America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Portland school board bans climate change-denying materials

Created on Thursday, 19 May 2016 02:00 | Written by Shasta Kearns Moore | Print

Environmental groups say science is clear, so textbooks should be, too

In a move spearheaded by environmentalists, the Portland Public Schools board unanimously approved a resolution aimed at eliminating doubt of climate change and its causes in schools.

“It is unacceptable that we have textbooks in our schools that spread doubt about the human causes and urgency of the crisis,” said Lincoln High School student Gaby Lemieux in board testimony. “Climate education is not a niche or a specialization, it is the minimum requirement for my generation to be successful in our changing world.”

The resolution passed Tuesday evening calls for the school district to get rid of textbooks or other materials that cast doubt on whether climate change is occurring and that the activity of human beings is responsible. The resolution also directs the superintendent and staff to develop an implementation plan for “curriculum and educational opportunities that address climate change and climate justice in all Portland Public Schools.”

Bill Bigelow, a former PPS teacher and current editor of ReThinking Schools, a magazine devoted to education issues, worked with 350PDX and other environmental groups to present the resolution.

“A lot of the text materials are kind of thick with the language of doubt, and obviously the science says otherwise,” Bigelow says, accusing the publishing industry to bowing to pressure from fossil fuels companies. “We don’t want kids in Portland learning material courtesy of the fossil fuel industry.”

In board testimony, Bigelow said PPS’ science textbooks are littered with words like might, may and could when talking about climate change.

“ ‘Carbon dioxide emissions from motor vehicles, power plants and other sources, may contribute to global warming,’ ” he quotes Physical Science published by Pearson as saying. “This is a section that could be written by the Exxon public relations group and it’s being taught in Portland schools.”

Bigelow is also the co-author of a textbook on environmental education, A People’s Curriculum for the Earth. Asked if this resolution will cause the district to buy new textbooks, such as his book, Bigelow said ReThinking Schools is a nonprofit, not a money-maker.

“What we’re asking for is not: Buy new stuff,” he said. “What we’re looking for is a whole different model of curriculum development and distribution.”

Bigelow said the district already has climate-change literacy curriculum, such as at Sunnyside Environmental School, and he wants that knowledge to spread.

School board member Mike Rosen introduced the resolution. He also leads NW Ecoliteracy Collaborative, a project focused on environmental curriculum standards. However, he says that work has been on hold.

“I have become concerned about its ability to make progress and not have a conflict with being a school board member,” Rosen said, noting that he is now instead working part-time for the Audubon Society of Portland. “I don’t want there to be a conflict between my school board work and this nonprofit.”


Shasta Kearns Moore
Reporter
503-546-5134
email: [email protected]
Twitter:@ShastaKM
Facebook: ShastaKearnsMoore


http://portlandtribune.com/sl/307848-185832-portland-school-board-bans-climate-change-denying-materials

Livin' easy
Livin' free
Season ticket on a one way ride
Askin' nothin'
Leave me be
Takin' everythin' in my stride
Don't need reason
Don't need rhyme
Ain't nothin' that I'd rather do
Goin' down
Party time
My friends are gonna be there too

I heard they're gonna ban dancing too...

Denny Hastert went to a college that did that, look what happened to him.

Not allowing a point of view in school isn't automatically a bad thing.

Let's say some idiot publishes a book stating his research into mathematics shows that 2+2 =3. Do we automatically include that in the existing curriculum just because some moron believes it? No. We reject it. Then some idiot will write an article complaining about the liberal slant in mathematics....

Well, I wonder... I think there should always be room for healthy debate, and since scientists.. well, some anyway... aren't agreed on climate change, then it ought not be presented as a done deal. Still, the climate IS changing, so what does that mean? You can't deny the change, only the cause. So Victor, yes, there are undeniable laws of both math & science, and though everyone is welcome to his/her own opinion, opinion is simply not a factor in scientific research. Except when it compromises research.

Bill Bigelow
Should change his name
Back
To
DUECE
BIGELOW

Uh - no.

Andrew, among the informed, the debate on climate change is over. So says:
NASA
The Pentagon
The Executive branch of the US government (Black democrat - so who can believe him)
The UN
The vast majority of the scientific community
And many others.

Let's remember that the school has a duty to teach facts. Not idioms like "but some still say the world is flat".

We have right wing religious crack pots pushing to teach that evolution should not be taken as fact because the Bible does not cover it in sufficient detail.

And your takeaway is that liberal are not tolerant????

Not all climate change is due to mankind. There is also cyclical climate change which has been studied by NASA, and I believe the USDA. That being said, obviously the present rate of global climate change is largely man made. To teach that global climate change is only caused by mankind is no different than only teaching creationism.

I'll bet a fiver that global warming stops as soon as we get a republican in office. ..

Who is this Andrew you speak of???



So you're saying that agencies headed by political appointees are neutral and simply follow the facts??? Please....

So a former community activist turned, legislator turned President who has led one of the most divisive administration is qualified to proclaim such a statement??? Please...

By the vast majority of the scientific community, you mean the 98% that was garnered by 2009 AGU survey asking of 2 very generalized questions???

1) “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”

2) “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”

This survey was apparently sent to some 10,000+ climate change scientists, of which only only about 30% responded. Of those, 82% answered "yes". Of those reponses all but around 77 were culled since they apparently came from scientists who had not been very successful in peer review of their body of work. So you're saying that since 75 of some 10,000 members of this particular subset of scientists answered in the affirmative of a highly dubious survey we should accept hook, line and sinker their hypothesis???

If so, what about the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine petition signed by more than 31,000 scientists of which more than 9,000 are PhDs? Does their opinion carry more or less weight than the aforementioned 75???

I'm sure mankind man contributes to climate. But, too what extinct???

And what of all the new "green" requirements??? Do they actually reduce man's climate foot print??? Wasn't ethanol blended gasoline supposed to reduce our carbon footprint? Doesn't the producing the amount of corn needed to meet requirements contribute the same or perhaps more to global warming than the use of petro-carbons it's meant to replace???

Could cap and trade be an offspring of the need to generate government revenue more so than to help the environment???

Aren't most of the leading voices of global warming members of highly political think tanks whose credibility require more than a little scepticsm?





Absolutely. But, until sufficiently proven and genuinely endorsed by the appropriate scientific community it's nothing more than a hypothesis. One that has and will cause profound effects. So profound that it shouldn't be taken so cavalierly.



Certianly you're not saying they are???

Hi Andrew.

I certainly don't disagree that climate, what contributes to climate and the effect climate has on mankind should be taught in primary science classes. But at the present, I can't understand why man made global warming should be taught as factual at all since it is yet unproven and not accepted as a consensus. Such unproven and highly contested subjects in my opinion are best reserved for a debate class.

"Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production,........"?

****!

Sorry Anthony - I don't know why I called you Andrew. But here are my best excuses:
My spell checker did it.
It was the third scotch talking.
It was a liberal conspiracy.


You just threw out the world conciseness with the "They can't be trusted" card.
Ok - who is an acceptable authority on this? Or is your point that it is beyond scientific reckoning?



I'm reading here that you don't know and only have doubts. Doubts that your questions don't substantiate.
Could it be that you believe that Climate Change is nothing more than a conspiracy?
A Liberal conspiracy???
(omg)



Whom exactly are you talking about here? The NRA?
I mean your case is the we can't trust - pretty much anyone who says it's a problem.


In fact I am.
Further, on Cbid they are our greatest asset...

Wow, I am surprised you believe that strongly.
But, just to be clear, you honestly believe - in your heart - that a republican can get in?

Btw, I'm in no way saying man doesn't contribute to climate change. Just not sure to what overall extent or if the proposed remedies are really going to be effective. There are many examples of bad science followed with well intentioned, but disastrous results.

I blame the Belgians, they're the "model" socialist country and they are by far the most pretentious closed minded people on the planet. They deserve to have their country invaded and torn asunder.

I bet down deep you don't think anyone deserves that.

why do I like you?

No I do agree Frank, but who's made a point to control and politicize popular culture? That's the difference to me.

that doesn't make you a bad guy at all.

What are you saying Jamie? Liberals are all the same?

(You're supposed to respond with something like "some of my best friends are liberal....")

And modern conservatives aren't the same? Abortion, ten commandments, school prayer, weed, same sex marriage, etc...

Tolerance is a four letter word for both sides.