h, 2001).
Climate science is one of those fields. Those who study global warming deal with extremely complex, probabilistic systems that change over periods of time that exceed the typical human life span. Researchers, thus, use a host of other scientific methods including tracking patterns of indirect evidence from widely disparate sources as well as using computer models to simulate global changes over time. There is no crucial experiment that can be done to prove that global warming is upon us. Thats simply not how the science is done. But this doesnt mean that the knowledge generated about global warming is somehow suspect. Its as reliable as any knowledge can be about the phenomena in questionand its scientific through and through.
The problem is that the public doesnt have an adequate grasp of the wide range of methods that scientists use in exploring the different aspects of the world, and this isnt the first time weve seen the publics narrow view of science exploited. Time and again, big tobacco companies have argued over whether cigarettes have been proven to cause cancer. Opponents of teaching evolution have long thrived in this environment as well, asking biologists to demonstrate conclusively an instance of one species evolving into another. Its not surprising perhaps that the parent who objected to the Gore film is a young-earth creationist, who insists that the information in the documentary is, in his words, a very cockeyed view of what the truth is (McClure & Stiffler, 2007).
What should be done? More science isnt the answer, especially in the current climate of standardized testing, where additional facts will only exacerbate the problem, reinforcing in students minds the identification of science with certain knowledge. Neither is greater emphasis on the nature of science likely to help as long as such instruction remains limited to a monolithic picture of how science is done. The notion that there is a single scientific method or nature of science is simply wrong and does a disservice to a public seeking reliable knowledge to inform individual as well as public policy decisions related to the key socio-scientific issues of our time.
Should we teach the facts about global warming and other subjects like evolution? Absolutely. But we need to teach what we know about these subjects along with the various, specific ways these facts came to be. We need to help students understand the variety of methods and techniques that scientists use to explore the diverse phenomena in the worldthat is, the process of knowledge construction as its actually practiced (in all its localized instances) rather than the facile stereotype of some non-existent, singular scientific method. This aspect of science education is one that has been and continues to be overlooked, and this inconvenient truth is sure to have grave consequences for the future.
David, L. (2006, November 26). Science a la Joe Camel. Washington Post, p. B01, accessed online at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/24/AR2006112400789.html.
IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]. (2001). Third assessment report, 2001 (vols. 1-4). available online at http://www.ipcc.ch/.
Longino, H. (2001). The fate of knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
McClure, R., & Stiffler, L. (2007, January 11). Federal Way schools restrict Gore film. Seattle Post-Intelligencer, accessed online at http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/299253_inconvenient11.html.
Mooney, C. C. (2005). The Republican war on science. New York: Basic Books.
Rudolph, J. L. (2000). Reconsidering the nature of science as a curriculum component. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32, 403-419.
Shulman, S. (2006). Undermining science: Suppression and distortion in the Bush administration. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Strauss, V. (2006, December 19). Global warming another emerging topic. Washington Post, p. A10, accessed online at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/18/AR2006121800899.html.
Weart, S. R. (2003). The discovery of globa