US Textbook Publishers Racing to Purge Mann's Debunked 'Hockey Stick' From STEM Curriculum

With a Canadian Court's ruling this week against Michael Mann, debunking his 'hockey stick' hypothesis after Mann failed, following eight years of deliberate delay, to produce either the Data, the Calculations or the Model to support his claim, we might expect US textbook publishers are racing to purge the debunked 'hockey stick' from CCSS Science curriculum.

Or, is it since US textbook publishers are controlled by IPCC EU environmental scientism, will they chose instead to leave Mann's unsupported claim untouched? As a former environmental scientist, transitioned to a now retired HS-CC teacher, and now curriculum writer, I'm puzzled why there's nothing in the education press. How should I write 2020-21 Science curriculum and lesson plans? Use the 'AGW Is Settled Science' fallback, to ensure that I get a payday for my publishing?

This is pivotal to education. As a (US) teacher, what is your position going forward? Will you 'teach to the text' as CCSS suggests, even if you're forced to teach your students a debunked claim? Will you risk using the word 'theory' to describe AGW, now the 'hockey stick' is debunked? Or is it 'not up to me', and you'll remain an Instructor of the Given Wisdom?

Use the thread to discuss issues you have with teaching curriculum that's debunked, obsolete or deliberately politicized.

Submitted August 29, 2019 at 08:45AM by Transmogrifacy https://ift.tt/2ZB7ZGy