|Chronology||Current Month||Current Thread||Current Date|
|[Year List] [Month List (current year)]||[Date Index] [Thread Index]||[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]||[Date Prev] [Date Next]|
Largely because most environmentaly issues rely on science that is notto
yet enshrined in the field as being correct.
Even apparently obvious bits like the greenhouse effect can cause
significant debate. If the topic is controversial but directly related
physics, I will deal with it. On the other hand, topics that onlynot
tangentially relate, but are open to considerable debate, it seems to me
should be left out of a physics class.
Further, most enviromental debate eventually comes to policy decisions.
Having been a debate coach, I find that science classrooms are clearly
the place for this -- social science classes are.
For example, the text _Chemistry and the Community_ simply spends too
little time on chemistry and too much on the social policy. If I wanted
to teach social science, I would go get certified in it.