James Trefil

George Mason University physics professor and author James Trefil "is known for his writing and his interest in teaching science to nonscientists. He accepted an offer of a George Mason University [teaching-focused] Robinson Professorship in order to develop a new kind of science curriculum for general education, one based on developing scientific literacy among college graduates."

While Trefil shows a firm grasp of the import of science literacy, the projects he's involved with downplay climate change or omit it entirely, and his views on climate are at odds with those of working climate scientists.

Bio
"After receiving a BS in physics from the University of Illinois, he received BA and MA degrees from Oxford University on a Marshall scholarship. He finished his studies as a National Science Foundation Fellow at Stanford University, where he received an MS and PhD in theoretical physics. Trefil taught at the University of Illinois and at the University of Virginia before joining George Mason in 1988."

.

General public
"'Widely known for his 'Ask Mr. Science' column, which ran in USA Today Weekend, [Trefil] has been a regular contributor to Smithsonian and Astronomy and is the author or editor of more than thirty books.'" Trefil was a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science's now-defunct Committee on the Public Understanding of Science and Technology ,

K-12 education
Trefil was the chief science consultant for a publisher of middle and high school textbooks, McDougal-Littell, but no longer held this position in December 2010. "Trefil...lectures all over the country at conventions for K-12 science teachers. Trefil and [Robert M.] Hazen both served for several years on the National Academy of Sciences – Science Education Standards content review board. George Mason is the only university that has had two faculty members serving together on the board, Trefil notes."

Science literacy
Trefil shows a firm grasp of the import of science literacy, though it is unclear what he thinks science literacy consists of.

Statements
“Many basic scientific principles such as global warming come into our lives every day. People who are educated about subjects that affect the quality of their lives make more informed decisions.”

Trefil likens scientific literacy to a course in music appreciation. ... “I’m not trying to convince anyone to become a scientist,” he continues, “just to build a foundation from which they can make their own moral calculations.”

"'a fundamental mismatch exists between the kinds of knowledge educational institutions are equipped to impart and the kind of knowledge the citizen needs. So scientists must define what parts of our craft are essential for the scientifically literate citizen and then put that knowledge together in a coherent package. For those still in school, that package can be delivered in new courses of study. For the great majority of Americans - those whom the educational system has already failed - this information has to be made available in other forms.'"

"If you can understand the news of the day as it relates to science, if you can take articles with headlines about stem cell research and the greenhouse effect and put them in a meaningful context ...then as far as we are concerned you are scientifically literate. ... Those who insist that everyone must understand science at a deep level are confusing two important but separate aspects of scientific knowledge.... Doing science is clearly distinct from using science; scientific literacy concerns only the latter.'"

Climate change
Trefil believes that in the case of climate science, any normal rules of thumb for science literacy (including the wisdom for laymen of relying on expertise) break down, since this field "is kind of an anomaly because it's become very politicized"; by which he means, climate scientists "get seduced by being close to power. And once they feel that their careers are on the line...they have to defend the point of view whether they think it's right or not"; while in private, they continue to express doubts they're afraid to share publicly.

But it's difficult to see how this interpretation would fit with the censorship that the fossil fuels industry and the George W. Bush administration inflicted on their climate scientists would fit with this interpretation; Trefil has not yet responded to email asking how he reconciles these.

When asked what climate change education sources he considers most credible and suitable for the intelligent - but time-crunched - layman, he replied "I'm not sure there is a reliable source per se for that field."

Deviation from consensus
Trefil's views on climate change deviate from those of climate scientists themselves. In 2010 he said : "'The test of any scientific theory is the ability to make accurate predictions. Ten years ago, no AGW theory predicted that there would be a ten year hiatus in the warming. This is a failure of the theory. I used to wonder why this was never addressed by the IPCC guys, but after the Climategate business, the answer was pretty obvious.'"But this "ten year hiatus in the warming" assertion is spurious ; plus during this period, the oceans - where over 90% of the heat goes - have continued to warm.. And multiple inquiries into the "Climategate business" found misleading quotes out of context and no evidence of wrongdoing.

Past statements/writings
In his 2004 book Human Nature: A Blueprint for Managing the Earth--by People, for People, Trefil said: "'The IPCC...result...is that temperatures by 2100 will be between 1.4 and 5.8 degrees Celsius warmer...This spread...is simply an indication of how much the models differ in their predictions. The difference between 1 and 6 degrees Celsius is a big one...'"(Here Trefil failed to note that "The wide range in [the IPCC] predictions is based upon several different scenarios that assume different levels of future CO2 emissions...The most optimistic outcome assumes an aggressive campaign to reduce CO2 emissions, while the most pessimistic is a "business as usual" scenario.") and (also from the 2004 book) "my own guess (and I have to stress that this is a guess) is that we will find that at least some, and perhaps even most, of the observed warming is due to the use of fossil fuels by human beings... How much are we willing to sacrifice today to avert the global warming predicted by the models?...I don't yet have enough faith in the Global Climate Models to give up [my standard of living]... You face the same situation every time you drive your car...insurance...a policy option that makes sense to me...[is] the "no regrets" option... alternative energy technologies...Some judicious support of research efforts, along with tax incentives and some regulatory changes, are probably all it would take right now to get us to where we want to go... Many of my colleagues ...think I should be more worried than I am.  Maybe so, but right now the uncertainties in the Global Climate Model predictions are too big, and the level of political invective in what should be a purely scientific debate too high...for me to come to any other conclusion. ...each of us needs to respect the fact that others may disagree with us [on what/whether actions need to be taken] and that disagreement is not a sign of moral failure."

In 2000 for PBS he said: "In order to make an incontrovertible case for global warming, you'd have to have a long-term temperature record, centuries, that was over a large part of the globe. And so you have to look over a long term and say "What's the average been for several hundred years, and is this a significant departure from that?" And that's what's very difficult to do."

Science Cheerleaders' Science Literacy - short shrift to climate change
Trefil is involved with Darlene Cavalier's "Science Cheerleaders" project; its Brain Makeover section puts forth 18 key concepts for science literacy ("What Everyone Needs to Know to Be A Science Literate"), drawn from Trefil's 1997 book Why Science. Of the 18, two impinge - barely - on climate change:
 * "13. The surface of the Earth is constantly changing."
 * "14. The Earth operates in many cycles.".

Related SourceWatch articles

 * George Mason University
 * Smithsonian Institution