be incorrect in 1909 by Prof. Wood, or that short term weather variations (less than 30 years) in geographically small areas (less than continental size) are “proof” of global warming. By exactly the same reasoning that unusually cold weather events are not evidence of global cooling, neither are unusually warm ones. You have to collect statistics on a global scale for many decades to detect the signal.
An example of catastrophism could be the persistent claims of sea level rises of many metres over the coming 50-100 years. An Australian media personality, Robyn Williams, even predicted 100 metres this century. By contrast, the IPCC projected up to a maximum of 59 centimetres, plus some uncertainty regarding the glacial contribution.
Pointing out that there are myths and exaggerations of global warming does not necessitate contradicting the science or proving it to be a hoax, nor mislead students. Science itself is based on critical scepticism, and good science can withstand challenges – indeed, it can only prove itself to be good science by doing so. (See some of the Nobel prize winner Richard Feynman’s thoughts on this: http://eshlemanw.tripod.com/FeynmanR.html .) The scientific approach requires that statements are judged on their accuracy, not on whether they support your case, and a supportive statement that is not correct should be pointed out with the same energy as an opposing one. Otherwise they act as Trojan horses, weakening your defences and undermining your credibility.
Political AGW sceptics are quite happy for the media to exaggerate and falsify the case for global warming. It hands them easy ammunition to cast doubt. As a climate activist, it is in your interests to get the media to stop doing it, and stick to evidence-based science. Whatever the intentions this schoolteacher might have had for the homework, it offers a genuine opportunity to improve the debate without contradicting the science. Take it.
“Insane indoctrination.” “Ethical violation.” These are strong words.
In high school I belonged to the debating club. A statement was declared and then half of us were required to argue “for” and the other half were required to argue “against.”
One’s personal views were irrelevant. The point was to explore the topic from both sides, to discover the strengths and weaknesses of both points-of-view.
“Know thy enemy” has long been a truism. If one doesn’t understand what motivates other people, how they think, it’s unlikely one will be successful either at reaching a mutually-satisfactory agreement with them – or in even effectively countering their arguments.
Cartoonish stereotypes are no substitute for genuine knowledge. And stifling alternative points of view is never a good idea.
The teacher should have done the following –
Split the class into 2 groups
One group would write a paper in support of human caused climate change and the other group would write their paper denying human caused climate change.
Some rules would have to be imposed, though, to eliminate the results of pseudo-scientist research -
All articles, referenced, must have been published in from peer-reviewed scientific, by a recognized climate scientist.
(a list of legitimate scientific organizations would be provided by the teacher)
Once the papers are turned in, the teacher will have to spend many hours verifying the source of the information, presented in the papers and appropriate grades awarded.
Next, there would need to be a debate, among the students, to defend their positions, as presented in their papers.
The teacher will need to show no bias and, yet, be knowledgeable of all of the facts and myths surrounding climate change.
I believe that that will be a difficult assignment for any teacher.
The grading will have to be subjective and probably each student will be given an “A” for participating and an “F” for non-participating.
It wouldn’t be fair to the participating students, denying man-made climate change, to give them an “F”, since they won’t be able to prove their case, within the rules, so they will get an “A” as well.