A quick illustration of science-thinking, climate change, and the public discourse

What do we want "general education" students who aren't going to be scientists to come away from their college science classes able to do? Certainly some content knowledge is important, but more important, I think, is the way college science courses can improve how you think generally, especially as regards:

1. Attention to the importance of carefully defined terms.
2. A recognition that good thinking happens down in the details of the data.
3. An ability to recognize the unstated assumptions behind what is said and, if necessary, question those as well.

The third, especially, is difficult to teach, because you are asking people not just to analyze what is in front of them, but to see what is NOT in front of them, the unstated assumptions.

On that note, a tweet from the US Senate Democrats yesterday:

It’s time for the @SenateGOP to finally, finally admit that:

(1) Climate change is real
(2) It’s caused by human activity
(3) Congress must acthttps://t.co/RXxgWqpUjd

— Senate Democrats (@SenateDems) March 21, 2019

Well let's think about that. I'm not a climate scientist, but I can think scientifically.

#1 basically no one denies - the climate has been changing as long as the Earth has been a planet with a climate.

#2, "It's caused..." is vague phrasing. That humans are a factor is, again, affirmed by basically everyone. The big question here is how big of a factor humans are, and also,

#3, whether any changes we would make would pass a cost-benefit analysis.

Just to say again, real scientific thinking is dependent upon careful definitions and attention to the details of the data (and the details of any proposals). The way climate change is discussed in public today even by "proponents" often makes it sound more like a profession of proper faith even from them.