I teach a class for students in the honors program. It is a science class (biology) but the students can be from any major. A primary theme of the course is linking basic science to environmental issues.
This week we delved into climate change. The results were very interesting, informative, and I have to say, somewhat unsettling. More below the fold
Before Monday's class I assigned them to read information from various websites that had news about climate change, overviews of the effects of climate change, and information about climate change myths.
I started discussion by asking if anyone could explain the basic model of anthropogenic climate change - i.e. why is it happening?
It turned out that no one in the class could explain the basic idea. There was talk about the ozone layer (I'm aware that ozone layer is associated with climate change but it is not the primary anthropogenic driver)and other things. They knew that CO2 was involved but they couldn't explain why.
As we delved further it became apparent that at least of couple of students were skeptical of AGW. I should point out at this point that all of these students chose to take a course entitled 'Biodiversity and Sustainability' and on the whole they are more concerned and knowledgeable about environmental issues than your average. The students in questions certainly weren't AGW deniers or anti-environmentalists. They felt it was important to act to preserve the environment. They were also convinced that the climate was changing. However they felt there was no way to know that the change was human caused instead of part of a natural cycle. They also felt that the issue was so politicized that every source of information was biased. Although most of them had heard of 'climate-gate' none of them had heard that university panels had exonerated the researchers of any unethical behavior.
The week before a suggestion had been put forward to debate issues in class. So we picked two questions (is climate change natural or human caused and should governments or individuals take the lead in combating climate change) and assigned people to the two sides.
The debates were highly revealing. The second topic, which was an ideological one, was well argued on both sides and it was pretty clear at the end what the pros and cons of each side were. The scientific debate on the cause of climate change was a mess. Neither side could really address the points of the other side. I asked them questions for clarification of scientific details of their arguments which they often couldn't address. I pointed out how additional information could decisively settle many of these questions.
The assignment for next time is for each student to pick one point of scientific contention and do some detailed research. Hopefully this will result in a better understanding of the issues for my class. But I think it points out the real problems with climate change in the political arena.
- The scientific fundamentals of climate change are fairly simple (CO2 absorbs heat but lets light through, CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere, heat is escaping the earth more slowly leading to an increase in mean temperature) but what you mostly hear about are a bunch of technical details which essentially takes the argument away from a place where the average person can judge for themselves.
- Science is comfortable with uncertainty, politics is not. When my students said that it wasn't certain that humans were causing climate change I agreed with them. We have a sample size of one planet and a very complex system that we can't manipulate in any kind of controlled way. However I did point out that we have a model based on very well substantiated physical properties and data that fit that model very well. To a scientist (well most scientists) this is a very compelling argument - the skeptics and deniers don't have an alternative model (that fits the data) explaining why the earth is warming and all the extra CO2 isn't causing it. However this type of argument doesn't go over so well in the political/legal arena where to sound uncertain is a sign of weakness.
In my class I can force my students to focus on the key questions. In the 'real' world there is no one compelling the debaters to stay on topic. How do we get people to embrace uncertainty? How do we get them to put the effort in to have an informed opinion when they mistrust so much of the information around them? My main goal in teaching biology is to get students in a position to make informed decisions. How can we do this outside the classroom?