Letter: Need other footprints at Kennebunk High School (Printed Jan. 18, 2008)
Editor:
Having read last week’s article about Emily Flaherty’s freshman science class’ initiative to “save us from global warming,” I think it’s time for a footprint of objectivity and educational clarity to make its mark at KHS.
While the causes of climate change have yet to be conclusively established by the scientific community through the sort of independent methodologies able to withstand rigorous peer review used to develop disease fighting drugs, I find it remarkable that Ms. Flaherty, a professional educator of our community’s young people, would expose them to only one side of a subject as controversial as climate change through a docu-drama recognized and publicly criticized to be overtly biased and containing considerable half-truths. There could be no better an example of indoctrination masquerading as education than this…right here in our own back yard. So to Ms. Flaherty et. al, have the intellectual courage and honesty to show your students both sides of the debate on climate change and let them form their own opinions as a result. If you’re unaware that counterpoints to Mr. Gore’s theatrical lecture abound in the scientific community of world renowned climatologists, geologists and physicists, let me know and I’ll be glad to recommend a starting point.
And since objectivity and intellectual honesty is the point to this letter, I’d like you to consider the following quote from scientist Stephen Schenider, whose webcast on global warming is to be featured at the Jan. 30 event – “We are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” Stepehen Schneider, Discover, pp. 45–48, Oct. 1989, see also American Physical Society, APS News August/September 1996.
In view of Schneider’s admission, his Web cast presentation in an educational setting should perhaps be reconsiderd as his bias is made clear by his own words. Kennebunk’s educators and administrators go to great lengths to eliminate any social or ethnic bias’ in our schools There should be no room for an intellectul bias either.
PS. – Thanks to Post reporter Stowell Watters for accurately describing global warming as “alleged.” That’s journalistic honesty.
Jeff Cole
Kennebunk
Having read last week’s article about Emily Flaherty’s freshman science class’ initiative to “save us from global warming,” I think it’s time for a footprint of objectivity and educational clarity to make its mark at KHS.
While the causes of climate change have yet to be conclusively established by the scientific community through the sort of independent methodologies able to withstand rigorous peer review used to develop disease fighting drugs, I find it remarkable that Ms. Flaherty, a professional educator of our community’s young people, would expose them to only one side of a subject as controversial as climate change through a docu-drama recognized and publicly criticized to be overtly biased and containing considerable half-truths. There could be no better an example of indoctrination masquerading as education than this…right here in our own back yard. So to Ms. Flaherty et. al, have the intellectual courage and honesty to show your students both sides of the debate on climate change and let them form their own opinions as a result. If you’re unaware that counterpoints to Mr. Gore’s theatrical lecture abound in the scientific community of world renowned climatologists, geologists and physicists, let me know and I’ll be glad to recommend a starting point.
And since objectivity and intellectual honesty is the point to this letter, I’d like you to consider the following quote from scientist Stephen Schenider, whose webcast on global warming is to be featured at the Jan. 30 event – “We are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” Stepehen Schneider, Discover, pp. 45–48, Oct. 1989, see also American Physical Society, APS News August/September 1996.
In view of Schneider’s admission, his Web cast presentation in an educational setting should perhaps be reconsiderd as his bias is made clear by his own words. Kennebunk’s educators and administrators go to great lengths to eliminate any social or ethnic bias’ in our schools There should be no room for an intellectul bias either.
PS. – Thanks to Post reporter Stowell Watters for accurately describing global warming as “alleged.” That’s journalistic honesty.
Jeff Cole
Kennebunk
I would be very interested to see the references (counterpoints to Mr. Gore’s theatrical lecture) that Mr. Cole refers to in his letter to the editor.
Thanks,
-Ethan
Reply to this