O Consenso Científico sobre Aquecimento Global Antropogênico: Considerações Históricas e Epistemológicas e Reflexões para o Ensino dessa Temática
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.28976/1984-2686rbpec2018182455Palavras-chave:
aquecimento global, controvérsia científica, consenso científico, controvérsias científicas fabricadas, educação ambiental.Resumo
Um dos desafios da educação ambiental para o século XXI é a inserção da temática do aquecimento global ou mudanças climáticas na sala de aula escolar. A natureza complexa do tema torna difícil a tarefa do(a) professor(a) em separar os elementos controversos e não controversos dessa temática. Neste sentido, este trabalho visa ir ao encontro dessa dificuldade discutindo sob uma perspectiva da história e epistemologia da ciência a temática do consenso científico sobre aquecimento global antropogênico. Embora em contextos midiáticos e inclusive educacionais este tema muitas vezes ainda seja apresentado como um exemplo de controvérsia científica, argumentamos, tomando por bases trabalhos de história, filosofia e sociologia da ciência, que aquecimento global antropogênico é uma matéria sobre a qual existe atualmente um amplo e legítimo consenso científico. Neste sentido, defendemos que é necessário que educadores(as) e pesquisadores(as) em ensino de ciências tomem cautela ao tratar dessa temática da perspectiva do ensino da controvérsia e, de modo especial, prestem atenção ao que vem sendo chamado na literatura internacional de ‘controvérsias científicas fabricadas’ na esfera pública, com vistas a confundir o público em geral sobre a seriedade de diferentes problemas ambientais, inclusive as mudanças climáticas. Assim, consideramos importante que educadores(as) das ciências que pretendem optar pelo ensino da controvérsia em sala de aula aprofundem seus estudos de história da ciência para avaliar, de modo apropriado, o debate sobre aquecimento global.
Downloads
Não há dados estatísticos.
Referências
Aikenhead, G. S. (1985). Collective decision making in the social context of science. Science Education, 69(4), 443–446. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730690403
Anderegg, W., Prall, J., Harold, J., & Schneider, S. (2010). Expert credibility in climate change. Proceedings Of The National Academy Of Sciences, 107(27), 12107–12109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1003187107
Auler, D., & Bazzo, W. (2001). Reflexões para implementação do movimento CTS no contexto educacional brasileiro. Ciência & Educação, 7(1), 1–13.
Baltas, A. (2000). Classifying scientific controversies. In P. Machamer, M. Pera, & A. Baltas, Scientific controversies: philosophical and historical perspectives (pp. 40–49). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Banwell, C. (1972). Fundamentals of molecular spectroscopy. London: McGraw-Hill.
Barrota, P. (2000). Scientific dialectics in action: the case of Joseph Priestley. In P. Machamer, M. Pera, & A. Baltas, Scientific controversies: philosophical and historical perspectives (pp. 153–176). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Barry, R. & Chorley, R. (2013). Atmosfera, tempo e clima. Porto Alegre: Bookman.
Berger, A., & Loutre, M. F. (2002). An Exceptionally Long Interglacial Ahead? Science, 297(5585), 1287–1288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1076120
Boykoff, M., & Boykoff, J. (2004). Balance as bias: Global warming and the US prestige press. Global Environmental Change, 14(2), 125–136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2003.10.001
Ceccarelli, L. (2011). Manufactured Scientific Controversy: Science, Rhetoric, and Public Debate. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 14(2), 195–228. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/rap.2010.0222
Christopherson, R. (2012). Geossistemas: Uma introdução a geografia física. Porto Alegre: Bookman.
Cook, J., Nuccitelli, D., Green, S. A., Richardson, M., Winkler, B., Painting, R., Way, R., Jacobs, P., & Skuce, A. (2013). Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Environmental Research Letters, 8(2), 024024. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
Doran, P., & Zimmerman, M. (2009). Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 90(3), 22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2009eo030002
Ehrlich, P. R., & Ehrlich, A. H. (1998). Betrayal of science and reason: how anti-environmental rethoric threatens our future. Washington: Island Press.
Engelhard, Jr., T., & Caplan, A. (1987). Scientific controversies: case studies in the resolution and closure of disputes in science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Feldman, R., & Warfield, T. (Eds.). (2010). Disagreement. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fleming, J. (1998). Historical Perspectives on Climate Change. New York: Oxford University Press.
Flôr Vieira, K. R. C., & Bazzo, W. A. (2007). Discussões acerca do aquecimento global: uma proposta CTS para abordar esse tema controverso em sala de aula. Ciência & Ensino, 1(número especial).
Frankel, H. (1987). The continental drift debate. In Jr. H. T., Eengelhard, A. L., Caplan (Orgs.). Scientific controversies: case studies in the resolution and closure of disputes in science and technology. (pp. 203–248.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
Freudenthal, G. (2000). A rational controversy over compounding forces. In P. Machamer, M. Pera & A. Baltas, Scientific controversies: philosophical and historical perspectives (pp. 125–142). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goody, R., & Walker, J. (1996). Atmosferas planetárias. São Paulo: Edgard Blucher.
Hakli, Raul. (2011). On dialectical justification of group beliefs”. In H. B., Schmid, D. Sirtes, & M., Weber. (Orgs.). Collective epistemology. (pp.119–153). Frakfurt: Ontos.
Hand, M. (2008). What should we teach as controversial? A defense of the epistemic criterion. Educational Theory, 58(2), 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.2008.00285.x
Hansen, J., Johnson, D., Lacis, A., Lebedeff, S., Lee, P., Rind, D., & Russel, G. (1981). Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213(4511), 957–966. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.213.4511.957
Harker, D. (2015). Creating scientific controversies: uncertainty and bias in science and society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. (2010). The disclosure of climate data from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Recuperado de http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/387i.pdf.
Hulme, M. (2009). Why we disagree about climate change: understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
IALEI – International Alliance of Leading Education Institutes. (2009). Climate Change and Sustainable Development: The Response from Education: A cross-national report from International Alliance of Leading Education Institutes. Denmark: IALEI.
IPCC. (1996). Summary for Policymakers. In Clima change 1995: The scince of climate change. Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [J. T. Houghton, L. G. Meira Filho, B. A. Callander, N. Harris, A. Kattenberg, & K. Maskell (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 588pp.
IPCC. (2001). Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [J. T. Houghton, Y. Ding, D. J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P. J. van der Linden, X. Dai, K. Maskell, & C. A. Johnson (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 881pp.
IPCC. (2013). Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [T. F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S. K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex & P. M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
Jacobi, P. R., Guerra, A. F., Sulaiman, S. N., & Nepomuceno, T. (2011). Mudanças climáticas globais: A resposta da educação. Revista Brasileira de Educação, 16(46), 135–148.
Jacques, P. J., Dunlap, R. E., & Freeman, M. (2008). The organization of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental skepticism. Environmental Politics, 17(3), 349–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644010802055576
Herrick, C. N., Jamieson, D. (2001). Junk Science and Environmental Policy: Obscuring Public Debate With Misleading Discourse. Philosophy & Public Police Quaterly, 21(2–3), 11–16.
Kelly, T. (2010). Peer disagreement and higher order evidence. In R. Feldman, & T. Warfield (Orgs.). Disagreement. (pp.111–174). New York: Oxford University Press.
Kitcher, P. (2010). The Climate Change Debates. Science, 328(5983), 1230–1234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1189312
Kolsto, S. (2001). Scientific Literacy of Citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85(3), 291–310. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.1011
Kuhn, Thomas. (1962). A estrutura das revoluções científicas. São Paulo: Perspectiva.
Kuhn. Thomas. (1974). Objectivity, value judgment and theory choice. In T. Kuhn. The essential tension: selected estudies in the scientific tradition and change. (pp. 356–367). University of Chicago Press.
Lambert, J., Lindgren, J., & Bleicher, R. (2012). Assessing elementary science methods students’ understanding about global climate change. International Journal of Science Education, 34(8), 1167–1187. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.633938
Latour, B. (2004). Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern. Critical Inquiry, 30(2), 225–248. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/421123
Leiserowitz, A., & Smith, N. (2010). Knowledge of Climate Change Across Global Warming’s Six Americas. Yale University. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. Recuperado de http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication-OFF/files/Knowledge_Across_Six_Americas.pdf.
Lissauer, J., & Pater, I. (2013). Fundamental planetary science: physics, chemistry and habitability. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lockwood, M. (2010). Solar change and climate: an update in the light of the current exceptional solar minimum. Proceedings Of The Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical And Engineering Sciences, 466(2114), 303–329. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2009.0519
Lombardi, D., & Sinatra, G. (2012). College Students’ perceptions about the plausibility of human induced climate change. Research in Science Education, 42(2), 201–217.
Longino, H. (1990). Science as social knowledge. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Longino, H. (2002). The fate of knowledge. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2002.
Lugg, A. (1978). Disagreement in science. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 9(2), 276–292. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25170474
Luntz. F. (2002). The environment: a cleaner, safer, healthier America. Recuperado de http://www.sindark.com/NonBlog/Articles/LuntzResearch_environment.pdf.
Machamer, P., Pera, M., & Baltas, A. (2000). Scientific controversies: philosophical and historical perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mcmullin, E. (1987). Scientific controversies and its termination. In Jr. H. T. Eengelhard, A. L. Caplan (Orgs.). Scientific controversies: case studies in the resolution and closure of disputes in science and technology. (pp. 49–91). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
McMullin, E. (1982). Values in Science. PSA: Proceedings Of The Biennial Meeting Of The Philosophy Of Science Association, 1982(2), 3–28. http://www.jstor.org/stable/192409
McCright, A., & Dunlap, R. (2010). Anti-reflexivity: The American conservative movement’s success in undermining climate science and policy. Theory Culture Society, 27(2–3), 100–133. http://doi.org/10.1177/0263276409356001
Muir Russel, A. (2010). The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review. Recuperado de http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf.
Mulvey, K., & Shulman, S. (2015). The Climate Deception Dossiers: internal fossil fuel industry memos reveal decades of corporate disinformation. Union of Concerned Scientist. Recuperado de https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/The-Climate-Deception-Dossiers.pdf .
Niebert, K., & Gropengiesser, H. (2014). Understanding the greenhouse effect by embodiment – Analysing and using students’ and scientists’ conceptual resources. International Journal of Science Education, 36 (2), 277–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.763298
Oreskes, N. (2004). Beyond the ivory tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change. Science, 306(5702), 1686–1686. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1103618
Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. (2010). Merchants of doubt: how a handful of scientists obscured the truth on to issues from tobacco smoke global warming. New York: Bloomsbury Press.
Oxburgh, R. (Lord). Science Assessment Panel. (2010). Recuperado de http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/SAP
Pearce, F. (2010). The climate files. London: Guardian Books.
Peterson, T., Connolley, W., & Fleck, J. (2008). The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus. Bulletin Of The American Meteorological Society, 89(9), 1325–1337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/2008bams2370.1
Pierrehumbert, R. (2011). Infrared radiation and planetary temperature. Physics Today, 64(1), 33–38. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3541943
Pina, A., Silva, L. F., & Oliveira Júnior, Z. T. (2010). Mudanças climáticas: reflexões para subsidiar esta discussão em aulas de física. Caderno Brasileiro de Ensino de Física, 27(3), 449–472.
Plass, G. (1956). Effect of Carbon Dioxide Variations on Climate. American Journal Of Physics, 24(5), 376–387. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1934233
Ratinen, I. J. (2013). Primary student-teachers’ conceptual understanding of the greenhouse effect: a mixed method study. International Journal of Science Education, 35(6), 929–955. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.587845
Ribeiro, R. A., & Kawamura, M. R. (2014). Educação ambiental e temas controversos. Revista Brasileira de Pesquisa em Educação em Ciências, 14(2), 159–169.
Ripple, W. J., Wolf, C., Newsome, T. M., Galetti, M., Alamgir, M., Crist, E., Mahmoud, M., & Laurance, W. (2017). World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice. Bioscience. 67(12), 1026–1028. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix125
Sadler, T. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: a critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 41(5), 513–536. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20009
Sadler, T., & Murakami, C. (2014). Socio-scientific issues based teaching and learning: hydrofracturing as an ilustrative context of a framework for implementation and research. Revista Brasileira de Pesquisa em Educação em Ciências, 14(2), 331–342.
Shed e Bearman. (2010). The temporal Strcuture of Scientific Consensus Formation. American Sociological Review. 75(6). 817–840. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122410388488
Steup, M. (1996). An introduction to contemporary epistemology. New Jersey: Printice Hall.
Solomon, M. (2001). Social empiricism. Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Taylor, F. W. (2005). Elementary climate physics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Washington, H., & Cook, J. (2011). Climate change denial: heads in the sand. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Weart, S. (2008). The discovery of global warming. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Weart, S. (2003–2017). The Discovery of Global Warming - A History. History.aip.org. Recuperado de https://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm.
World Meteorological Organization. (1979). Proceedings of the World Climate Conference: a conference of experts on climate and mankind. Geneva. Recuperado de https://library.wmo.int/pmb_ged/wmo_537_en.pdf .
Anderegg, W., Prall, J., Harold, J., & Schneider, S. (2010). Expert credibility in climate change. Proceedings Of The National Academy Of Sciences, 107(27), 12107–12109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1003187107
Auler, D., & Bazzo, W. (2001). Reflexões para implementação do movimento CTS no contexto educacional brasileiro. Ciência & Educação, 7(1), 1–13.
Baltas, A. (2000). Classifying scientific controversies. In P. Machamer, M. Pera, & A. Baltas, Scientific controversies: philosophical and historical perspectives (pp. 40–49). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Banwell, C. (1972). Fundamentals of molecular spectroscopy. London: McGraw-Hill.
Barrota, P. (2000). Scientific dialectics in action: the case of Joseph Priestley. In P. Machamer, M. Pera, & A. Baltas, Scientific controversies: philosophical and historical perspectives (pp. 153–176). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Barry, R. & Chorley, R. (2013). Atmosfera, tempo e clima. Porto Alegre: Bookman.
Berger, A., & Loutre, M. F. (2002). An Exceptionally Long Interglacial Ahead? Science, 297(5585), 1287–1288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1076120
Boykoff, M., & Boykoff, J. (2004). Balance as bias: Global warming and the US prestige press. Global Environmental Change, 14(2), 125–136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2003.10.001
Ceccarelli, L. (2011). Manufactured Scientific Controversy: Science, Rhetoric, and Public Debate. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 14(2), 195–228. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/rap.2010.0222
Christopherson, R. (2012). Geossistemas: Uma introdução a geografia física. Porto Alegre: Bookman.
Cook, J., Nuccitelli, D., Green, S. A., Richardson, M., Winkler, B., Painting, R., Way, R., Jacobs, P., & Skuce, A. (2013). Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Environmental Research Letters, 8(2), 024024. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
Doran, P., & Zimmerman, M. (2009). Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 90(3), 22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2009eo030002
Ehrlich, P. R., & Ehrlich, A. H. (1998). Betrayal of science and reason: how anti-environmental rethoric threatens our future. Washington: Island Press.
Engelhard, Jr., T., & Caplan, A. (1987). Scientific controversies: case studies in the resolution and closure of disputes in science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Feldman, R., & Warfield, T. (Eds.). (2010). Disagreement. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fleming, J. (1998). Historical Perspectives on Climate Change. New York: Oxford University Press.
Flôr Vieira, K. R. C., & Bazzo, W. A. (2007). Discussões acerca do aquecimento global: uma proposta CTS para abordar esse tema controverso em sala de aula. Ciência & Ensino, 1(número especial).
Frankel, H. (1987). The continental drift debate. In Jr. H. T., Eengelhard, A. L., Caplan (Orgs.). Scientific controversies: case studies in the resolution and closure of disputes in science and technology. (pp. 203–248.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
Freudenthal, G. (2000). A rational controversy over compounding forces. In P. Machamer, M. Pera & A. Baltas, Scientific controversies: philosophical and historical perspectives (pp. 125–142). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goody, R., & Walker, J. (1996). Atmosferas planetárias. São Paulo: Edgard Blucher.
Hakli, Raul. (2011). On dialectical justification of group beliefs”. In H. B., Schmid, D. Sirtes, & M., Weber. (Orgs.). Collective epistemology. (pp.119–153). Frakfurt: Ontos.
Hand, M. (2008). What should we teach as controversial? A defense of the epistemic criterion. Educational Theory, 58(2), 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.2008.00285.x
Hansen, J., Johnson, D., Lacis, A., Lebedeff, S., Lee, P., Rind, D., & Russel, G. (1981). Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213(4511), 957–966. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.213.4511.957
Harker, D. (2015). Creating scientific controversies: uncertainty and bias in science and society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. (2010). The disclosure of climate data from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Recuperado de http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/387i.pdf.
Hulme, M. (2009). Why we disagree about climate change: understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
IALEI – International Alliance of Leading Education Institutes. (2009). Climate Change and Sustainable Development: The Response from Education: A cross-national report from International Alliance of Leading Education Institutes. Denmark: IALEI.
IPCC. (1996). Summary for Policymakers. In Clima change 1995: The scince of climate change. Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [J. T. Houghton, L. G. Meira Filho, B. A. Callander, N. Harris, A. Kattenberg, & K. Maskell (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 588pp.
IPCC. (2001). Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [J. T. Houghton, Y. Ding, D. J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P. J. van der Linden, X. Dai, K. Maskell, & C. A. Johnson (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 881pp.
IPCC. (2013). Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [T. F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S. K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex & P. M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
Jacobi, P. R., Guerra, A. F., Sulaiman, S. N., & Nepomuceno, T. (2011). Mudanças climáticas globais: A resposta da educação. Revista Brasileira de Educação, 16(46), 135–148.
Jacques, P. J., Dunlap, R. E., & Freeman, M. (2008). The organization of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental skepticism. Environmental Politics, 17(3), 349–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644010802055576
Herrick, C. N., Jamieson, D. (2001). Junk Science and Environmental Policy: Obscuring Public Debate With Misleading Discourse. Philosophy & Public Police Quaterly, 21(2–3), 11–16.
Kelly, T. (2010). Peer disagreement and higher order evidence. In R. Feldman, & T. Warfield (Orgs.). Disagreement. (pp.111–174). New York: Oxford University Press.
Kitcher, P. (2010). The Climate Change Debates. Science, 328(5983), 1230–1234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1189312
Kolsto, S. (2001). Scientific Literacy of Citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85(3), 291–310. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.1011
Kuhn, Thomas. (1962). A estrutura das revoluções científicas. São Paulo: Perspectiva.
Kuhn. Thomas. (1974). Objectivity, value judgment and theory choice. In T. Kuhn. The essential tension: selected estudies in the scientific tradition and change. (pp. 356–367). University of Chicago Press.
Lambert, J., Lindgren, J., & Bleicher, R. (2012). Assessing elementary science methods students’ understanding about global climate change. International Journal of Science Education, 34(8), 1167–1187. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.633938
Latour, B. (2004). Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern. Critical Inquiry, 30(2), 225–248. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/421123
Leiserowitz, A., & Smith, N. (2010). Knowledge of Climate Change Across Global Warming’s Six Americas. Yale University. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. Recuperado de http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication-OFF/files/Knowledge_Across_Six_Americas.pdf.
Lissauer, J., & Pater, I. (2013). Fundamental planetary science: physics, chemistry and habitability. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lockwood, M. (2010). Solar change and climate: an update in the light of the current exceptional solar minimum. Proceedings Of The Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical And Engineering Sciences, 466(2114), 303–329. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2009.0519
Lombardi, D., & Sinatra, G. (2012). College Students’ perceptions about the plausibility of human induced climate change. Research in Science Education, 42(2), 201–217.
Longino, H. (1990). Science as social knowledge. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Longino, H. (2002). The fate of knowledge. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2002.
Lugg, A. (1978). Disagreement in science. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 9(2), 276–292. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25170474
Luntz. F. (2002). The environment: a cleaner, safer, healthier America. Recuperado de http://www.sindark.com/NonBlog/Articles/LuntzResearch_environment.pdf.
Machamer, P., Pera, M., & Baltas, A. (2000). Scientific controversies: philosophical and historical perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mcmullin, E. (1987). Scientific controversies and its termination. In Jr. H. T. Eengelhard, A. L. Caplan (Orgs.). Scientific controversies: case studies in the resolution and closure of disputes in science and technology. (pp. 49–91). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
McMullin, E. (1982). Values in Science. PSA: Proceedings Of The Biennial Meeting Of The Philosophy Of Science Association, 1982(2), 3–28. http://www.jstor.org/stable/192409
McCright, A., & Dunlap, R. (2010). Anti-reflexivity: The American conservative movement’s success in undermining climate science and policy. Theory Culture Society, 27(2–3), 100–133. http://doi.org/10.1177/0263276409356001
Muir Russel, A. (2010). The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review. Recuperado de http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf.
Mulvey, K., & Shulman, S. (2015). The Climate Deception Dossiers: internal fossil fuel industry memos reveal decades of corporate disinformation. Union of Concerned Scientist. Recuperado de https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/The-Climate-Deception-Dossiers.pdf .
Niebert, K., & Gropengiesser, H. (2014). Understanding the greenhouse effect by embodiment – Analysing and using students’ and scientists’ conceptual resources. International Journal of Science Education, 36 (2), 277–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.763298
Oreskes, N. (2004). Beyond the ivory tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change. Science, 306(5702), 1686–1686. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1103618
Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. (2010). Merchants of doubt: how a handful of scientists obscured the truth on to issues from tobacco smoke global warming. New York: Bloomsbury Press.
Oxburgh, R. (Lord). Science Assessment Panel. (2010). Recuperado de http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/SAP
Pearce, F. (2010). The climate files. London: Guardian Books.
Peterson, T., Connolley, W., & Fleck, J. (2008). The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus. Bulletin Of The American Meteorological Society, 89(9), 1325–1337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/2008bams2370.1
Pierrehumbert, R. (2011). Infrared radiation and planetary temperature. Physics Today, 64(1), 33–38. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3541943
Pina, A., Silva, L. F., & Oliveira Júnior, Z. T. (2010). Mudanças climáticas: reflexões para subsidiar esta discussão em aulas de física. Caderno Brasileiro de Ensino de Física, 27(3), 449–472.
Plass, G. (1956). Effect of Carbon Dioxide Variations on Climate. American Journal Of Physics, 24(5), 376–387. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1934233
Ratinen, I. J. (2013). Primary student-teachers’ conceptual understanding of the greenhouse effect: a mixed method study. International Journal of Science Education, 35(6), 929–955. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.587845
Ribeiro, R. A., & Kawamura, M. R. (2014). Educação ambiental e temas controversos. Revista Brasileira de Pesquisa em Educação em Ciências, 14(2), 159–169.
Ripple, W. J., Wolf, C., Newsome, T. M., Galetti, M., Alamgir, M., Crist, E., Mahmoud, M., & Laurance, W. (2017). World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice. Bioscience. 67(12), 1026–1028. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix125
Sadler, T. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: a critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 41(5), 513–536. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20009
Sadler, T., & Murakami, C. (2014). Socio-scientific issues based teaching and learning: hydrofracturing as an ilustrative context of a framework for implementation and research. Revista Brasileira de Pesquisa em Educação em Ciências, 14(2), 331–342.
Shed e Bearman. (2010). The temporal Strcuture of Scientific Consensus Formation. American Sociological Review. 75(6). 817–840. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122410388488
Steup, M. (1996). An introduction to contemporary epistemology. New Jersey: Printice Hall.
Solomon, M. (2001). Social empiricism. Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Taylor, F. W. (2005). Elementary climate physics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Washington, H., & Cook, J. (2011). Climate change denial: heads in the sand. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Weart, S. (2008). The discovery of global warming. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Weart, S. (2003–2017). The Discovery of Global Warming - A History. History.aip.org. Recuperado de https://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm.
World Meteorological Organization. (1979). Proceedings of the World Climate Conference: a conference of experts on climate and mankind. Geneva. Recuperado de https://library.wmo.int/pmb_ged/wmo_537_en.pdf .
Downloads
Publicado
2018-08-31
Como Citar
Junges, A. L., & Massoni, N. T. (2018). O Consenso Científico sobre Aquecimento Global Antropogênico: Considerações Históricas e Epistemológicas e Reflexões para o Ensino dessa Temática. Revista Brasileira De Pesquisa Em Educação Em Ciências, 18(2), 455–491. https://doi.org/10.28976/1984-2686rbpec2018182455
Edição
Seção
Artigos
Licença
Os autores são responsáveis pela veracidade das informações prestadas e pelo conteúdo dos artigos.
Os autores que publicam neste periódico concordam plenamente com os seguintes termos:
- Os autores atestam que a contribuição é inédita, isto é, não foi publicada em outro periódico, atas de eventos ou equivalente.
- Os autores atestam que não submeteram a contribuição simultaneamente a outro periódico.
- Os autores mantêm os direitos autorais e concedem à RPBEC o direito de primeira publicação, com o trabalho simultaneamente licenciado sob a Licença Creative Commons Attribution que permite o compartilhamento do trabalho com reconhecimento da autoria e publicação inicial neste periódico.
- Os autores atestam que possuem os direitos autorais ou a autorização escrita de uso por parte dos detentores dos direitos autorais de figuras, tabelas, textos amplos etc. que forem incluídos no trabalho.
- Os autores têm autorização para assumir contratos adicionais separadamente, para distribuição não-exclusiva da versão do trabalho publicada nesta revista (por exemplo, publicar em repositório institucional ou como capítulo de livro), com reconhecimento de autoria e publicação inicial nesta revista.
- Os autores têm permissão e são estimulados a publicar e distribuir seu trabalho online (por exemplo, em repositórios institucionais ou na sua página pessoal) após a publicação visando aumentar o impacto e a citação do trabalho publicado.
Em caso de identificação de plágio, republicação indevida e submissão simultânea, os autores autorizam a Editoria a tornar público o evento, informando a ocorrência aos editores dos periódicos envolvidos, aos eventuais autores plagiados e às suas instituições de origem.
