You must log in or register to comment.

WonderWheeler t1_j1646py wrote

Texas school boards are notoriously conservative and they are also beholding to petrochemical companies. Texas is a big market for school books .They do not want updated text books because of the doom and gloom they will expose.


TheArcticFox444 t1_j1agma6 wrote

>Texas is a big market for school books .

Texas has "cornered the market" on textbooks sold all over the country!


The_Lawn_Ninja t1_j15x7ll wrote

Climate change itself may not fall under the classification of biology, but living things do not exist in a vacuum.

The impact of climate change on ecological and biological systems is vast and extremely relevant. Any college level text that doesn't include it is by definition lacking important contemporary context.


AdagioExtra1332 t1_j1a3fv4 wrote

Ecology has very much been a standard part of good introductory biology curriculums, and climate change in that context is absolutely relevant.


RSN_Kabutops t1_j15fflz wrote

"Textbooks not responsible for covering material are not covering material"


uninstallIE t1_j16fofz wrote

Climate change has biological impacts and biological causes. The biology of many of our agricultural and industrial practices (i.e. the flora and fauna involved and impacted) is the primary driver of climate change. The way that changes in temperature will impact flora and fauna, and indeed us as well is also vitally important to know.


Here's a very basic example. Temperatures can impact reproductive frequency, behavior, and the physical sex of many species. If you are studying biology as it relates to an average temperature that no longer exists on earth, you are not studying biology as you need to understand today.


vinbullet t1_j19k54y wrote

That's more ecology than biology imo. They definitely teach how temperature affects such things as reproduction and sex, which I would expect most high schoolers to be able to connect to changes in climate.


5LadiesInMy4Seater t1_j19wnrb wrote

For my own understanding, do you think Ecology is a higher level science that should be taught in a collegiate setting, or should we be exposing student to this subject (and climate change) in public schools?


uninstallIE t1_j19qqxh wrote

All professionals in all disciplines need to understand climate change and make it part of their practice because it impacts everything. A medical doctor needs to understand how changing climate will impact their patients, for example.


KaelthasX3 t1_j18xort wrote

IDK, back when I was in school, climate in general was under geography lessons, not biology.


uninstallIE t1_j19qyee wrote

It impacts everything. It's worth including in everything


Swarna_Keanu t1_j16ia3w wrote

As others already mentoned there is a huge overlap between the effects of climate change and biologiy - from species distribution to ecology to even what happens to whole strata of species. Small example - some sea turtles gender ratio is linked to the temperature of the ocean and is shifting more and more as temperatures rise - with an increased risk of extinction. There's loads of that interaction.

But Climate Change also is relevant to near any academic topic: From engineering (most of our infrastructure is not climate change ready) to social and political science (it has and will continue to have massive impacts in both areas) to psychology (that we don't act is a psychological issue - not one of the natural sciences) to medicine to forestry to animal husbandry and soil science to ...

There is no area of what is true and factual and real about our world that will not be altered in some way as our atmospheric systems change.


kslusherplantman t1_j16wd9t wrote

Based on that reasoning, we should be learning about waves from physics in biology since they are important to biology…


Chetkica t1_j17a2f8 wrote

Thats an utterly false analogy. We are talking about changing ecosystems (due to climate change), and pupils learning wrong outdated information, not adding geophysics to bio class.

No injections from other sciences are being added (not learning geophysics there) just ecology being adapted to the times and context being added. Otherwise you're learning not ecology but paleoecology

edit; here;


kslusherplantman t1_j17bmgx wrote

Oh, but they don’t study ecosystems in every biology class…

So THATS a false analogy in your own right!


Chetkica t1_j17e5kh wrote

what are you even saying.


kslusherplantman t1_j17eojw wrote

Using your own words against you…

do they study ecosystems in every biology class? Nope!

So therefore expecting to have that in EVERY biology class is also a false analogy.

I was being hyperbolic to prove a point.


Chetkica t1_j17jv2m wrote

Climate change and anthropogenic pollution have impacts worth mentioning beyond just ecology: e.g. evolutionary pressures of climate change (evolutionary biology), impacts of microplastics on the human body or corals (human and marine biology), degree and speed of extinction of different species, changes to biomes (biogeography), plastic eating microbes (microbiology) and so on and on.

No idea what kind of inner conflict this rambling is symptomatic of but i think our time can be better spent than this nonsense.


GhostRobot55 t1_j17ty29 wrote

But what's the point of your point, or are you just being contrarion because why not?

Shocking that your main reddit activity is growing drugs. I don't even have a problem with drugs, but you seem juvenile.


Chetkica t1_j179sjp wrote


ecology has so so so many intersecting points w the climate, you can remark on the changing effects of climate change on the ecosystem every page

Ecology is an entire semester in 4th grade of high school bio class in my country.;

1st year: basic biochem, biomolecules, codones, blabla

2nd: taxonomy, the tree of life and various groups of animals

3rd: human biology and plant biology

4th grade: genetics, genomics + ECOLOGY


guynamedjames t1_j16fpbw wrote

I'm not sure how climate change wouldn't be relevant in the context of biology. Sure something like microbiology or cellular biology aren't going to change much but every ecosystem out there is changing or about to start changing. I'm sure a book on artic wildlife would feature climate change extensively, the fact that others aren't just means they're behind the ball.


Michigan_Forged t1_j16uzf1 wrote

As it so happens, microbes have a massive impact on climate change.


Chetkica t1_j17bayr wrote

Cellular biology slightly less so, But microbiology is massively impacted by climate change, plastic pollution, and other human made phenomena


just-cuz-i t1_j16gfhv wrote

^ person that doesn’t understand science criticizing science


mrlolloran t1_j168l5p wrote

Awful headline but also frankly maybe a worse article.

Basically they’re concerned that there is less information about climate change in the books than there used to be. While I agree with people in thread saying it belongs in Biology but is nowhere near the focus I want to say this is a problem but the problems comes with how they’ve quantified it. They go by amount of sentences. They got up to 50 sentences in the average Biology textbook but it’s now down to 45.

I’m not saying they’re moving in the right direction but I don’t think this is a big deal. Especially since the thing they were most concerned about was that actionable remedies to climate change were removed, but that content doesn’t really belong in Biology. You need to understand some climate change basics to understand certain changes in a species biology but how to end climate change seems to primarily belong to another area of science IMO

edit: a word


Swarna_Keanu t1_j16ivex wrote

There's no one solution how to sequester carbon back out of the atmosphere. But healthy ecological systems are among the most cost-effective and likely to work.

That is to say - biology and ecology are a major, probably the only reliable, way to solve this. All technological solutions are unproven, highly expensive and would require a huge amount of energy.


mrlolloran t1_j16v85y wrote

I’m guessing that since there was only 50 sentences on climate change overall there has never been an entire chapter on this in the books they’re talking about. Leads me to believe this is studied elsewhere in a specialized way but maybe I’m looking at it wrong


Swarna_Keanu t1_j18pcti wrote

You misunderstand the statistics. An average of 50 sentences could mean that one book had 200 sentences and three others nothing. It doesn't tell you anything about the individual books. Which isn't what is important for their methodology.

They wanted to see if, on average, the topic is covered more or less. As climate change has a huge impact on biodiversity but also distribution of species, ecosystems, etc - it's an increasingly important topic to understand what happens out in the real world. If it's covered less across the books used they miss the mark of what needs to be communicated.

As I mentioned previosuly climate change is interdisciplinary. It ought to appear in textbooks everwhere it matters - from the perspective of that discipline. Unless / until climate change becomes a specific seperate subject in the curriculum - but that's evidently not the case, either.


mrlolloran t1_j18pztl wrote

Wow, implying I don’t understand what the word “average” means is incredibly insulting.


Swarna_Keanu t1_j18rr0b wrote

I didn't imply that.

>I’m guessing that since there was only 50 sentences on climate change overall there has never been an entire chapter on this in the books they’re talking about.

I responded to this - where you took the average as an absolute. You can't know - from the data - if there ever was an entire chapter on this in the books they're talking about.


mrlolloran t1_j18sgxc wrote

If entire chapters are missing why didn’t they say so. It seems so obvious that that information would have been included in here that I cannot even fathom why it it would be omitted. I mean think of how much more weight the article could have. The only way that makes sense to me if it’s in the study but not the article about it and that frustrated the editor, who then editorialized the headline to match what they considered to be the importance of the study. Almost, but admittedly not quite, an ad absurdum fallacy to me given the lack of context.

It also would have been useful to include the average chapter length but maybe I either missed that or it’s in the more detailed study


Swarna_Keanu t1_j18sx4h wrote

>If entire chapters are missing why didn’t they say so.

'Cause it's not what they measured. Happy to debate if that was good methodology or not ... but the study just is what it is. :)


mrlolloran t1_j18to4r wrote

Studies usually have conclusions. I’m not actually a trained scientist, and I haven’t read this study, but that doesn’t mean I’ve never read a study. They looked at under 100 books, they could have and should have checked the table of contents, it would be all too easy to check this stuff. Frankly if they didn’t then I’d call it really bad methodology.


Swarna_Keanu t1_j196ejt wrote

:) Welcome to the nonsense that happens due the the "publish or perish" mantra.

It's still informative in that the average sentences decreased. But you know - that's all it says, and all they checked. Would need to dig into the data for more. Might be that there'll be a follow up study in a couple years. And another, and another, which is when it becomes more of a useful data set.


Chetkica t1_j1797s9 wrote

Sequestered carbon in the form of Forests is back in the atmosphere with the first wildfire. And boy will there be many ,many, many. The Mediterranean and Siberia have been burning up for years.

Carbon offsets and similar stuff are distractions to keep consumption at unsustainable levels, and plain ole scams; and then you have both the big emissions that were supposedly "offset" and the additional carbon in trees burning up (thats when corporations actually do anything and arent just "planting" their offsets in the Australian desert...)

Now we should keep finding new ways, but defo wouldn't count on trees, and such sabotaging scams as carbon offsets

Sayin Just in case.


Swarna_Keanu t1_j18of2n wrote

I wasn't talking about offsets. That's greenwashing nonsense. As is focusing on technological solutions.

I am not talking about forests. I am saying we need healthy ecosystems. So - appreciate the comment, but missed the mark of what I was indicating.

We need to alter how we interact with the environment. That's social science and psychology mainly.


[deleted] t1_j15bojc wrote



Discount_gentleman t1_j15uwro wrote

The idea that you could cover general biology at a college level without discussing climate change is educational malpractice.


Dipteran_de_la_Torre t1_j18d9fm wrote

I teach intro bio every year and zero of the planned content is climate change. Students will see that in other parts of our overall curriculum. My job is to get them understanding cells and genes.


anotheralpaca69 t1_j15yo7b wrote

They do discuss it. It just doesn't meet the study's fabricated definition of adequate.


Discount_gentleman t1_j161vl2 wrote

I was responding to your claim that is not their job to discuss it.


anotheralpaca69 t1_j165fju wrote

> without discussing

And I was clarifying they do discuss it.


Moont1de t1_j15clak wrote

In the context of ecological changes it is, but climate change itself is a geography subject


party_benson t1_j15wdho wrote

Not if the school board is run by Republicans who chose the textbooks


zweet_zen t1_j166lpr wrote

Why must a science sub always resort to political hatred?


party_benson t1_j167qr6 wrote

Because Republicans vote against education, science, research, technology, and progress.


Yotsubato t1_j16e13l wrote

> Looks at DARPA funding for MIT. NASA, Military branches and tech….

Everything you love about robotics, astronomy, mechanical engineering, aerospace, nuclear engineering, etc. was funded in part by the military industrial complex which is heavily supported by Republican politicians.


party_benson t1_j16fjob wrote

Yeah, bipartisan spending is interesting that. I specifically said what they vote against. Which is funding education. The point was missed by you.


zweet_zen t1_j168kyu wrote

Sure, and Democrats are saints that have all your best interest in mind. If you really think any politician has you in mind when they do anything you are a fool. But please keep up with the hate filled rhetoric, it's good for your soul... Again this is a science sub, shouldn't be the political crapfest.

And please with all your wisdom become a politician, and do the right things for everyone. Or just hide behind your device and spread the hate you consume because you have nothing to add to the real conversation.


Rpanich t1_j17j0zi wrote

You notice how whenever someone mentions the republicans doing something wrong, the go to response is always “yeah, but the dems aren’t perfect either and they’re doing the same thing!!!”

No one’s claiming they’re perfect except you?

Science shouldn’t be political, but only one party consistently votes against world wide scientific consensus.

Evolution, climate change, vaccines, basic virology. These shouldn’t be political issues, but one party understands and supports the science, and the other actively fights against the science.


Chalkarts t1_j160uf7 wrote

We should be planting trees, not corn.


Yotsubato t1_j16e6tj wrote

Lumber farms are actually lousy for diversity


Chalkarts t1_j16eyxx wrote

Go natural. Just let a forest take over the fields.


Moont1de t1_j15cii4 wrote

Climate change is geography… but in the US geography is not in the SATs so students don’t care about it


Discount_gentleman t1_j15uohj wrote

This refers to college level textbooks


Moont1de t1_j15v374 wrote

Weird, in Brazil we learn about climate change in middle school


Discount_gentleman t1_j15vir4 wrote

In the US, many states either frown upon any discussion of climate change in public school textbooks. If publishers can't get the textbooks approved for important segments of the public school market, they won't bother publishing them at all.


Mirrorflute88 t1_j168gup wrote

Biology isn’t on the SAT either. Students definitely care about subjects that aren’t on the SAT because that’s everything outside of English and math.


xAfterBirthx t1_j16do5e wrote

Yes, if anything most people do care as much about the subjects on the SAT haha


SophiaRaine69420 t1_j16er0e wrote

Climate change is also biology. Different temperatures = different environmental factors = encouragement of growth of cells not native to current temps/environments


DukeLukeivi t1_j17atlx wrote

Actually it's electromagnetic physics intersecting with molecular structures. Everything else is accessory after the fact, but not enough focus is given to the physical facts that are the basis of the idea.

Can you actually describe what happens -- CO2 goes into the atmosphere, and then what? How does it make things warmer?


Moont1de t1_j17b2aq wrote

The origin of the current degree of climate change we are observing is anthropogenic, ergo geography.

The mechanism is secondary to that.


DukeLukeivi t1_j17c833 wrote

That's a bizarrely obtuse classification you're using, human action is compounding the physical basis of the concept, so the physics don't matter? Saying "people does it," is meaningless without being able to explain how.

Climate change should feature pretty prominently in physics, chem, bio, as well as geography; all branches are effected/contributory.


Moont1de t1_j17cc9h wrote

I never said the physics do not matter, my recommendation is you actually read what I wrote instead of being outraged about what you imagined.


DukeLukeivi t1_j17cici wrote

The physical basis isn't secondary in any way tho, and it of course isn't solely the concern of geography.


Moont1de t1_j17cmj8 wrote

I didn’t say it was solely the concern of geography, but it is primarily a geographical phenomenon.


DukeLukeivi t1_j17d109 wrote

No it's geography built on biology built on chemistry built on physics and understanding at all the levels is important, what with the drastic ramifications to the entire geosphere.


Moont1de t1_j17d32a wrote

I agree that understanding at all levels is important


qviki t1_j17hpbu wrote

Yeah, let's blame biology books.


Cainso t1_j15viqh wrote

It's almost like textbooks as a medium for knowledge has been obsolete for a while. I remember learning calculus and thinking that the textbook was confusing as hell, so I went and watched a free online video for it and they explained everything 1000x better.


Dipteran_de_la_Torre t1_j18dh8z wrote

Textbooks are merely one tool for learning. They are great at laying out the broader field in a way that lets you see the forest through the trees. They are good at being comprehensive. There’s nothing wrong with textbooks.


Cainso t1_j19w1mb wrote

A web page can do the exact same thing except it is far cheaper or outright free, and it can be updated and deployed to people instantly. In many fields a textbook can become outdated in literally just a few months, and now you wasted your money. But professors don't care because they're usually making money off of them.

Textbooks drain the already strained finances of countless students and are found to give old or flat out wrong information all the time. There is literally nothing a textbook does that an online alternative cannot, it's only negatives.


AutoModerator t1_j158wu5 wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.



Yes, print more paper to warn of climate change


duck_one t1_j15r8o3 wrote

Yep, folks don't need no learnin they can't get from the Facebook.



Do you not see the irony in cutting down trees to warn people about the environment?


AtLeastThisIsntImgur t1_j16hre1 wrote

Do you not see the irony of exhaling CO2 when talking about the environment?



Do you see the irony in putting ice in your water? Why don't we just make our glaciers more bigger?


duck_one t1_j16bmpf wrote

No? Forestry is fully sustainable, thanks to the USDA. Sustainability is also a requirement for international trade, so no paper products sold in the US (or most of the world) are from environmentally detrimental sources.



Yes forestry is sustainable in America and other countries but not all countries, right?


duck_one t1_j16mofl wrote

Now I see why you took my first post personally.



You didn't answer the question, which is a legitimate one. The USDA controls the import of all paper products to make sure they're sustainable?


duck_one t1_j16ooxn wrote

My name isn't google dude. Man, you are weird.



I thought you knew something more because you sure were talking like you did.


pete_68 t1_j16y7fv wrote

Odds of finding it in a textbook in Texas or Florida is certainly going to be pretty slim.


candornotsmoke t1_j16yvrd wrote

Who is actually suprised by this????? People think what they believe means more than facts or science.


ChrisDoom t1_j172itm wrote

I really wish I could find this story(I think it was NPR?) that interviews the writer of a college economics text book, talking about how his publisher forced him to include a chapter presenting outdated/debunked information about inflation as fact because they knew who they had to sell the text book too: old conservative department heads with outdated understandings of economics.

This article just takes me back to that. It’s not about making the best text book for the students, it’s about selling text books to schools.


Chetkica t1_j178ouh wrote

School books are like that because relevant petrochemical corporations keep paying to the editors of said textbooks.

It is absolutely intentional


HalensVan t1_j17uek5 wrote

I was going to write up this thing about the flow of information being too fast to keep up, and if you are relying on textbooks, your going to behind anyway blah blah blah

And then I read

"included less information about climate change than they did in the previous decade " Thats way more concerning.


Coffee_Chief t1_j1855yr wrote

Given the price of text books, I'm surprised that they can't keep them up to date.


studyhardbree t1_j18fi2y wrote

It’s 2022. Give students ebooks and change the data as needed. What’s hard about this?


akascot t1_j18nixc wrote

Because that’s Earth Science not Biology


akascot t1_j18nmk2 wrote

Geology text books are keeping up


riodoro1 t1_j18x3hj wrote

At some point we just have to give up, don’t we?

It’s gonna be bad and we’ll do nothing about it, because it’s not our call. The illusion will work for 10 more years at best and then they’ll just tell us we should’ve bought our own apocalypse arks.

We’re already living the end of the world, it’s just taking longer than Hollywood made us believe.


Awellplanned t1_j175kee wrote

Stop printing the books then, that would also help the environment.


FindTheRemnant t1_j17b26p wrote

They won't be satisfied until every class is 100% pushing the agenda.