Why NYC allow 1 million students to protest climate change on a school

1. 84

   jackclee lmposted 14 months ago

   Shouldn’t they be in school learning about this issue rather than protesting in the streets?
   If they did, perhaps they will learn that climate change science is very complex and the solutions are illusive at best.
   
   The teachers have not done a good job framing this issue. Instead, they are brain washing these kids and scaring them to act out.

   replyreport
   1. 83

      Sharlee01posted 14 months agoin reply to this

      It could benefit children of all ages to learn about the many facets of climate. Perhaps the school could offer the day off, but give the students the opportunity to either join the protest or take the day to do some research on climate control. There are lots of scientific studies on the subject. The day should not require students to attend a protest unless they want to attend. Hate to think we are forcing our children into any form of government control.

      replyreport
2. 99

   AliciaCposted 14 months ago

   Missing one day of school won’t hurt the students' study of climate change or affect their academic success. They belong to the generation that will have to live with some of the decisions made by older people today. They deserve a chance to present their point of view.
   
   Your last paragraph appears to show the real motivation for your post. The idea that the teachers of all of the thousands of students involved in the protest are doing a bad job in educating them about climate change is hard to believe. I suspect that what you really mean is you don’t want teachers to present information about climate change that you disagree with and you want them to present information that you do agree with.
   
   You should present your concerns to the New York Department of Education (or whatever the organization that regulates curriculum is called in New York). This is the route that you should take instead of making the accusations in your last sentence. Where I live, the department of education determines the curriculum that teachers must follow. I imagine the process is the same in New York.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Castlepalomaposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      Agree

      replyreport
   2. 77

      Live to Learnposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      I'm no certain the opinion of a 12 year old bears enough weight to warrant a day out of school.
      
      Plus, it isn't really their opinion we'd be hearing, anyway.

      replyreport
      1. 99

         AliciaCposted 14 months agoin reply to this

         I’m used to teaching high school students and have no doubt in my mind that they should be allowed to miss school to go to events such as the New York protest. I do agree that the decision becomes harder with students of elementary school age, though.
         
         I don’t think we should assume that a twelve-year-old can’t think about climate change carefully and make their own decision about the topic, but I do think that age is something that schools should discuss carefully when considering whether to give students permission to attend certain events (and, of course, when discussing certain topics with them).

         replyreport
         1. 77

            Live to Learnposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            I agree that a child of that age can have an independent thought. I just don't think the vast majority do. I think teachers teach, most kids regurgitate what they've been told, on command. Few possess critical thinking skills at that age.

            replyreport
         2. 78

            Castlepalomaposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            Had not thought a protest about climate change would be a great place to get a hard knocks education on the natural environment.
            Good thinking teacher.

            replyreport
         3. 84

            jackclee lmposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            As a teacher, do you support the showing of Al Gore’s documentary on global warming - An Inconvenient Truth?

            replyreport
            1. 99

               AliciaCposted 14 months agoin reply to this

               It's an old documentary that I haven't seen in many years. I don't remember much of its contents. I wouldn't take the time to watch it now in order to refresh my memory because I'm sure climate science has advanced since the documentary was made. For this reason, I wouldn't show it myself.

               replyreport
               1. 84

                  jackclee lmposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  If you did watch it now, you will realize it was full of exaggerations and nothing that was predicted came true...
                  I attend a talk last year at the LDEO where a speaker admitted he choose his career in climate studies mainly due to watching that film in grade school.

                  replyreport
   3. 0

      promisemposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      Very well said.

      replyreport
   4. 84

      jackclee lmposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      I have been following climate change for over 20 years. I am positive this AGW has been politicized and have little to do with real science. When our public school starts indoctrinating students instead of teaching and presenting the facts, and outlining what we do know and what we don’t know, it is hard for anyone to be objective.
      Why not use this day in a more productive way. Have a debate of top scientists...and let them present their case and explain how and why the models are missing their projections.
      
      Let me ask you this. What if in 10 years, the dire predictions do not materialize? What then? How should our society react to an over zealous environmental group?

      replyreport
      1. 99

         AliciaCposted 14 months agoin reply to this

         Inviting scientists into schools to discuss climate change is a great idea. The more information that students get about the situation, the better. Visitors from different institutions should give students a wide variety of information and points of view. A question and answer session with the scientists after their presentations would be a great idea, too. 
         
         In response to the rest of your comment, I’ll say the following. What if in 10 years the predictions have materialized and we’ve done nothing to stop the problems? What then?

         replyreport
         1. 84

            jackclee lmposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            You are assuming we have the power to influence something as complex and as huge as climate...
            A better answer to my question would be, we don’t need to wait 10 years. It has already happened. The predictions made 15 years ago by climate experts all turned out to be wrong on the high side. Don’t you think we should ask those same people what happened? What went wrong with their 30 plus computer models? Before going down the same path?

            replyreport
            1. 78

               Castlepalomaposted 14 months agoin reply to this

               You only need 80% of the consciousness of the public to make possitive change to over throw the POWER of the Government.
               
               You have 97% of scientists claiming there is global warming greatly cause by mankind.
               
               Are these 97% scientists ethier have no conscious or completely  stupid.
               Which one is it Jack?

               replyreport
               1. 84

                  jackclee lmposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  The 97% is a false number. Go look it up how this number came about...
                  The disagreement is much higher in the community...and also, disagreement on how to deal with it over the long haul.
                  Like 30-100 years, not 10-20...
                  The problem with the current IPCC and the climate change community is that they have been politicized by the environmental extremists.
                  If this was strictly about science and the most economic solution is converting to nuclear energy as Andrew Wang proposed...why is that rejected?
                  If you can answer that, you are well on your way on understanding this issue.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     promisemposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                     Is NASA wrong?
                     
                     https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

                     replyreport
                     1. 84

                        jackclee lmposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                        Yes, like many government agencies...even NASA, there are senior members who are political...I also include some that work at NOAA and the EPA...

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           promisemposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                           OK, prove that NASA is wrong.

                           replyreport
                     2. 84

                        jackclee lmposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                        Here are some former NASA employees who disagree...
                        https://www.iceagenow.info/nasa-scienti … -activism/

                        replyreport
                        1. 78

                           Castlepalomaposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                           https://youtu.be/kHp0ph37QRk
                           
                           Trump has cut NASA so bad, that scientist can not afford hair stylist

                           replyreport
                  2. 78

                     Castlepalomaposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                     Why don't you provide the evidences for the 97% fakes?. I am too sick and tired of facing toxic phonies.
                     
                     My communities dose what ever it takes, for their health first and health of the planet. Health is wealth or you got nothing.
                     
                     Top three threats for humanity is ....Environment, Poverty & Nuclear radiation in that order. Nazi's came up with the idea that muster gas and radiation cures cancer, check out their death rap sheet.
                     
                     Bill Gates wants to reduce the world population to 500 million and replace all energy to nuclear. If he gets his wish on both, it will come true.  He's got the wang number.
                     Did that answer your question?
                     
                     If politics at the source of fake science why did Trump and whitehouse refuse to do anything about the environment.
                     
                     If my body is a science thermometer freezing as a child and sweating as a senior that is evidence enough. I lost snow sculpture  business due to warm weather.
                     
                     I am well on my way with my grassroot entrepreneurs furthering solution from 60 to 100 years of system environment failures.

                     replyreport
3. 78

   Castlepalomaposted 14 months ago

   https://youtu.be/kHp0ph37QRk
   
   I have searched the internet for a few former NASA denier of global warming.
   Everything one of them did not say there is no Global warming from their horses mouth.
   
   I agree there are Politicians looking to line their pocket with exgarrations.

   replyreport