Meddling with Science Education

Now the educators are politicizing the “science” to be taught our children.  Newly released national science standard “proposals” will include the pseudo-science of manmade climate change as a “core concept.”

The new standards claim

Human activities, such as the release of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels, are major factors in the current rise in Earth’s mean surface temperature (global warming)

without any regard for the lack of actual science, or even data, to support that thesis.

On the other hand, some of the objections to this politicization miss the point and, if these objections are the ones that successfully defeat the nonsense, they’ll create their own problems.  There is, for instance, the worry that

the very presence of climate change instruction in classrooms will create controversy.

So what?  That actually would be beneficial.  A proper handling of the controversy (of any controversy, come to that) would constitute an excellent mechanism for teaching critical thinking, to say nothing of the opportunity to teach the social aspects of dealing with controversial matters.

We’re Moving in the Right Direction

At least on some things.  A Fox News poll, taken just after the recent Boston Marathon terrorist bombing had these results, among others (the full poll is at a link in the article).

On the question of trading some personal freedom for an increase in personal safety, Americans had this to say:

7. Would you be willing to give up some of your personal freedom in order to reduce the threat of terrorism?

Yes

No

(Don’t know)

16 Apr 13

43%

45

12

This compares with past results:

16-18 May 06

54%

36

10

10-11 Jan 06

61%

27

13

26-27 Jul 05

64%

21

15

8-9 Sep 02

61%

24

15

4-5 June 02

64%

21

15

17-18 Oct 01

71%

20

9

Those October 2001 results are just after the terrorists crashed the Twin Towers, damaged the Pentagon, and attacked (unsuccessfully, via United Airlines Flight 93) the White House.  Americans are recalling Benjamin Franklin’s remarks on that tradeoff, that without personal freedom, there is no security.  At all.