Okay (1), I strongly think that pupils should be taught science with
a much stronger emphasis on its modelling nature, and less as if it
deals with facts. This (IMHO) is one of the major limitations of
current science education.

Okay (2), we really don't know for sure about when, if or how global
warming will proceed.

BUT: given that if global warming due to human activity does occur to
any significant extent - and perhaps much, much quicker than climate
change has done in the past:
a) the world's ecosystems will change significantly;
b) there is likely to be considerable amount of extinction of many
different types of species;
c) this could conceivably include extinction of human beings.

Now (b) is not certain, and (c) certainly (sic) not. We do believe
(i.e. our current models, based on very imperfect knowledge) that (i)
life on earth as it now is (e.g. range and variety) has probably
depended upon the inherent nature of a system which has in-built
checks and balances - i.e. for such a system to evolve and survive
potential catastrophes it would need to have various negative
feedback cycles built ('evolved') in; that (ii) whilst small
perturbations are 'absorbed' by the system, large changes may tend to
switch the system into the next stable state available (where life on
earth continues, but often with a significantly different overall
pattern!); that (iii) Venus provides a model of how an earth-like
planet may turn into a very unearth-like planet when climate change
occurs without the protection of a sufficiently varied and
established biota.

I don't know
how much global warming is occurring;
how much this is due to humans or would be happening anyway;
how much or how quickly the average temp. may be rising;
how much local variation in effect there will be;
how much human-influenced extinctions have weakened the inherent
protective nature of the biosphere;
how much of the world may become more/less habitable for people;
how much the balance of plants that we depend upon will change (e.g.
C3 vs C4? - not my area of expertise);
how likely it is that we may experience 'runaway' effects where
positive feedback cycles becomes more important than the negative
ones - as appears to have made Venus so inhospitable;
etc., etc.

HOWEVER: even if we are unsure (and we need to make that clear to
pupils) let's not just shrug out shoulders and say 'it may not
happen'.

Many regular smokers don't die of smoking related diseases;
Many alcohol abusers are not killed by alcohol realted conditions;
It is possible to have unprotected sexual intercourse with an HIV
positive person without necessarily contracting HIV;
Some regular extreme sun-worshippers do not suffer skin cancers;
Some LSD trips are very positive experiences. etc.

In each of these cases we do not understand all the factors operating
in enough detail to advise pupils on exactly how much of a danger
they (specifically) might be in - so we work with the balance of
probabilities on the basis of best information - and advise pupils
accordingly.

We do not have thousands of earths to observe to judge the true
dangers of global warming - so perhaps we should play safe?

Russian roulette gives some people a thrill, without a bullet in the
brain...at least the first few times.

Or am I missing the point here?


Keith

(Yes, I'm a veggie, often wear sandals, don't have a car, and listen
to those noisy 70s prog records. And I'm lucky to work on a campus
with lots of lovely trees. But I don't think any of this makes me a
bad, or a stupid, person.)





>I'm pleased to see this. The GCSE syllabuses included global warming
>years ago, long before there was any consensus amongst scientists. Why?
>There isn't consensus now and yet it's still there.
>
>The sanctimonius tree-huggers and lentil-eaters who are happy to see
>pupils taught dubious science should be ashamed of themselves. The basic
>grounding in science we give our young folks should be free of
>politically motivated material or it should be taught in a more balanced
>way. This document is no more biased than our own syllabuses but at
>least it appears to be introduced for discussion.
>
>
>Andy


--


Dr. Keith S. Taber
http://www.educ.cam.ac.uk/staff/taber.html
University Lecturer in Education
University of Cambridge Faculty of Education
Homerton College site
Hills Road
Cambridge CB2 2PH



please send any reply to kst24@...
(and if sending attachments please save your document as rich text
format [rtf] - which can be read by most versions of common word
processing software running on Mac or Windows platforms).


to join an electronic discussion list on
learning in science
please visit
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/learning-science-concepts