… a backlash against the inclusion of climate science – and anthropogenic climate change in particular – in the science classroom is under way. For example, when West Virginia became the thirteenth state to adopt the NGSS in December 2014, it was discovered that beforehand a member of the state board of education successfully called for changes that downplayed climate change… Nationally, according to a survey of 555 K–12 teachers who teach climate change, 36% were pressured to teach “both sides” of a supposed scientific controversy, and 5% were required to do so.

I interviewed Minda Berbeco, who is the Programs and Policy Director at the National Center for Science Education, about climate change in the classroom.

Question: Should Earth System Science (which would include climate change) become one of the core areas of science teaching in high schools? If so, are there efforts underway to move this along?

Answer: Absolutely, Earth systems are a core concept in the Next Generation Science Standards, which are being adopted across the country right now. Understanding Earth systems is central to understanding the world around us, and intersects every other type of science from biology to chemistry to physics. Climate change is, of course, an important piece of understanding Earth systems, as it too intersects these other topics and is a compelling topic that relates directly to how humans can impact the planet.

Question: My background is more in biology but as a palaeoanthropologist I’ve studied several areas of what would might be classified as “Earth Science” or even “Physical Science” so I’m more comfortable with a cross disciplinary approach. Since climate change is normally considered a physical science (in college or advanced studies) and high schools tend to stick with the silos (clearly defined disciplines), shouldn’t we expect climate change be taught in physical sciences or geology rather than biology?

Answer: As a biologist, I’m always really surprised by this question, as there are many people who think that climate change only intersects the Earth sciences. This is a very one-dimensional view and completely ignores not only how climate affects organisms and ecosystems, but also how organisms and ecosystems in turn affect climate. It turns out that many biology teachers across the country agree with me, since we are finding that a significant number of them are teaching about climate change, even when it is not in their state’s science standards.

Question: I think it might be true that among high school science teachers, we see denialism of evolution to a higher degree among physical science teachers than biology teachers. This may not matter too much since evolution is rarely taught in physical science classes, though it certainly can be disparaged or denied there. Since climate change might fall under the preview of physical sciences in some curricula (as would geology and earth systems), will we see a larger amount of, or a new kind of, conflict among the teachers themselves as climate science is more widely addressed? (and by extention among administrators whom we need to support teachers under fire)

Answer: I’m not sure who challenges evolution more, physical science teachers or biology teachers – obviously because evolution is more often covered in biology classes, that is where we tend to hear about it. As for climate change, the challenges that we see actually have less to do with outright denial, and more with teachers genuinely not realizing what the evidence shows or trying to bring in “both sides” as a critical thinking exercise, knowing that the evidence clearly demonstrates that humans are largely responsible for recent climate change. We don’t have students debate “both sides” of whether mermaids exist or that viruses cause disease, so why would we do it with climate change? Plus there are far better questions to ask about climate change, like how it will impact animal migration or the spread of disease, that scientists are actually asking. Why not have students study that?

Question: You note that the motivations for denying evolution vs. for denying climate change are different. But given that there is a link between certain political affiliations and things like secularism (or anti-secularism) there is some overlap in who is involved and to some extent why they deny science. (Denying science is convenient for a lot of reasons.) Are you concerned about future alliances forming in the anti-science world that may strengthen attacks on climate science in public schools?

Answer: Certainly there is cross-over between different groups who disagree with what the scientific consensus shows on climate change and evolution, and alliances can form as a result of that. This can backfire as well though, as many people who deny climate change would bristle at the thought of working with a creationist. They have somehow convinced themselves that with regard to climate change they know better than the overwhelming majority of the scientific community, but when it comes to evolution, of course the scientists are right. It’s a little mind-boggling to imagine, but it is something that we’ve seen quite a bit.

Question: Both evolution and climate science are brought into social sciences (or other non-hard science areas) in schools in the form of debate topics. (see below) Typically these approaches involve the presumption of there really being a debate. Which there isn’t. Is NCSE monitoring this, or addressing this problem in any way?

Answer: We definitely pay attention to these sorts of things, and we are not fans of students debating “both sides” of the science, as it elevates non-science to the same level as science. Although having students debate the science of climate change is clearly counterproductive, having students debate issues in climate change policy is fine. There are a lot of options, from energy efficiency to carbon taxes, making it an ideal topic for a social studies or government class. Climate change is an issue that students will have to deal with as adults, so it makes sense to try to give them practice in a government class on how they will navigate the policy decisions that will need to be made. We’ve seen science teachers connect with social studies teachers to address this issue, where the students learn the actual scientific evidence in their science class and then debate the policy options in their social studies class. This is a totally appropriate approach and is an interesting way of showing students how science can inform policy.

Question: I think nearly all biology teachers know that the official line is that evolution is for real, so even if a biology teacher is a creationist they know that they are going off script to deny (or avoid) evolution. Is this true for climate change? Are teachers who have classes that might include climate science all aware of the fact that climate change is not a scientific issue (it is mainly well established science)? Or are many of these teachers under the impression that there is a debate?

Answer: Unfortunately, there have been many groups who have spent a lot of time and money attempting to undermine the science in the public’s eye, and teachers are just as susceptible to these efforts as anyone else. We’ve rarely run into a teacher who has malicious intent when teaching incorrect information about climate change. What we find more often is that they are not familiar with the evidence or take it on as a critical thinking exercise, having students debate “both sides”. Like I said earlier, we are not big fans of this approach.

For those interested in resources that might be useful to science teachers, or the parents of kids in public schools, see THIS PAGE. For those who wish to know more about the activities of the NCSE, or who are concerned about anything going on in your local school or your child’s classroom, visit the NCSE web site. Also, please not that the NCSE Climate Change Bumper Sticker contest is still seeking submissions!

From the NCSE

Climate change deniers have faced a similarly impressive foe: Michael Mann, Distinguished Professor of Meteorology at Penn State. More than almost anyone else, Mann has been the public face of climate science. The author of more than 160 peer-reviewed papers, Mann has appeared before countless Congressional committees, battled climate change deniers in court, and written breakthrough books (such as The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars). Along the way, Mann co-authored the report that won the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. NCSE’s Friend of the Planet award will join a crowded trophy case.

Congratulations Michael!

Here’s a few videos:

But I think I know what Genie would say if she heard me say that. The NCSE will be fine without her, Ann Reid is going to do great, etc. etc. And, I’m sure that is all true, owing both to Ann Reid being an excellent choice of Executive Director, and because Genie and the other staff at NCSE have done an excellent job.

Here’s part of the announcement of the change in leadership, which happened yesterday:

Ann Reid is joining NCSE as Executive Director, starting January 2, 2014. She will replace Eugenie C. Scott, who has led NCSE in fighting the good fight for science education for 27 years.

As a molecular biologist at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, she co-led the team that sequenced the 1918 flu virus—an effort that was hailed as “a watershed event for influenza researchers worldwide.” She then served as a Senior Program Officer at the National Research Council’s Board on Life Sciences for five years and then, most recently, as director of the American Academy of Microbiology. In both roles she oversaw major efforts aimed at communicating science to the public. And as its director, Reid oversaw all of the operations of the American Academy of Microbiology, from coordinating scientific research and publishing technical reports to communicating with the public and organizing dozens of scientific meetings.

“Ann is the consummate cat herder,” says Margaret McFall-Ngai, Professor of Medical Microbiology and Immunology at University of Wisconsin. “She’s thoughtful, creative, and handles people with respect and finesse. But she’s no pushover. She knows how to take charge, aided by her broad historic understanding of the issues and the science.”

As a researcher and communicator, Reid has authored scores of peer-reviewed research papers, National Research Council reports, and FAQ documents, ranging from “Origin and Evolution of the 1918 ‘Spanish’ Influenza Virus Hemagglutinin Gene” to the popular brochure If the Yeast Ain’t Happy, Ain’t Nobody Happy: The Microbiology of Beer.

“Ann is a spectacular biologist,” says Indy Burke, Director of the Haub School of Environment and Natural Resources at the University of Wyoming. “She’s been at the forefront of scientific synthesis and communication about the most important issues facing the life sciences today—especially life sciences education and the ecological impacts of climate change.”

Reid came to microbiology via a circuitous route, first earning degrees in environmental science and advanced international studies. After several years as a policy analyst, she took a research technician job at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. “That’s when I fell in love with science,” says Reid. “Working there, I finally came to appreciate the power, the beauty, and the joy of science. That’s a big reason why I think that science education is so important—so students can share that experience while they’re learning.”

Reid joins NCSE at a time when the integrity of science education is constantly under attack. In 2013 alone, legislation was introduced in seven states that would allow teachers to misrepresent “controversial” topics, including evolution and/or climate change. “It is crucial, now more than ever, for students to understand evolution and climate science,” Reid commented. “I am excited at the prospect of helping NCSE to continue its important work in ensuring that these topics are taught properly—accurately, thoroughly, and without ideological interference.”

And Genie Scott expressed her confidence in Reid’s ability to do so. “Her stint as a research scientist grounds her in what science is and what scientists do. Her work at the National Research Council connected her with the top scientists in the country. And her experience as the director of a non-profit organization provides her with invaluable knowhow,” she said, adding, “I have no doubt that attacks on science education will continue. But with Reid at the helm, I have no doubt that NCSE will continue to be at the forefront of the defense.”

Around Halloween, thousands of science teachers, science professors, and graduate students received copies of a slick packet attacking climate science. A prominent climate change denial group sent teachers a booklet which mimics a real scientific report, and a cover letter slyly urging recipients to “use that work to inform your thinking—and your students—on this important issue.”NIPCC mailing contents, including envelope, cover letter from Diane Carol Bast, “Climate Change Reconsidered II” booklet, and a postcard offering a chance to “Win $500”

The NCSE is trying to assess how bad the damage is and they would like your help. Please CLICK HERE and visit the NCSE sit and let them know whether or not you receive the package.

Far more people are climate change deniers than evolution deniers, but both camps use similar strategies to promote their views. Genie Scott explores the connections, the similarities, and the divergent ideologies. Where: New York. When: 10/23/2011. Hosted by the New York City Skeptics.

Genie was Julia’s grandfather’s undergraduate advisee, and back in the day, was a key influence on my personal interest in creationism (and the fighting thereof). Thank you Genie for everything.

She’ll be missed. Although maybe she’s not really going away, just doing other great things.

There are more details here, as well as info on the job announcement, in case you were looking for something new!

The “new” part of “New Atheism” to me has always been this: You are willing to get up into some dude’s face to make your argument because religion, with its centuries of experience in being on the scene for every aspect of everyone’s life every minute of every day, is already there in the face making its argument. The new atheist response to being told to quiet down is to point out that being told to quiet down (or be more civil or follow certain rules) is step one (or two) in a series of steps that the established religio-normative culture routinely uses to end the argument and let things get back to what they think is normal. So instead of compromising on how the rhetoric is produced, you go in harder and sharper and become Argumentative, Aggressive, and Generally Dickish.

In case you’ve not noticed, there is a renewed and much enlivened discussion on the blogosphere regarding this issue and you should have a look at it.

Jerry Coyne of Why Evolution is True produced an open letter with the option of commenters signing on. The letter is to the National Center for Science Education and the British Center for Science Education identifying “misguided attacks by people like Josh Rosenau, Roger Stanyard, and Nick Matzke” … attacks on atheism. PZ Myers indicated that he agreed with the idea that the National Center for Science Education has “lost its way” in their seeming need “to coddle religious believers because they need them to support science.” And the drama continues from there.

Here is a carnival of posts addressing this issue or helping to contextualize it, in order of posting date. We start with a shocker from Chris Mooney in which he supports New Atheism, which is here because it is referred to by later posts, and work our way through the discussion.

21 April 2011 Psych Evidence that Supports New Atheism (The Intersection)

In general, I believe what we know about human psychology runs contrary to the New Atheist approach and strategy. However,… here’s a study that suggest at least one aspect of their approach may work. … making it more widely known that you’re actually there-as “out” atheists try to do

22 April 2011 Too few people know that they know an atheist (Josh Rosenau, Thoughts from Kansas)

I actually think Chris is being too nice to New Atheism here, which is rather remarkable. As I’ve said before, it’s hardly surprising that making a group more visible is a better way to build public acceptance than being less visible, and I support efforts to increase atheism’s visibility. But New Atheism is hardly the only way for atheists – or nontheists more generally – to get the word out that they’re here and want to be taken seriously.

22 April 2011 The Support of New Atheism (Almost Diamonds)

Enter the New Atheists. Enter the loud-mouthed confrontationalists who aren’t going to see people behave that way without doing their best to make it quite clear that this behavior in unacceptable. Enter the support team, the cheering squad, the clearers of obstacles. Enter the people who, as PZ Myers’ described his role last year at CONvergence, get angry for those of who aren’t allowed to.

23 April 2011 A bright spot at The Chronicle and an open letter (Jerry Coyne, Why Evolution is True blog)

The official policy of your organizations–certainly of the NCSE–is apparently to cozy up to religion. You have “faith projects,” you constantly tell us to shut up about religion, and you even espouse a kind of theology which claims that faith and science are compatible. Clearly you are going to continue with these activities, for you’ve done nothing to change them in the face of criticism. And your employees, past and present, will continue to heap invective on New Atheists and tar people like Richard Dawkins with undeserved opprobrium.

24 April 2011 Jerry Coyne’s open letter (Pharyngula)

I really feel that the NCSE has lost its way on this issue. I want to support the NCSE, but it has become increasingly hard to do. I have heard these arguments over and over again that they have to coddle religious believers because they need them to support science. They don’t.

25 April 2011 Watch those assumptions (Ophelia Benson)

… it’s pretty clear that what Rosenau is doing here is simply assuming that “New Atheism” means “atheism that is rude and aggressive and strident and mean.” That is one assumption too many.

25 April 2011 Jerry Coyne has another go at the NCSE and BCSE (British Center for Science Education)

If Atheist scientists really want to drive undecidedc Christians, into the YEC camp then this, surely is the correct way to go about it. Seems that according to some, science=Atheism and that’s that.

April 26, 2011 The BCSE blows up (Pharyngula)

That open letter to the NCSE by Jerry Coyne really seems to have set the cat among the pigeons — it’s an amazing flurry of ruffled feathers. I don’t see how there’s any hope of reconciliation, either, as long as the apologists for religion continue to be as obtuse as they have been.

26 April 2011 Why I’ve avoided commenting on Nisbet’s ‘Climate Shift’ report (David Roberts, Grist)

…[i]t argued that, contrary to what most people think, pro-climate-bill forces spent more than their opponents, media coverage of climate science has been generally fair, and Al Gore is just as responsible as Republicans for politicizing the subject of climate change. …

26 April 2011 Argumentative, Aggressive, and Generally Dickish (Almost Diamonds)

What to remember when you’ve said that confrontational atheists have made it harder for you to make progress on your shared goals, and some atheist has gotten (eek, gasp, shock, horror, blah, blah, blah) rude with you. This is particularly true for the endless argument over promoting science.

26 April 2011 Be really nice to the people who are telling you to hush (Ophelia Benson)

Stephanie Z has an excellent comment on Josh Rosenau’s post about how I’m totally wrong about what he means by “the New Atheism.”

27 April 2011 Definitions (Ophelia Benson)

The question is, how do we decide what “new atheism” is? What is new atheism, who gets to decide, how do we know? … The answer turns out to be that we simply define it as that which we dislike. Easy. Circular, but easy.

28 April 2011 Taking it Downhill (Almost Diamonds)

…All these pesky crusaders, who just won’t shut up, who won’t just go with the flow for a bit so things can get done, so the people with the keys to the kingdom will give us just a little bit more. Ugh! What is to be done with people so rude, so demanding, so mean?!?…A gatekeeper’s job is to keep people out, not to let them in.

29 April 2011 True Equivalence (Almost Diamonds)

… false equivalence is the only reason to compare “New Atheist” communications to fundamentalist positions. Confronting religion head on is no more “mean,” “distorting,” or “prejudicial” toward the religious than mainstream religious messaging is toward atheists. Need examples? …

01 May 2011 Punching “New Atheists” (Almost Diamonds)

… there is nothing like a brawl among secularists to get people to sit up and pay attention. Sounds good, right? All press is good press and all that? Well, that depends on your goals …

As is often the case, Stephanie Zvan at Almost Diamonds has threaded the conversation into a series of connected posts. There is a lot more written about this topic on each cited blog, so if you visit one post be sure to look up and down stream to see what is there. Josh Rosenau’s writings are under-represented here for reasons of linkosity effects, so do glance through his stuff.

I am a “New Atheist” and not an accommodationist. I have a long history of fighting accommodationists, but it is also true that some New Atheists dislike me presumably because they notice me working, frequently, with the NCSE. Some of this has to do with reading comprehension (Larry Moran, the old curmudgeon whom we all know and love, has yet to read past the first sentence in a paragraph, as far as I can tell), and also, don’t mistake invective slung from the usual misanthropic delusional sociopaths that populate the more confused quarters of the Internet for something other than the self serving drek it is. But the fact that I’ve taken it in the neck from both sides does not change my point of view that multiple strategies are needed to even stay in, let alone win, this fight. The point should not be for you to hear your own shrill voice or your own soothing voice, as the case may be. It should be to find success in keeping creationism out of schools, religion out of government, and allowing non believers to not have to walk on eggs, of the easter variety or otherwise.

While atheism seems to have recently gained some ground, no camp in the game of evolution vs. creationism can claim that they know how that fight should be carried out. Why do I say that? Because no one has shown any real success. The same percentage of people in the US and many other countries oppose or resist evolution today as 20 or 30 years ago. Accommodating the religious has not worked, strident atheism has not worked. What has worked is winning court cases, and that success, while important, has not won the minds (or hearts) of the people, just a few judges. Which is good, but not good enough.

I mentioned before that my definition of accommodationism is about content and not form. Let me explain. There are a lot of areas where people who study evolution, or are atheists (speaking here of parallel but separate conditions, not necessarily connected) can give allowances to the “other side.” A policy regarding teaching evolution may be to equivocate on or even ignore issues regarding the origin of life on Earth, or issues regarding human evolution. Let the religious people have their god at the moment of creation, and let their god guide the history of humans in their transformation from ape to us. For everything else, science. That is, to me, true accommodationism. It is also vile and unacceptable. The counter argument to such rubbish needs to be loud and clear, and if that means aggressive and dickish, then so be it.

Another accommodating policy might be to keep your mouth shut when you find yourself embedded in a religious presumptive context. Atheists experience these things all the time, but especially around the religious holidays. If you have a problem with alcohol or need group therapy for some reason, it may be difficult for you to find a support group that does not engage in constant reference to god or spirituality or some such thing. Accommodation, in this case, equals silence. Silence is bad.

I am certain that a number of people in this debate that are labeled Accommodationists do not have any intention of giving away any part of the store with respect to evolution (such as origins or the human species). I’m also pretty sure that their interest in working with religious groups is misguided and a waste of time in most cases, maybe all cases. And, I’m pretty sure that their desire to tell the strident and in-your-face atheists to shut up is a waste of energy.

And in the end, they are all wrong to be engaged in this debate about how to debate. Multiple strategies work better than single narrowly defined strategies. Write a letter to the editor but be ready to yield the protest sign. Maybe even a little civil disobedience. Join a union but be prepared to quit your job, if the issue of the day is very important.

You know the good cop/bad cop routine? In that approach, each cop expresses his or her dislike for the other cop to the suspect. This is a ruse. They actually like each other, and they may actually take turns being good cop vs. bad cop. (To the extent these things actually happen … I’m using a fictional metaphor here.) When the NCSE gets a coalition going with some religious group, New Atheists should not run after them shouting that they are doing it wrong. They should, rather, smile to themselves and say “Well, maybe it will work …. we’ll talk about it later in private and share our thoughts on that.” When PZ Myers writes a strident and aggressive blog post about some yahoo insisting that textbooks in the local school district be labeled with anti-evolution disclaimers, the “Accommodationists” (they don’t call themselves that) should not run after them tsk-tsking (somehow I imagine the accommodationists tsking and the new atheists screaming). Rather, they should say to themselves “Glad he’s doing that, because he’s so good at it. We’ll have to talk about these tactics some time over a beer, exchange ideas and thoughts about how to win this fight we area all on the same side in.”

When colleagues on the same side of your fight but with a different approach do something that makes you hold your nose, consider the possibility that you should just hold your nose and keep on with your own part of the fight, rather than stopping your productive engagement of the style you chose and pouncing on them so they also have to stop their productive engagement. Be ecumenical, as it were. They are, and it makes them stronger. We aren’t and it makes us weaker. Duh.

One problem with the call for multiple approaches is that to New Atheists, it will sound like they are being told to shut up. If that is one’s philosophy, then one might want to ask if one’s philosophy is the tail wagging the dog. Just sayin’

The NCSE now has a channel on You Tube, and at this time you can see most, probably all, of Genie’s testimony in Texas. It is very instructive.

GENIE SCOTT IS A MACHINE!!!

Here you’ll find reports from the evolution/creationism wars — footage of contentious testimony, landmark and illuminating speeches, conference coverage, excerpts from television appearances, and presentations. In the future, look for classroom videos, tutorials for teachers, videos contributed by NCSE members, and much more.

When you visit our YouTube channel, check out a couple of key areas. At top right you’ll see the latest, hot video. (In this case, executive director Genie Scott explaining evolution to the Texas Board of Education.) Below this video window you’ll see the Playlist area. We’ve broken down our initial offerings into different categories–Genie Scott’s testimony before the Texas Board of Education; the board’s chairman, Don McLeroy, expounding on why evolution is false; and some light-hearted coverage of our recent Project Steve celebration.

Please explore the site, tell us what you like (and don’t), and suggest improvements and changes.

CONTACT: Robert Luhn of the NCSE, 510-601-7203, luhn@ncseweb.org

Web site: www.ncseweb.org

YouTube page: http://www.youtube.com/NatCen4ScienceEd.

To see more news from NCSE, go to: http://ncseweb.org/news