Opinion

Would you let the N.Y. Times teach your kids about global warming?

Photo of Carrie Lukas
Carrie Lukas
Managing Director, The Independent Women's Forum

American students lag behind many of their peers in other countries. Perhaps one reason is that too many teachers get lesson plans from the New York Times.

In its Learning Network section, the New York Times offers a set of classroom activities (recommended for students grades 6-12) for teachers looking to cover that over-looked curriculum essential: global warming. The New York Times instructs teachers to line students up on a piece of masking tape that stretches across the classroom. One end of the tape is marked “strongly agree;” the other, “strongly disagree.” Students then shuffle around as the teacher reads statements derived from a recent opinion editorial by former vice president and global warming alarmist extraordinaire, Al Gore. The statements include: “Future generations will look back on ours as having ignored clear warnings about the harmful effects of climate change;” “The unusually heavy snowfalls and cold weather this winter in the Northeast are a sign that global warming is an illusion;” and, “Despite the discovery of at least two mistakes in scientific work published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), global warming is happening and is caused by the actions of humans.”

Yes, this is how the New York Times views global warming skepticism: it all rests on two mistakes in the IPCC report and recent heavy snowfalls in the U.S.

The lesson culminates with students holding “a mock talk show on issues related to the science and politics of global warming.” In preparation, students are supposed to do a bit of research. Al Gore’s oped is the only must-read, but the New York Times provides links to other sources, including the NOAA National Climate Data Center, National Geographic, and the United States Global Change Research Program (all part of the “consensus” on global warming). Several New York Times articles are also linked, including ones that gloss over those minor “mistakes” in the IPCC report and the “climate-gate” email scandal.

The New York Times notes two sources for those seeking “a more skeptical viewpoint:” Watts Up with That? and ClimateAudit.org. Those are good sites, but if the New York Times really wants balance and to provide students with new information, they should give the so-called “skeptics’” viewpoint more emphasis.

Research suggests that students already have been fully indoctrinated in global warming alarmism. One study reported that: “Nearly 4 in 5 kids saw global warming as “a very serious problem,” 3 in 4 saw it as “a threat to all life on the planet” and about 2 in 3 felt global warming is “a threat to my future well-being and safety,” and “feel afraid of what might happen.”

Instead of adding to this sense of fear, the New York Times might have encouraged students to consider the role that skepticism is supposed to play in the scientific process, and the importance of scientists disclosing their data so that others can assess their logic and consider alternative hypothesis. The New York Times might have included an interview from leading climatologist Phil Jones. While admitting to losing and concealing data from other scientists, Jones acknowledged that there has been no significant warming in the past 15 years and that medieval times might have been warmer than today, which would mean that the 20th century warming trend isn’t unprecedented. What do these revelations means for the so-called consensus about man-made global warming?

  • des1

    Carrie, that was a reasoned, balanced, and intelligent column that looked at both sides of the issue and attempted to handle it fairly.

    Obviously you must be some kind of Right-wing extremist who wants to destroy science. {/sarcasm}

  • tomdoff

    Surveys show that dogs who are potty-trained on the NYT, have difficulty learning to ‘Sit’. But they are relentless distributers of crap.