UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. – At Hempstead High School, science teachers focus on the human causes of “global warming,” rather than whether it actually exists or the natural causes driving the allegedly rising temperatures.

“The choices they make today will impact the future of the Earth,” Hempstead physics teacher Angie Brietbach told The Tri-State News. “The choices we’ve been making for years and years have impacted the Earth. If we continue to make them, we could face serious consequences.”

MORE NEWS: From Classroom to Consulate Chef: Culinary Student Lands Dream Job at U.S. Embassy in Paris

At many local high schools, teachers don’t dwell on natural cycles or causes for global warming. Brietbach and her colleagues believe humans are the main driver of global warming, humans have the power to stop global warming, and it’s their duty to compel impressionable students to do their part to save the world.

“That’s the choice part,” she said. “The humans are the ones making choices.”

Platteville High School biology teacher Ann Kroncke spends a week on climate change, with the goal of enlightening students about how every activity they do impacts nature.

“We’re trying to emphasize more of those everyday activities and how they affect not just each other but the whole environment,” she told the news site.

Keith Weber, global science and advanced biology teacher at Dubuque Senior High School, said he discusses both human and natural causes for climate change, and presents students with real data on how global warming is unfolding.

“A lot of this, I think, is taking a step back and saying, ‘What are we doing?’” he said.

MORE NEWS: Know These Before Moving From Cyprus To The UK

That’s essentially the focus of a recent study conducted by Penn State University doctoral student Eric Plutzer, who now works for Wright State University.

The research, published in the February edition of Science, questioned about 1,500 middle and high school science teachers about how they teach climate change, and concluded that they’re doing it all wrong.

“While the data suggests most teachers devote some time to the topic in the classroom, the median teacher devotes only one or two hours to the topic – less than the amount recommended by leading science and education bodies,” according to Penn State News.

Plutzer wrote about the results in a Penn State Research Matters blog.

“Roughly three in four middle and high school science teachers are discussing recent global warming in their classes, but there is no cumulative curriculum for children,” Plutzer wrote. “So teachers are likely to cover the basics, but not go far enough to help students develop a solid scientific understanding.”

The problem is made worse, Plutzer contends, because not all teachers agree that climate change is real, or that it’s primarily human caused, or that they should ignore the debate over whether it exists at all.

“About one in three teachers give voice to non-scientific alternatives, sending mixed signals to students,” Pultzer wrote. “Because climate change has become politicized, teachers themselves may get their information from political rather than scientific sources. And they may be timid in providing forthright discussion of the scientific consensus for fear of generating controversy in their own classroom.”

Pultzer explained why scientists like himself believe teachers would be better off simply ignoring those who don’t believe global warming is real, or that it’s caused primarily from humans.

“Controversy and debate can be a valuable tool to engage and motivate students. But such debate should be limited to genuine disagreements,” Pultzer opined in Penn State Research Matters. “Students should debate whether descendants of slaves are deserving of reparations, but not whether slavery existed. Similarly, students can debate the best ways to slow climate change or engineer solutions, but in a science class it is not appropriate to debate settled science.”