Stanford Prof Upset Over High School Textbooks Teaching Climate Change as Two-Sided Issue
“it matters how students are taught to see climate change as a civic issue”
- This is one of those issues that the left has declared settled. No debate is allowed.
Campus Reform reports:
Stanford prof laments high school textbooks teach climate change as ‘two-sided issue’
After conducting a recent AI-based study that found influential high school textbooks in California and Texas to be similar in their instructing of climate change, a Stanford University professor is concerned that such politically different states agree on teaching the subject as a “two-sided issue.”
In May, Stanford published its findings after using artificial intelligence to explore the narratives of how 30 prominent high school textbooks in California and Texas discuss global climate change.
“Despite differences in state-level standards, the content of textbooks in California and Texas is surprisingly similar in the extent and nature of climate change-related discourse,” the researchers noted. “Our study indicates that history textbook reform is an important arena for expanding and improving climate change education.”
The two states were selected because their history textbooks in particular are considered to “strongly influence textbook content nationwide.”
Stanford associate professor Patricia Bromley, who oversaw the study, lamented that many high school textbooks teach “the science is undecided” when it comes to climate change. She claimed that as opposed to history, where it’s valuable “to be able to consider alternative viewpoints,” it becomes a disadvantage to express uncertainty in regards to global warming.
Bromley and Hannah D’Apice, a Stanford PhD student and the study’s other researcher, believe that “a better approach…is to invite students to consider the complex social dimensions of climate impacts and political processes for creating policies, without misrepresenting the scientific consensus around climate change.”
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Settled science. An oxymoron.
If the science is settled, great! The funding for the other 29 squiggly lines on the temperature map can go away!
I’m ready to outlaw private jets, how about you?
Now can someone please publish the results?
I’m very interested to see the EXACT percentage that is Anthropomorphic.
Of course the UN will need to lead us in the bombing campaign of the multiple new coal fired power plants that both India and China add EVERY month.
There are three kinds of Stupid:
3. Stupid.
2. Very Stupid.
1. Professor Patricia Bromley “We’re All Gonna Die!” Stanford University Stupid.
Teaching as a two-sided issue? That’s crazy. They are going to confuse the students. High schools should only be allowed to teach one viewpoint on each issue.
As long as they keep you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.
after using artificial intelligence to explore the narratives
I think I see one of the problems right there….. (OK, actually two problems.)
Well, they had to use artificial; no natural available.
Professor, the problem is that Texas is similar. Sounds like the State Textbook committee needs words of gentle correction…. and a boot in the ass.
“[…]a better approach…is to invite students to consider the complex social dimensions of climate impacts and political processes for creating policies, without misrepresenting the scientific consensus around climate change.”
Yah, I can see the kids in the local (and somewhat rural) HS really digging in on that. As the Superintendent of a neighboring ISD told me “We won’t have any of that woke crap in this District.”
scientific consensus
It’s a religious consensus. The only scientific thing about it is they label their god SCIENCE!.