Earlier this year, students across the country watched as wildfires devastated large parts of Southern California. Yet, even as they watched — and, in some cases, lived through — a real example of what climate change can look like, many students don’t understand why events like these are happening more frequently and with greater intensity. Without that foundational knowledge, they are ill-equipped to help mitigate the significant problem affecting their generation. Lack of climate literacy is a crisis that higher education has a responsibility to address.
Acknowledging the problem is no longer enough. Although 72% of U.S. adults recognize that our climate is changing, only 58% acknowledge that it is human-caused, and even fewer understand the scientific consensus — that over 97% of climate scientists affirm our role in the ever-warming planet. We need a climate-literate electorate if we want to drive effective climate action, because the solutions we choose to support are based on our individual understanding of the problem. To do this, we must make climate education part of general education. And we must move quickly.
Many students know what is coming. Rising climate anxiety among 16- to 25-year-olds is telling but disempowering if they aren’t prepared to meet the moment because they have misconceptions about the root causes. In a 2021 survey, students aged 14 to 18 overwhelmingly reported that climate change was real and human-caused. But follow-up questions showed large gaps between their conceptualization of Earth’s interrelated systems and reality. They also vastly underestimated the scientific consensus.
These gaps in knowledge make sense: When climate change is taught in middle and high school classrooms, nearly one-third of science teachers are sending mixed messages about the cause, often because they were never introduced to the subject during their higher education experience. Prioritizing climate literacy as part of general education at colleges and universities would reduce the perpetuation of these false narratives.
Ideally, institutions would offer multidimensional climate education for all students; realistically, the pace of climate change far outstrips the pace of change in higher education. However, a general education requirement for climate literacy is possible and necessary. These central concepts do not rely on additional college-level coursework, making a first- or second-year course on the topic accessible to students in any major.
Recommended for you
Given the monumental challenge before us and what the best physical science tells us we are headed toward (heat waves, sea-level rise, drought and more), it would be easy to put together a fairly depressing curriculum. A solutions-focused approach to climate education is not only kinder to our young people but also cuts against the temptation to spread anxiety. It’s easy to miss out on the momentum building in the clean energy sector, the climate leadership of local communities and international efforts to build climate resilience. Resources like Project Drawdown and the Solutions Journalism Network can provide curricular materials that remind students that they are not alone and are not starting from square one.
Additionally, we need students to understand that policy, psychology and art are just as important in shifting our trajectory as atmospheric science and clean energy technology. In this way, we make room for every student in the climate movement, no matter their professional aspirations. At Harvey Mudd College, we have developed a course to help students think critically about the impact of their work on society through an interdisciplinary look at the climate-fueled challenge of fire in the North American West. Our teaching team is intentionally broad, so we can cover California’s legacy of fire suppression, the depictions of nature in the media, and the religious roots of environmental attitudes, as well as fire ecology and the greenhouse effect. While we do lay the groundwork for understanding the problem, 50% of the course is dedicated to analyzing proposed or current interventions.
In addition to a solutions-focused curriculum, basic climate education must prepare students emotionally and mentally to keep engaged in the work. Nearly 60% of respondents in a recent global survey of youth indicated “extreme worry” about climate change. Considering students’ emotions doesn’t mean we shy away from hard truths — that would not serve our students well and would undermine their trust in faculty. In fact, those hard truths can tap into students’ deeper motivations for learning, so long as we also help them build emotional resilience through reflection. Programs like the All We Can Save Project can offer resources and course materials. And efforts to wrap this “affective approach” into climate education are already underway, as with the Faculty Learning Community in Teaching Climate Change and Resilience at California State University in Chico.
The world is on track for nearly twice the rise in global average temperature that leading climate experts warn is safe. The kind of climate education we need is appearing, but not at the scale or speed required. Higher education leaders must prioritize climate literacy by integrating climate education into the general curriculum. Institutions must ensure students are prepared academically, socially and emotionally to address climate change. We need empowered graduates with both climate knowledge and a solutions-focused mindset in uncertain times. Their world literally depends on it.
Lelia Hawkins is a professor of chemistry and the Hixon Professor of Climate Studies at Harvey Mudd College. She is the director of the Hixon Center for Climate and the Environment, a new program expanding climate education for Mudd’s scientists and engineers. She wrote this for EdSource.org, an independent nonprofit organization founded in 1977, is dedicated to providing analysis on key education issues facing the state and nation. Go to edsource.org to learn more.
Thanks for your guest perspective, Ms. Hawkins, advocating for a climate literacy requirement. However, is there any value to a climate literacy requirement when folks who talk about saving the planet only talk but don’t act? How much carbon is emitted from 400+ private planes taking private planes and who knows how many public planes to attend a climate conference to lecture everyone else about the ills of carbon emissions? And then we have China, India, and undeveloped nations ramping up their use of fossil fuels to meet the demands of industrialization. Is the class going to attempt to teach students that man-made climate change exists and people will talk the talk but won’t walk the walk? Or tell students about all “doomsday” climate event predictions which have failed to come true?
Perhaps the class is better suited to teach students of methods to reduce the amount and ferocity of wildfires by establishing effective forest and wildfire management techniques that California has failed to implement. Perhaps the class can teach students to advocate for water storage projects instead of allowing 50% of water to run out to sea. Those subjects would be more informative to students than talking about man-made climate change that nobody is doing anything about, except cashing in grants to become a “climate scientist.” I’d recommend that instead of a climate literacy class, students receive an additional class in AP or the basics. A class which will be of greater benefit to them in the long run rather than a climate literacy class.
Sorry professor, but you are the one who is fomenting fear among our youth. As an adult and apparently an educated person, you have to take responsibility for enlightening your students instead scaring them to death. Besides, your generous use of the the term 'science' conflicts with reality as there is no defined or proven baseline for the hyped climate change. Fortunately for me and my contemporaries, our chemistry professors steered away from indoctrination but focused on teaching chemistry.
As I expected, Terrence posts his usual canned response to climate change articles, and I can assure him that Ms. Hawkins will not be reading his comment as she is unlikely to see the SMDJ.
Apparently Terrence has never heard of the renewable energy industry, nor even of Tesla, the car company run by his DOGE hero to combat climate change. If one *tries* to look, one will find companies and other initiatives around the world tackling climate change.
Yes, it is true that people are still traveling in jets to conferences (time is of the essence for busy people and one can’t always be a purist), and it is also true that China and India are sovereign nations that we can not force to agree to all proposed climate initiatives. However, people in both of those countries are choking on their own air pollution, and ones hopes that they eventually wake up before it is too late. If China was not concerned about climate change, why did they also invest so heavily in solar panel production and now are also taking over the electric car market unless hindered by western governmental restrictions, here and in Europe? (Yes, I do hope that Trump succeeds with his tariff efforts without tanking the world’s economy, but the jury is still out on that.) Why are the Chinese investing so much money on massive dam and canal projects to move water around their country as traditional water sources dry up?
To say that no one is doing anything about climate change is simply not true, and the objections about carbon emissions from people flying to conferences in jets is a drop in the bucket on the downside scale compared to the the sum of the world’s positive initiatives to combat climate change.
All of these actions are available for anyone to see who wants to open their eyes, but this is hard to discover when one only consumes a right-wing propaganda pipeline.
Thanks for the shout-out, DavidKristofferrson. I’m extremely happy you’re staying up to date with my words of wisdom. I’d be sad if Ms. Hawkins isn’t able to read/hear about my astute comments. What is also sad is that you continue to make excuses and hand out get-out-of-jail free cards to the hundreds of thousands of folks taking private and public jets to climate conference destinations around the world. If hundreds of thousands of climate conference attendees get a pass, why don’t passengers around the world taking planes, trains, and automobiles to their destinations get a pass? If you give a pass to some people, you must give a pass to everyone.
For readers who have missed our exchanges, let me sum up your argument… You give a pass to carbon emissions from so-called climate activists. You give a pass to carbon emissions when mining for precious metals for electric cars. You give a pass to the carbon emitted in manufacturing electric cars or other renewable energy products. You give a pass to China and India for their carbon emissions. In short, if everyone claims their carbon emissions are, “a drop in the bucket” compared to the thousands of private and public jets flying to climate conference destinations around the world, you'll give them a pass.
I’m still waiting on an explanation why Earth has gone through multiple Ice Ages but not one “Steam” Age. And why carbon dioxide concentrations in the past have been much higher than now, yet global temperature hasn’t continually increased resulting in doomsday. For those interested, here’s a link to an article about so-called global warming from an India perspective (https://californiaglobe.com/fr/summertime-reality-twisted-into-climate-exasperation/). Enjoy! BTW, as long as folks submit canned LTEs attempting to push a man-made climate change narrative, I’ll submit canned responses.
eGerd – TBot here. So you’re also unable to answer a few simple questions? You’ll notice that your fellow adherent, DavidKristofferson has never been able to provide answers and I don’t expect you’ll be able to, either. Until you can, it’s difficult for anyone to buy this “climate is changing” narrative, unless of course, you mean Mother Nature. And what excuse will you be providing for the folks who took 400+ private planes to attend, of all things, a climate conference to lecture folks on the ills of emitting carbon. Seems to me they’re likely emitting more carbon than the vast majority of us will ever emit in our lifetime.
As for your polling statistics, I offer one of more importance from Gallup (https://news.gallup.com/poll/642887/inflation-immigration-rank-among-top-issue-concerns.aspx) where they show 98% of people don’t consider climate change to be a problem. Denial? Or perhaps they realize people only talk the talk and don’t walk the walk so nobody cares. And what exactly is a climate scientist? One funded by the climate change industrial complex? Perhaps they’re the only 2% who think climate change is a problem. Or is it 0.002%? At which point, we can completely ignore them, as you've done with biological males competing against biological females.
You ask me to answer some simple question, which you seem perfectly capable of answering yourself.
- people might not be denying the existence of global warming, but are happy to be "in denial" about their own impact. They are too lazy to do anything about it.
- talk the talk: yes
- walk the walk: big NO
That is the big problem especially with our San Mateo politicians. They hired hundreds of marketing and outreach people talking the talk (e.g. PCE, C/CAG) to distract us from the fact that they don't walk the walk. It's called "greenwashing".
And that is why a San Mateo County residents on average is creating easily 4-5 times more carbon than a resident of China and easily 10 times more than any average resident from India.
And no - the cybertruck won't safe the planet - it's too ugly.
You know you have "green" city leaders if you see bike lanes or bus lanes leading to your downtowns. The rest are climate-frauds.
- over 97% of climate scientists affirm our role in the ever-warming planet.
- 72% of U.S. adults recognize that our climate is changing
- 58% acknowledge that it is human-caused, and even fewer understand the scientific consensus
There is a huge gap between the people that do know (97%) and the people that should know (58%) so there is absolutely a need for more education. That kind of illiteracy needs to be managed better.
But of course there is always the 'political denial'.
San Mateo Democrats pretend to be "green", but only commit "green washing" (that's why we have Peninsula Clean Energy, but no protected bike lanes)
US Republicans pretend to not be "green", but Kansas, South Dakota, Nebraska, Texas produce more green wind energy than California.
It was Ronald Reagan, who gave California Bike Lanes, it was Arnold Schwarzenegger who gave California "Complete Streets" and set up the first carbon limits. And it was a Republican that made Portland, OR a bicycle city by creating a law that forced Portland to build bike lanes.
No bus lanes, no bike lanes, no wind power at all, that is how much San Mateo Democrats really believe in climate change.
easygerd - we can call that a stratified group of self-appointed scientists: "over 97% of climate scientists affirm our role in the ever-warming planet." If they were real scientists, and diversified, one would expect a far lower percentage. But, that is the green narrative. Don't believe it!
That's not how science works. It usually starts out with a philosophy or theory and scientists go and think in all directions. But once enough evidence is there - like in the case of "Too Fast Climate Change For Many Creatures To Adapt" - the science becomes solid and mantra.
How many "scientists" do you think should still believe in a flat earth or deny the existence of gravity?
I might not understand gravity, but 99% of scientists tell me it exists and therefore I have to believe it too. The rest 1% we call nutjobs and flat-earthers. We should send them to space.
easygerd - you are very good at apples and oranges. I have looked up the requirement to be considered a climate scientist. There is none, you can just anoint yourself and become a group thinker. Gravity and climate change are entirely different concepts. And BTW, the climate is always changing, in fact, it is going to rain tomorrow, Friday.
Are there currently "Gravity Scientists" or has Isaac Newton settled the topic once and for all?
yes it might be hard to comprehend that the Earth is round and we still don't fall off, but science explains it and I have not other data to oppose it. Sometimes it is just easier to accept what the experts tell you.
In this case it was the "fossil fuel scientists", the "weather men scientists", the "farmer scientists", the "endangered species scientists" and a few more that have established Global Warming (if you prefer that over climate change) is real and the fossil fuel industry is mostly responsible. We have the confessions of the CEOs of all major Oil Companies - even the Dutch guy says "Climate Change is real."
easygerd - you are taking this 'guy' out of context: "even the Dutch guy says "Climate Change is real." But, he also added that he is not convinced that it is caused by any human activity. Even the equivalent of our Supreme Court in the Netherlands, De Hoge Raad, dismissed the lawsuit brought by the 'green' fanatics against Exxon, et al.
I'd suggest adding to your climate knowledge that a solution for storing solar power without expensive, toxic batteries is underway. The "Advanced Clean Energy Storage Hydrogen Project” in Delta, Utah will store hydrogen made from solar and wind power in the summer into existing underground salt domes for generating emission free electricity when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow. It's funded by a number of private companies and Department of Energy and will commence operation in mid-2025. It could reduce the cost of backup fossil fuel plants which is the greatest cost of green energy. There are vast amounts of non-agricultural land in the west that could be used for this.
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(15) comments
Thanks for your guest perspective, Ms. Hawkins, advocating for a climate literacy requirement. However, is there any value to a climate literacy requirement when folks who talk about saving the planet only talk but don’t act? How much carbon is emitted from 400+ private planes taking private planes and who knows how many public planes to attend a climate conference to lecture everyone else about the ills of carbon emissions? And then we have China, India, and undeveloped nations ramping up their use of fossil fuels to meet the demands of industrialization. Is the class going to attempt to teach students that man-made climate change exists and people will talk the talk but won’t walk the walk? Or tell students about all “doomsday” climate event predictions which have failed to come true?
Perhaps the class is better suited to teach students of methods to reduce the amount and ferocity of wildfires by establishing effective forest and wildfire management techniques that California has failed to implement. Perhaps the class can teach students to advocate for water storage projects instead of allowing 50% of water to run out to sea. Those subjects would be more informative to students than talking about man-made climate change that nobody is doing anything about, except cashing in grants to become a “climate scientist.” I’d recommend that instead of a climate literacy class, students receive an additional class in AP or the basics. A class which will be of greater benefit to them in the long run rather than a climate literacy class.
Sorry professor, but you are the one who is fomenting fear among our youth. As an adult and apparently an educated person, you have to take responsibility for enlightening your students instead scaring them to death. Besides, your generous use of the the term 'science' conflicts with reality as there is no defined or proven baseline for the hyped climate change. Fortunately for me and my contemporaries, our chemistry professors steered away from indoctrination but focused on teaching chemistry.
As I expected, Terrence posts his usual canned response to climate change articles, and I can assure him that Ms. Hawkins will not be reading his comment as she is unlikely to see the SMDJ.
Apparently Terrence has never heard of the renewable energy industry, nor even of Tesla, the car company run by his DOGE hero to combat climate change. If one *tries* to look, one will find companies and other initiatives around the world tackling climate change.
Yes, it is true that people are still traveling in jets to conferences (time is of the essence for busy people and one can’t always be a purist), and it is also true that China and India are sovereign nations that we can not force to agree to all proposed climate initiatives. However, people in both of those countries are choking on their own air pollution, and ones hopes that they eventually wake up before it is too late. If China was not concerned about climate change, why did they also invest so heavily in solar panel production and now are also taking over the electric car market unless hindered by western governmental restrictions, here and in Europe? (Yes, I do hope that Trump succeeds with his tariff efforts without tanking the world’s economy, but the jury is still out on that.) Why are the Chinese investing so much money on massive dam and canal projects to move water around their country as traditional water sources dry up?
To say that no one is doing anything about climate change is simply not true, and the objections about carbon emissions from people flying to conferences in jets is a drop in the bucket on the downside scale compared to the the sum of the world’s positive initiatives to combat climate change.
All of these actions are available for anyone to see who wants to open their eyes, but this is hard to discover when one only consumes a right-wing propaganda pipeline.
Thanks for the shout-out, DavidKristofferrson. I’m extremely happy you’re staying up to date with my words of wisdom. I’d be sad if Ms. Hawkins isn’t able to read/hear about my astute comments. What is also sad is that you continue to make excuses and hand out get-out-of-jail free cards to the hundreds of thousands of folks taking private and public jets to climate conference destinations around the world. If hundreds of thousands of climate conference attendees get a pass, why don’t passengers around the world taking planes, trains, and automobiles to their destinations get a pass? If you give a pass to some people, you must give a pass to everyone.
For readers who have missed our exchanges, let me sum up your argument… You give a pass to carbon emissions from so-called climate activists. You give a pass to carbon emissions when mining for precious metals for electric cars. You give a pass to the carbon emitted in manufacturing electric cars or other renewable energy products. You give a pass to China and India for their carbon emissions. In short, if everyone claims their carbon emissions are, “a drop in the bucket” compared to the thousands of private and public jets flying to climate conference destinations around the world, you'll give them a pass.
I’m still waiting on an explanation why Earth has gone through multiple Ice Ages but not one “Steam” Age. And why carbon dioxide concentrations in the past have been much higher than now, yet global temperature hasn’t continually increased resulting in doomsday. For those interested, here’s a link to an article about so-called global warming from an India perspective (https://californiaglobe.com/fr/summertime-reality-twisted-into-climate-exasperation/). Enjoy! BTW, as long as folks submit canned LTEs attempting to push a man-made climate change narrative, I’ll submit canned responses.
- over 97% of climate scientists affirm our role in the ever-warming planet.
- 72% of U.S. adults recognize that our climate is changing
- 58% acknowledge that it is human-caused, and even fewer understand the scientific consensus
Climate Change Denial is so yesterday - that's why we need the education.
All CEOs of all major Oil companies have confessed under oath that climate change is real and their fossil fuel companies are a major contributor.
And sure living in San Mateo people might not notice or understand the big picture, but people in the trenches certainly do.
No U.S. farmers is in denial anymore. No winemaker is in denial anymore. Anyone that is growing anything for a living is not in denial anymore.
eGerd – TBot here. So you’re also unable to answer a few simple questions? You’ll notice that your fellow adherent, DavidKristofferson has never been able to provide answers and I don’t expect you’ll be able to, either. Until you can, it’s difficult for anyone to buy this “climate is changing” narrative, unless of course, you mean Mother Nature. And what excuse will you be providing for the folks who took 400+ private planes to attend, of all things, a climate conference to lecture folks on the ills of emitting carbon. Seems to me they’re likely emitting more carbon than the vast majority of us will ever emit in our lifetime.
As for your polling statistics, I offer one of more importance from Gallup (https://news.gallup.com/poll/642887/inflation-immigration-rank-among-top-issue-concerns.aspx) where they show 98% of people don’t consider climate change to be a problem. Denial? Or perhaps they realize people only talk the talk and don’t walk the walk so nobody cares. And what exactly is a climate scientist? One funded by the climate change industrial complex? Perhaps they’re the only 2% who think climate change is a problem. Or is it 0.002%? At which point, we can completely ignore them, as you've done with biological males competing against biological females.
You ask me to answer some simple question, which you seem perfectly capable of answering yourself.
- people might not be denying the existence of global warming, but are happy to be "in denial" about their own impact. They are too lazy to do anything about it.
- talk the talk: yes
- walk the walk: big NO
That is the big problem especially with our San Mateo politicians. They hired hundreds of marketing and outreach people talking the talk (e.g. PCE, C/CAG) to distract us from the fact that they don't walk the walk. It's called "greenwashing".
And that is why a San Mateo County residents on average is creating easily 4-5 times more carbon than a resident of China and easily 10 times more than any average resident from India.
And no - the cybertruck won't safe the planet - it's too ugly.
You know you have "green" city leaders if you see bike lanes or bus lanes leading to your downtowns. The rest are climate-frauds.
- over 97% of climate scientists affirm our role in the ever-warming planet.
- 72% of U.S. adults recognize that our climate is changing
- 58% acknowledge that it is human-caused, and even fewer understand the scientific consensus
There is a huge gap between the people that do know (97%) and the people that should know (58%) so there is absolutely a need for more education. That kind of illiteracy needs to be managed better.
But of course there is always the 'political denial'.
San Mateo Democrats pretend to be "green", but only commit "green washing" (that's why we have Peninsula Clean Energy, but no protected bike lanes)
US Republicans pretend to not be "green", but Kansas, South Dakota, Nebraska, Texas produce more green wind energy than California.
It was Ronald Reagan, who gave California Bike Lanes, it was Arnold Schwarzenegger who gave California "Complete Streets" and set up the first carbon limits. And it was a Republican that made Portland, OR a bicycle city by creating a law that forced Portland to build bike lanes.
No bus lanes, no bike lanes, no wind power at all, that is how much San Mateo Democrats really believe in climate change.
easygerd - we can call that a stratified group of self-appointed scientists: "over 97% of climate scientists affirm our role in the ever-warming planet." If they were real scientists, and diversified, one would expect a far lower percentage. But, that is the green narrative. Don't believe it!
That's not how science works. It usually starts out with a philosophy or theory and scientists go and think in all directions. But once enough evidence is there - like in the case of "Too Fast Climate Change For Many Creatures To Adapt" - the science becomes solid and mantra.
How many "scientists" do you think should still believe in a flat earth or deny the existence of gravity?
I might not understand gravity, but 99% of scientists tell me it exists and therefore I have to believe it too. The rest 1% we call nutjobs and flat-earthers. We should send them to space.
easygerd - you are very good at apples and oranges. I have looked up the requirement to be considered a climate scientist. There is none, you can just anoint yourself and become a group thinker. Gravity and climate change are entirely different concepts. And BTW, the climate is always changing, in fact, it is going to rain tomorrow, Friday.
Are there currently "Gravity Scientists" or has Isaac Newton settled the topic once and for all?
yes it might be hard to comprehend that the Earth is round and we still don't fall off, but science explains it and I have not other data to oppose it. Sometimes it is just easier to accept what the experts tell you.
In this case it was the "fossil fuel scientists", the "weather men scientists", the "farmer scientists", the "endangered species scientists" and a few more that have established Global Warming (if you prefer that over climate change) is real and the fossil fuel industry is mostly responsible. We have the confessions of the CEOs of all major Oil Companies - even the Dutch guy says "Climate Change is real."
.... and yet there will always be flat-earthers.
easygerd - you are taking this 'guy' out of context: "even the Dutch guy says "Climate Change is real." But, he also added that he is not convinced that it is caused by any human activity. Even the equivalent of our Supreme Court in the Netherlands, De Hoge Raad, dismissed the lawsuit brought by the 'green' fanatics against Exxon, et al.
Supreme Courts just don't have the credibility they used to have, don't they.
But we can all listen to Ben Van Beurden ourselves on this Shell released video from 2021.
He says "Not moving fast enough as a Society on Climate".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gkJbOem0ms
I'd suggest adding to your climate knowledge that a solution for storing solar power without expensive, toxic batteries is underway. The "Advanced Clean Energy Storage Hydrogen Project” in Delta, Utah will store hydrogen made from solar and wind power in the summer into existing underground salt domes for generating emission free electricity when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow. It's funded by a number of private companies and Department of Energy and will commence operation in mid-2025. It could reduce the cost of backup fossil fuel plants which is the greatest cost of green energy. There are vast amounts of non-agricultural land in the west that could be used for this.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.