There are a couple of things about this past election that trouble me greatly. Perhaps my greatest concern is the way short term and selfish positions were presented to the public as an acceptable position. Valid and ethical positions were presented as open to other interpretations.<\/p>\n
With climate change, the position argued by the great majority of reputable scientists was brought into questions. How could this be the case in a well educated nation? Here is one of the first explanations that made sense to me (I do encourage you to read the full article<\/a>). This is a great post on why scientific findings are disputed and why scientists seem unable to communicate what science says about important issues.<\/p>\n Why is this so? Why did a scientific issue like climate change become so toxic, so caught up in what we call \u201cthe culture wars\u201d? It is because the social debate around climate change is no longer about carbon dioxide and climate models. It is about values, culture, worldviews, and ideology. As physical scientists explore the mechanics and implications of anthropogenic climate change and try to convey their results to a skeptical public, they must recognize that their work is being evaluated by a population where upwards of two-thirds do not clearly understand the scientific process and fewer are able to pass even a basic scientific literacy test<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Scientist learn to write in a very conservative way. They are typically wary of going beyond their data to make clear pronouncements or recommendations. They write mostly for other scientists who are trained to be eager to criticize and attack should statements that over reach be written. Science is critical and competitive, but this is a good thing. Competition is supposed to bring out the best in science much in the way we assume it brings out the best in athletics.<\/p>\n I don\u2019t know who should be responsible for communicating with voters. This is a task scientists are not well trained or rewarded for. Evidently, the agreement among scientists is not sufficient to convince the public. I cannot help thinking making this connection is what educators should be good at. I understand that taking on controversial issues tends to shut down most educators. However, the climate change issue is politically controversial, it is not scientifically controversial. So, if you signed up to teach science, I think you should teach science<\/strong>.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n