of climate change deniers.
Of course, we're not going to do anything about the problem. Of course not.
What exactly is a "climate change denier"? Is that someone who denies that the climate changes? Would you be so kind as to point to a specific example of someone who has actually said the climate hasn't changed, isn't changing and won't change? I certainly don't know of anyone who is that stupid.
(Although, it does seem that some people think the climate shouldn't change and that, because it is changing, that's a Bad Thing. But those aren't the skeptics.)
Or by "climate change denier" do you mean someone who doesn't believe in future predictions of disaster? If so, could you explain how someone "denies" a future prediction? One either believes a prediction or doesn't believe it but it hasn't happened so there is nothing to "deny" or "accept".
"Deniers will apparently just claim that "95%" of science is bogus"
They will? What's your source on that?
Or is that just a "prediction" based on a computer model?
From its inception, one of the principal goals of science education has been to cultivate students’ scientific habits of mind, develop their capability to engage in scientific inquiry, and teach them how to reason in a scientific context. There has always been a tension, however, between the emphasis that should be placed on developing knowledge of the content of science and the emphasis placed on scientific practices. A narrow focus on content alone has the unfortunate consequence of leaving students with naive conceptions of the nature of scientific inquiry and the impression that science is simply a body of isolated facts.
No matter what one's view is on Climate Change, everyone should object to this chapter's deliberate failure to encourage students to question, investigate, analyze and evaluate the actual data for themselves.
From its inception, one of the principal goals of science education has been to cultivate students’ scientific habits of mind, develop their capability to engage in scientific inquiry, and teach them how to reason in a scientific context.
The idea, they say, is to stress "the importance of developing students’ knowledge of how science and engineering achieve their ends while also strengthening their competency with related practices."
Their "practices for K-12 science classrooms" include things like:
"Asing questions (for science) and defining problems (for engineering)"
"Planning and carrying out investigations"
"Analyzing and interpreting data."
"Engaging in argument from evidence"
But, when they get to the section on "Climate Change", all that goes out the window.
By the end of grade 12, they want students to "know" that
Global climate models are often used to understand the process of climate change because these changes are complex and can occur slowly over Earth’s history. Though the magnitudes of humans’ impacts are greater than they have ever been, so too are humans’ abilities to model, predict, and manage current and future impacts. Through computer simulations and other studies, important discoveries are still being made about how the ocean, the atmosphere, and the biosphere interact and are modified in response to human activities, as well as to changes in human activities. Thus science and engineering will be essential both to understanding the possible impacts of global climate change and to informing decisions about how to slow its rate and consequences—for humanity as well as for the rest of the planet.
How does that stack up with actually teaching science:
How are students supposed to question computer models?
How are students going to investigate computer models?
How are students going to analyze and interpret computer models?
How are students going to engage in argument from computer models?
This is not teaching science. This is teaching trust in authority and their mysterious "climate models". Trust us. Trust our "climate models".
1000 pains = 1 Megahertz