快猫短视频

Editorial: 鈥�Don鈥檛 cloud young minds鈥�

Update: On 20 February, water expert declared in a statement on The Huffington Post that he was the source of the leaked documents (see below).

Gleick, who is founder and president of the Pacific Institute in Oakland, California, said he had received an anonymous document describing the Heartland Institute鈥檚 climate strategy earlier this year. In an effort to confirm the document, 鈥渁nd in a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics鈥�, , 鈥淚 solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else鈥檚 name鈥�.

Gleick , after the leak became public. He cited 鈥減ersonal, private reasons鈥�.

Main article听听听听听听听听

THE political battle over whether human activity is changing Earth鈥檚 climate is heading for US schools. A conservative organisation is working to develop teaching materials that sow doubt on the scientific consensus over climate change, according to documents leaked last week from the , a libertarian think tank based in Chicago.

What鈥檚 more, a separate informal poll of nearly 2000 Earth science teachers suggests that a significant proportion may prove receptive to contrarian material. Nearly half of respondents reported teaching 鈥渂oth sides鈥� of climate change science of their own volition.

Published peer-reviewed research does not support the existence of two equally weighted 鈥渟ides鈥� to climate science. In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change declared with 90 per cent certainty that human activity is pushing up global temperatures. In 2010, a survey of 1372 climate scientists showed that 97 per cent of those who publish most frequently in the field support this view (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, DOI: ).

The leaked files came to light last week when someone calling themselves 鈥渢he Heartland Insider鈥� emailed several environmental blogs, claiming were confidential documents prepared for the Heartland Institute鈥檚 board. They included details of donors to the organisation over the past decade, plus strategy papers and fundraising plans.

The Heartland Institute has not confirmed the authenticity of any of the documents. It does admit , and has only specifically disavowed one document as false.

In particular, a document entitled 鈥�2012 Fundraising Plan鈥� includes plans to develop a curriculum for US schools that questions the 鈥渁larmist鈥� consensus among climate scientists that human activity is warming the planet. Noting that 鈥減rincipals and teachers are heavily biased toward the alarmist perspective鈥�, the document says Heartland is considering a proposal by educational consultant David Wojick to develop teaching modules casting doubt on human-induced climate change.

High-school students would learn that 鈥渨hether humans are changing the climate is a major scientific controversy鈥�, and that the reliability of climate models 鈥渋s controversial鈥�. Younger students would learn that 鈥渢here is a major controversy over whether humans are changing the weather鈥�.

鈥淪tudents would learn that whether humans are changing the climate is a major controversy鈥�

According to the document, Heartland plans to pay Wojick $5000 per module, and an anonymous donor has pledged the first $100,000 to the project.

Both the Heartland Institute and Wojick confirmed to 快猫短视频 that these plans are under development. Both say Heartland has yet to give final approval. James Taylor, a senior fellow at Heartland, says schools are giving students a false belief that humans are causing global warming, and that the institute 鈥渉opes to restore sound science to the classroom鈥�.

This is not the first time the institute has tried to influence how climate change is taught. In 2009, it distributed 150,000 copies of The Skeptic鈥檚 Handbook by Joanne Nova. According to Nova鈥檚 website, .

These efforts to meddle in education are disturbing, says Roberta Johnson, executive director of the (NESTA) in Boulder, Colorado. 鈥淭he fact that the Heartland Institute specifically mentions that they鈥檙e going to try to make things appear controversial is disheartening. They鈥檙e trying to intentionally make the science seem more doubtful than in fact it is.鈥�

Indeed, US science teachers report that they often meet objections when teaching about climate change (see 鈥淪cience teachers under pressure鈥�). In an conducted by NESTA last year, 36 per cent of 1909 respondents indicated that they had been influenced, either directly or indirectly, to teach 鈥渂oth sides鈥� of climate change; 5 per cent said they were required to do so, rising to 12 per cent in southern states. Nearly half said they choose to because they think there is validity to both sides. In comments, a significant number of teachers said they presented both views so students could decide for themselves, says NESTA. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 a little hard to deal with, because clearly the evidence is all in one direction,鈥� says Johnson.

A , conducted last year by the (NSTA), gave similar results, though with just 53 teachers. In it, 81 per cent of respondents reported that they have faced scepticism about climate change from students, 55 per cent from parents, and 28 per cent from school administrators.

Science teachers are usually fairly good at evaluating evidence, so they should make sound decisions about materials such as those the Heartland Institute is developing, says Francis Eberle of the NSTA in Arlington, Virginia. However, a small proportion of teachers 鈥� 6 per cent in the NESTA survey 鈥� do not believe that global warming is happening and think that climate change is 鈥渏unk science鈥�. For them, Heartland鈥檚 planned teaching materials may form a valuable resource. 鈥淧roviding them with a curriculum that meets the story they want to tell 鈥� they would be highly receptive to that,鈥� says Johnson.