# Yes, let's teach the controversy. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 8, 2014, 8:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-lets-teach-the-controversy/678261 "2014-01-08T08:52:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2014, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-lets-teach-the-controversy/678261/61 "2014-01-11T16:01:35Z")
I just did a search for warming on the post (4 hits) so I wouldn’t waste any time actually reading the wall of screed ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2014, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-lets-teach-the-controversy/678261/62 "2014-01-11T16:09:13Z")
A good controversy from the past to teach would be the classic Cassini vs Roemer (Ole Rømer) Which, no surprise, does not appear on Wikipedia. wtf? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2014, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-lets-teach-the-controversy/678261/63 "2014-01-11T16:10:42Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > I just did a search for warming on the post (4 hits) so I wouldn’t waste any time actually reading the wall of screed I would tell others to think for themselves and check first and not just follow your word. 🙂 But seriously, while the OP needs to learn to be brief, it is clear that it is not only about AWG. > [@Askthepizzaguy](#): > > I didn’t come up with the idea that sugar rots your teeth, or that smoking is bad for your health, or that life evolved over time, or that the global climate is warming, partly caused by human-generated greenhouse gasses, and is causing real and damaging changes to our environment. I also don’t own a sugary candy factory, or a cigarette factory, nor am I a member of one of those silly organized religions. So I’ve got nothing to lose. > > Teach me and everyone else why actual science is wrong, and crackpot pseudoscience and make-believe nonsense are completely true. Please! ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2014, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-lets-teach-the-controversy/678261/64 "2014-01-11T17:15:39Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I would tell others to think for themselves and check first and not just follow your word. I tell everyone that. When it comes to shit like a Polar Vortex, be skeptical. Hell, be skeptical about most climate related crap these days. Of course that makes it fucking difficult to do any science, if you can’t trust the data itself. Like GISS, if you can’t trust the data, then all the analysis from it is fucked. Even so, using GISS, which always shows more warming than any other measurements, you can still see the problem for current AGW theory. We should see a lot of warming in the last decade, [but we see none actually](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2013&month_last=11&sat=4&sst=1&type=trends&mean_gen=1212&year1=2002&year2=2012&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=pol). Even more telling, we should see a lot of warming for winters in the NH, a key prediction of AGW theory (it’s because of physics), but instead we see [long term cooling.](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2013&month_last=11&sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=1992&year2=2013&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=pol) for large areas of the NH. Short term [is extreme in the amount of cooling](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2013&month_last=11&sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=2002&year2=2013&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=pol), rather than the expected warming. So much that the global balance for winter is negative for the last 11 years, due to the areas showing extreme cooling trends for winter. That’s called science. Bitch. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2014, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-lets-teach-the-controversy/678261/65 "2014-01-11T17:16:51Z")
FYI I put links in there backing up every last thing I said about the trends. If somebody just claims something, but offers no evidence, I tend to discount their opinion. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2014, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-lets-teach-the-controversy/678261/66 "2014-01-11T17:42:47Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > That’s called science. Bitch. No, what you have there is pseudoscience, you should be aware that pseudoscience loves to abuse real science reports and you demonstrate that you are only a pretender, only a deluded fellow like you can see at the data that the experts manage and come a different conclusion from the one the experts from GISS itself continue to report. [http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/) > [@](#): > > History > > The basic GISS temperature analysis scheme was defined in the late 1970s by James Hansen when a method of estimating global temperature change was needed for comparison with one-dimensional global climate models. Most prior temperature analyses, notably those of Murray Mitchell, covered only 20-90°N latitudes. Our first published results (Hansen et al. 1981) showed that, contrary to impressions from northern latitudes, global cooling after 1940 was small, and there was net global warming of about 0.4°C between the 1880s and 1970s. > > The analysis method was documented in Hansen and Lebedeff (1987), showing that the correlation of temperature change was reasonably strong for stations separated by up to 1200 km, especially at middle and high latitudes. They obtained quantitative estimates of the error in annual and 5-year mean temperature change by sampling at station locations a spatially complete data set of a long run of a global climate model, which was shown to have realistic spatial and temporal variability. > > This derived error bar only addressed the error due to incomplete spatial coverage of measurements. **As there are other potential sources of error, such as urban warming near meteorological stations, etc., many other methods have been used to verify the approximate magnitude of inferred global warming. These methods include inference of surface temperature change from vertical temperature profiles in the ground (bore holes) at many sites around the world, rate of glacier retreat at many locations, and studies by several groups of the effect of urban and other local human influences on the global temperature record. All of these yield consistent estimates of the approximate magnitude of global warming, which now stands at about twice the magnitude that we reported in 1981. Further affirmation of the reality of the warming is its spatial distribution, which has largest values at locations remote from any local human influence, with a global pattern consistent with that expected for response to global climate forcings (larger in the Northern Hemisphere than the Southern Hemisphere, larger at high latitudes than low latitudes, larger over land than over ocean).** > > Subsequent improvements (Hansen et al. 1999; Hansen et al. 2001) to the original analysis included use of satellite-observed night lights to determine which stations in the United States are located in urban and peri-urban areas, the long-term trends of those stations being adjusted to agree with long-term trends of nearby rural stations. FYI I previously posted the reports from experts telling us that using only recent data to avoid looking at the real trend is being deceptive, and you continue to be. Science works, misleaders like you only pretend to use it and in this thread you are even attempting to tell to others to ignore that even pizza guys know that AGW deniers are also in the same pseudoscience column as creationists and deniers of tobacco smoke being harmful. ---
**Author:** ![Doctor\_Why\_Bother](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e19adc/32.png) [@Doctor\_Why\_Bother](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doctor_Why_Bother)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2014, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-lets-teach-the-controversy/678261/67 "2014-01-11T18:02:03Z")
NM. Double post. ---
**Author:** ![Doctor\_Why\_Bother](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e19adc/32.png) [@Doctor\_Why\_Bother](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doctor_Why_Bother)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2014, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-lets-teach-the-controversy/678261/68 "2014-01-11T18:03:15Z")
I think it was quite a good OP. Teach the controversy, but also teach the bullshit that gave rise to the “controversy” in the first place. Teach kids about, say, evolution and the metric fucktons of evidence that supports it, and then teach creationism or intelligent design, which is supported by no evidence whatsoever, and then teach the problems that both theories may have. Educate kids about the one or two niggling questions that evolutionary theory may not yet have gotten around to answering (assuming such questions even exist) and then teach kids about the myriad problems inherent to both creationism and intelligent design, and then let the kids make up their own minds. Seems fair to me. Yeah, the OP could have been briefer, but he makes a good point. ---
**Author:** ![Kenm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bc79bd/32.png) [@Kenm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kenm)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2014, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-lets-teach-the-controversy/678261/69 "2014-01-11T18:27:16Z")
Evolution has no problems. ---
**Author:** ![armedmonkey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@armedmonkey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/armedmonkey)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2014, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-lets-teach-the-controversy/678261/70 "2014-01-11T18:27:48Z")
> [@Doctor\_Why\_Bother](#): > > Yeah, the OP could have been briefer, but he makes a good point. No, he really didn’t. There is so much babble in that OP that it becomes a Rorshach test. You suspect that there’s something there, so you see patterns in the chaos. I would not say it was a good or even a coherent point. Nearest I can tell is that he is complaining that his teachers didn’t spoon feed him critical thinking skills. I can’t respect that. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2014, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-lets-teach-the-controversy/678261/71 "2014-01-11T18:31:41Z")
> [@Doctor\_Why\_Bother](#): > > Teach kids about, say, evolution and the metric fucktons of evidence that supports it, and then teach creationism or intelligent design, which is supported by no evidence whatsoever, and then teach the problems that both theories may have. Educate kids about the one or two niggling questions that evolutionary theory may not yet have gotten around to answering (assuming such questions even exist) and then teach kids about the myriad problems inherent to both creationism and intelligent design, and then let the kids make up their own minds. Seems fair to me. I like it. A historical approach would be pretty fucking cool as well. teach HOW science advances, how new discoveries led to old beliefs being abandoned, make it interesting, like a good story. Tell the conflicts as they happened, don’t cover it up. With evolution the really big problem for bible thumpers and the like is that it of course makes a mockery of their story, and if that story isn’t true, then obviously the whole story might be just old bullshit. Hence the controversy at it’s core. Then there is the really big bull elephant smashing about the living room. Global warming. Fuckheads want to tell you it’s all settled and only fools and deniers and paid shills would question any of it, which is complete horseshit. teach the controversy and people gain understanding. The problem is, the people with a lot to lose from actually looking at the scientific evidence don’t want their to even be a controversy. They don’t want the controversy to even be aknowledged, much less examined and taught. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2014, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-lets-teach-the-controversy/678261/72 "2014-01-11T18:37:15Z")
For example, [extreme warming for February](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2013&month_last=11&sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=02&year1=1980&year2=1998&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=reg), shows up clearly. Global warming (for the most part), the kind that is almost predicted by the models (and theory) [Cooling for February](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2013&month_last=11&sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=02&year1=1998&year2=2013&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=reg), something NOT predicted at all by the models (and theory). We should see the same sort of trend as the first link shows. But instead there is drastic cooling in large areas. This can’t be argued away, it can’t be dismissed as “my conclusion”, nor can it be put down as bias, it’s goddamn GISS data for fucks sake. Fuckheads like GIGO see that and they have no way to counter it, as it’s just facts. So they ignore it, and there is some controversy right there. But the GIGOs of the world don’t want such things taught, much less explained in detail. It’s not like evolution at all at that point. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2014, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-lets-teach-the-controversy/678261/73 "2014-01-11T18:41:54Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Then there is the really big bull elephant smashing about the living room. Global warming. Fuckheads want to tell you it’s all settled and only fools and deniers and paid shills would question any of it, which is complete horseshit. A teachable moment, declarations like this one fall into what many are calling “not even wrong” It is a myth the ones that push climate denial continue to repeat. Scientists are not saying that it is settled, only that the like-hood of finding contrary evidence is diminishing constantly just like scientists in Evolution are telling us. > **[RealClimate: Unsettled Science](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/unsettled-science/)** > > RealClimate: Unusually, I'm in complete agreement with a recent headline on the Wall Street Journal op-ed page: "The Climate Science Isn't Settled" The article below is the same mix of innuendo and misrepresentation that its author normally writes,... > [@](#): > > The phrase “the science is settled” is associated almost 100% with contrarian comments on climate and is usually a paraphrase of what ‘some scientists’ are supposed to have said. The reality is that it depends very much on what you are talking about and I have never heard any scientist say this in any general context – at a recent meeting I was at, someone claimed that this had been said by the participants and he was roundly shouted down by the assembled experts. > > The reason why no scientist has said this is because they know full well that knowledge about science is not binary – science isn’t either settled or not settled. This is a false and misleading dichotomy. Instead, we know things with varying degrees of confidence – for instance, conservation of energy is pretty well accepted, as is the theory of gravity (despite continuing interest in what happens at very small scales or very high energies) , while the exact nature of dark matter is still unclear. The forced binary distinction implicit in the phrase is designed to misleadingly relegate anything about which there is still uncertainty to the category of completely unknown. i.e. that since we don’t know everything, we know nothing. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2014, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-lets-teach-the-controversy/678261/74 "2014-01-11T18:55:51Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Fuckheads like GIGO see that and they have no way to counter it, as it’s just facts. It is a lie that I did not counter that before, as shown before in previous posts and even here: > **[Birth of a Crock](https://thinc.blog/2009/10/06/birth-of-a-crock/)** > > The observation that natural climate variability exists is not a new one. Early in September 2009, at a gathering of experts on global climate change, one of the world’s most respected and ex… > [@](#): > > The observation that natural climate variability exists is not a new one. > > Early in September 2009, at a gathering of experts on global climate change, one of the world’s most respected and experienced climate modelers, Mojib Latif, made some observations on climate, media and human nature. > > [Latif shows how even modelers take into account natural variability to report that “slowdowns” and apparent cooling are to to be expected in the middle of an upward trend.] > > The message seemed clear- > natural variations in the long term warming might be misinterpreted > by the media. out of ignorance, or malice. > > Climate deniers were quick to take Latif’s remarks, and begin > doing exactly that. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > So they ignore it, Lie again. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > and there is some controversy right there. But the GIGOs of the world don’t want such things taught, much less explained in detail. On the contrary, it is clear that you only go for simple answers to keep your delusion. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > It’s not like evolution at all at that point. It is, people that for a living help educators defend the teaching of evolution have found that liars like you are very active also in denying the human causes of the current warming, it has become so insidious that they have changed their mostly defense of evolution to include also the defense of teaching climate change properly. [http://ncse.com/about/history](http://ncse.com/about/history) > [@](#): > > The best guarantee of good education is public understanding of the issues. NCSE continues to work constructively to promote public awareness of the importance of science education, and the importance of evolution and climate change in science education. Meanwhile, even though the past few decades have seen several court decisions confirming that religiously inspired “scientific creationism” and its cousin “Intelligent Design” may not be advocated instead of or alongside evolution, pressure to teach so-called “alternatives to evolution” continues. Much of NCSE’s work still involves supporting citizens who oppose anti-evolution at the state and local level. > > In 2012, in response to complaints from teachers that they were coming under fire for teaching global warming and other climate change concepts, NCSE decided to support the teaching of climate change in addition to evolution. Both evolution and climate change are well-accepted by scientists as being based on sound research, but the percentages of members of the public accepting these sciences is sharply lower. There are organizations dedicated to decreasing the acceptance and teaching of evolution and/or climate change: another parallel. NCSE has had decades of experience helping teachers cope with political and other pressures against the teaching of evolution; we believe this experience is transferable to the problems involving the teaching of climate change. ---
**Author:** ![armedmonkey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@armedmonkey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/armedmonkey)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2014, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-lets-teach-the-controversy/678261/75 "2014-01-11T19:08:12Z")
> [@Kenm](#): > > Evolution has no problems. Nah, it does, just not the way people think. The “problems” are in the specifics - not the overall. It’s a living theory - meaning that it is still being adjusted. That doesn’t give alternate explanations more credence, of course, it just means that the mechanics of the theory is pretty fucking complicated and are still up for debate. I believe in God, but I sure don’t believe in creationism. I also have a B.S. in molecular biology (not much, I know, but hey) and what I learned is the old trope of “survival of the fittest” doesn’t cut it. It’s _way_ more complicated than that. So evolution has it’s problems, but it is the _best explanation we currently have_. That’s what science is. There are always problems with scientific theories. That’s how science works. Shoot, there are problems with our current theory of gravity. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2014, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-lets-teach-the-controversy/678261/76 "2014-01-11T19:13:20Z")
Notice how GIGO just tries to ignore how the [extreme warming for February](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2013&month_last=11&sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=02&year1=1980&year2=1998&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=reg), shows up clearly. Global warming (for the most part), the kind that is almost predicted by the models (and theory) [Cooling for February](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2013&month_last=11&sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=02&year1=1998&year2=2013&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=reg), something NOT predicted at all by the models (and theory). We should see the same sort of trend as the first link shows. But instead there is drastic cooling in large areas. This can’t be argued away, it can’t be dismissed as “my conclusion”, nor can it be put down as bias, it’s goddamn GISS data for fucks sake. Fuckheads like GIGO see that and they have no way to counter it, as it’s just facts. So they ignore it, and there is some controversy right there. But the GIGOs of the world don’t want such things taught, much less explained in detail. the current science says clearly the cooling trend in the NH winters can not be explained as “natural variation” at this point. It goes back to 1988. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2014, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-lets-teach-the-controversy/678261/77 "2014-01-11T19:18:44Z")
Speaking of Evolution, the NCSE has a note on controversy, many times the controversy the pseudoscience pushers want to be taught in school is not what the lesson of controversy the educators should use. > **[Home | National Center for Science Education](https://ncse.ngo)** > [@](#): > > Whether providing students with an opportunity to evaluate the scientific credibility of creationism actually advances their understanding of evolution depends on the level of students, the objective of the assignment, and how the assignment is designed. Research indicates (Verhey 2005) college students gain a better understanding of why evolution is accepted science, and why creationism, creation science, and intelligent design are not appropriate scientific topics when given an opportunity to examine antievolutionist claims. > > However, “teaching the controversy”, as though there are scientific controversies about whether evolution occurred, **is another matter altogether** , and particularly inappropriate in a public high school science classroom. As Scott and Branch (2003) [link to article] point out, “presenting all sides of a controversial issue appeals to popular values of fairness, openness and equality of opportunity”, but they reject this approach when applied to evolution, pointing out that it is “scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible to teach that scientists seriously debate the validity of evolution”. > > … > > Given these criteria, evolution should not be treated as controversial within a science class. It is not scientifically controversial, nor are resources for each side of comparable quality – evidence for evolution comes from peer-reviewed literature whereas evidence against evolution is built on flawed assumptions and popularized misconceptions. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2014, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-lets-teach-the-controversy/678261/78 "2014-01-11T19:22:03Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Fuckheads like GIGO see that and they have no way to counter it, as it’s just facts. So they ignore it, and there is some controversy right there. But the GIGOs of the world don’t want such things taught, much less explained in detail. > > the current science says clearly the cooling trend in the NH winters can not be explained as “natural variation” at this point. It goes back to 1988. A lie as usual, it is not ignored, only your delusion is telling you that. When the final tally on global temperature is made, the anomalies you press here are taken into account in the big picture. See the video of the cite and let a scientist like Latif explain it, or not, as it is clear that you are declaring all climate scientists to be fuckheads, anyone can see that the tactic of lying and insulting experts will not get you far. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2014, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-lets-teach-the-controversy/678261/79 "2014-01-11T19:38:43Z")
More on the NCSE guidelines on teaching controversies: > [@](#): > > Scott and Branch (2003) further outline criteria for determining which controversies to teach: > (1) the controversy ought to be of interest to students; > (2) the controversy ought to be primarily scientific, rather than primarily moral, social, or religious; > (3)the resources for each side of the controversy ought to be comparable in availability; > (4) the resources for each side of the controversy ought to be comparable in quality; > (5) the controversy ought to be understandable by the students. On that, it is clear that creationism or ID has the problem of the scientific controversy not existing or even diminishing as time goes by, As talkorigins put it recently: “sure you want to teach the controversy, so where is it?” It has been years since people like Behe had published his “definitive” book against evolution and a look at the academic sources showed how pathetic his footprint or influence in academia was really after 10 years, but this is not an exercise on popularity, research would by now had supported many of his ideas against evolution, but the only thing we got was even more evidence that evolution was and is real. Similarly, if we want to pretend that there is controversy in climate science at least a cite from a scientific organization should be produced that agrees that recent local cooling incidents override the expert conclusions that an apparent cooling in recent years tell us that we should dismiss what scientists found for more than 100 years: [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/sx-v_nBLiLo/maxresdefault.jpg "Mankind can bet on global warming -- and win: Dr.Mark Boslough at TEDxABQ") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx-v_nBLiLo) > [@](#): > > Dr. Mark Boslough is a world-renowned expert on global catastrophies. As a Caltech-trained physicist, member of the technical staff of Sandia National Laboratories, and adjunct professor at the University of New Mexico, he is regularly seen on science documentaries and news reports explaining his research on planetary impacts and participating in expeditions to remote destinations around the world. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2014, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-lets-teach-the-controversy/678261/80 "2014-01-11T20:17:50Z")
What about Phlogiston? I mean. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-lets-teach-the-controversy/678261.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-lets-teach-the-controversy/678261.md?page=5)