Yesterday I wrote about truth and global warming, and indicated that science does not result in truth, it results in hypotheses and theories, which could be used to inform legislation, and action by governments and citizens. Two days ago, the British government announced that it has proposed laws that will enforce steep cuts in carbon emissions. Across the North Sea, the European Union has proposed laws to limit carbon emissions as well. In Britain’s case, however, they are proposing a 60% cut in carbon emissions by 2060, while the European Union has proposed a cut of 20% by 2020 (Britain has proposed between 20 – 30 % cut in the same time frame).

We might conclude these are examples of two different governments acting on the results of sound science. The implications on the citizens of Britain and the European Union. Changes might include switching to low energy light bulbs, adding more insolation to their homes, and other changes.

Although the Europeans do not contribute as much carbon emissions to the atmosphere as China, India and the US, they are setting an example for others to follow, especially the US. The present US administration and some members of Congress have obstructed the results of science legislation related to global warming. Scientists have even been told not to discuss global warming at conferences if they are not lined up to officially present a paper related to the topic.

If you are a science or social studies teacher you might want to take a look at the collection of articles in the New York Times on global warming.

You will find a collection of articles that generally support the idea that global warming is fact, and that action is needed. You will also find one article entitled From a Rapt Audience, A Call to Cool the Hype. In the piece, some scientists caution against some of Al Gore’s statements about global warming. Gore counters that he relied heavily on the authority of science in his book and film.

As we pointed out yesterday, science is about theories and hypotheses, and based on theory, scientists make predictions about the future. In the New York Times collection of articles on global warming is this introductory statement:

“Drawing on research on past climate shifts, observations of current conditions, and computer simulations, many climate experts say that without big curbs in greenhouse gas emissions, the 21st century could see temperatures rise 3 to 8 degrees, weather patterns sharply shift, ice sheets shrink and seas rise several feet.”

Predictions are what they are. They can be wrong. And science has been wrong in the past. For example, many point to the The Club of Rome 1972 publication, Limits to Growth, which used computer modeling to make predictions about natural resources based on current and past consumption levels. They predicted economic catastrophe by the 1990s. In this case, the scenario that the authors painted did not pan out. It isn’t what happened. However, the book came at a time when the environmental movement was beginning in the US, and the Environmental Protection Agency was being formed in the USA. Also, the computer modeling available at the time does not compare what is available to scientists today.

Global warming research, according to some scientists, has taken a more conservative route, and there are some in the research community that feel that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) does not go far enough in making warnings about the future impact of the Earth’s temperature increase.

For science teachers, this topic is rich in resources and activity to involve students in doing science, and making use of the results of that science. Tomorrow, I’ll talk about the global thinking project, and how it involved students in several countries collaborating on environmental science topics.