Developing Science Standards in a Time of Climate Change 2011 NARST presentation Written by: Andy Anderson (Michigan State University) Culturally relevant ecology, learning progressions and environmental literacy Long Term Ecological Research Math Science Partnership April 2, 2011 Disclaimer: This research is supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation: Targeted Partnership: Culturally relevant ecology, learning progressions and environmental literacy (NSF ). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Comments for the Symposium: Exploration and Critique of the NRC’s New Conceptual Framework for Science Annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching Charles W. Anderson, Michigan State University April 2, 2011 Developing Science Standards in a Time of Climate Change

My Past Positions about Specific Content in Standards Advocate for depth over depth Advocate for scientific or developmentally fundamental knowledge and practice Avoid strong positions about what content is important

BUT

This. Time. Is. Different.

This content is way more important than the rest of the framework Human activities are constrained by and, in turn, affect all other processes at Earth’s surface. (Human Interactions with Earth) How do humans affect the Earth, and how do Earth’s changes affect humans? How do natural hazards affect humans? (Natural Hazards) How do humans depend upon Earth’s materials? (Natural Resources) How do humans change the Earth? (Human Impacts on the Earth) How will global climate change affect humans? (Global Climate Change)

The Choices We Face with Respect to Climate Change We basically have three choices: mitigation, adaptation, and suffering. We’re already doing some of each and will do more of all three. The question is what the mix will be. The more mitigation we do, the less adaptation will be required, and the less suffering there will be. John Holdren, science advisor to Barack Obama

Our Current Choices We are now choosing suffering, but not our own suffering: –Our children’s suffering –Suffering of people with fewer resources for adaptation

Forms that Suffering Takes Genocide (Rwanda, Darfur) Natural disasters (European heat wave, Russian heat wave, Australian drought and floods, Pakistan floods) The headlines may not say “climate change” Suffering starts with most vulnerable people, but they will find ways to export their suffering just as now export goods and services to support our lifestyles

Responding to Acute and Long- term Existential Threats In the past we have responded to immediate existential threats (e.g., Nazi Germany) by pulling together to defeat a common enemy We now face a slower but more severe existential threat –It takes decades to change our economy –It takes decades more for the climate system to respond A great challenge for education is figuring out how to recognize the threat and “stay the course” on the time scales that will be needed.

Three Dimensions of Framework Cross-cutting concepts Scientific and engineering practices Core disciplinary ideas What should national standards look like if we focus on climate change?

The Keeling Curve as an Example

Core Disciplinary Ideas Understanding carbon cycling—the causes of the yearly cycle and long-term trends in the Keeling curve—requires people to trace matter and energy through Earth systems at multiple scales in space and time. Understanding the effects of changes in atmospheric composition on climate, hydrology, and living systems requires study of core concepts in life, Earth, and physical sciences Understanding the costs and benefits of current technologies, as well as the costs and benefits of strategies for mitigation and adaptation, requires careful analysis of technological systems

These Ideas Are: More important than Newton’s laws More important than astronomy More important than our evolutionary past

Three Dimensions of Framework Cross-cutting concepts Scientific and engineering practices Core disciplinary ideas What should national standards look like if we focus on climate change?

Can we TRUST what scientists say about the Keeling Curve and its implications?

Scientific Inquiry and Argument Uncertainty as a core issue for scientific inquiry (Metz, 2004) Scientific position: –Our knowledge of past, present, and future is inevitably uncertain –BUT we can reduce uncertainty, by: Giving authority to arguments from evidence rather than individual people Commitment to rigor in research methods Collective validation through consensus of scientific communities (peer review) Identifying sources for knowledge claims

Values Underlying Scientific Inquiry These are the core values of scientific communities: Giving authority to arguments from evidence rather than individual people Commitment to rigor in research methods Collective validation through consensus of scientific communities Identifying sources for knowledge claims Reasons scientists adhere to these values Scientific training Cheating will almost certainly be caught

Scientific Values and Political Discourse With one exception, none of the Republicans running for the Senate — including the 20 or so with a serious chance of winning — accept the scientific consensus that humans are largely responsible for global warming. (NY Times, 10/17/10) "Michael Steel, a spokesman for Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, who will become speaker in January, said, “The Select Committee on Global Warming was created by Democrats simply to provide political cover to pass their job- killing national energy tax.” (NY Times, 12/2/10)

A Message from Burt S. Dr. Anderson, While increasing understanding of the nature of conservation of matter is not a bad thing, linking it to "climate change" is suspect. There has been no global warming since 1998 from what I'm reading. Of course the climate is changing. It always has. Observable climate change is scientific. To state that humans are responsible for most of it is speculation and outside the realm of observable science. The component of carbon dioxide emitted into the air by human activity is very small (3%?) with water in the air accounting for 90% of the greenhouse effect. Half the carbon dioxide injected into the air by human activity is immediately absorbed by nature. After the math is done, the human component of the increase in carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year is on the order of.015%. The global warming issue (renamed climate change since the globe has temporarily quit warming) is more likely kept alive by the $4 billion in tax dollars spent this year on global warming research. In my humble opinion Sincerely, Burt S----, BS/MA

What’s at Stake? Changes in Public Opinion Human ActivityNatural Geological Causes April, %34% January, %47% What causes climate change? Note the volatility of public opinion: Opinions about the Earth’s climate change as fast as opinions about the next election Many people decide who to trust without being able to judge scientific quality of arguments from evidence Source: Newsweek, March 1, 2010

Possible Consequences Political discourse and personal decisions can become dominated by different subcultures each constructing their own “reality”—Prius drivers, SUV drivers, etc. BUT we all live together on the same Earth In 50 years we will know for sure who is right and who is wrong Our children will live with the consequences

What’s at Stake? As educators, we can give people the ability to choose among mitigation, adaptation, and suffering We owe it to our children to give them access to the knowledge and values needed for informed choices about climate change: –Help students understand the consequences of our policies and actions –Help students understand the purposes and values of scientific inquiry This is our most important obligation as we develop new national standards