Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Steven Salzberg takes the South Dakota state legislature to task for borrowing tactics from the creationists and demanding that teachers "teach the controversy" over global warming. And they clearly have some difficulties with the English language along the way. The bill says:
That there are a variety of climatological, meteorological, astrological, thermological, cosmological, and ecological dynamics that can effect (sic) world weather phenomena and that the significance and interrelativity of these factors is largely speculative.
And he points out the most obvious problem:
Wow! The South Dakota legislature has declared, by majority vote, that the ancient pseudoscience of astrology "can effect world weather"! Astrology, of course, is a superstitious belief that the movements of stars and planets can affect our daily lives here on Earth, a belief that has no basis in science. Some people - including, apparently, the South Dakota legislature - still take it seriously, although most view astrological forecasts as light entertainment...And we mustn't ignore "thermological" causes. Do the wise SD legislators realize that thermology is the analysis of detailed infrared images of the human body? I suppose all our warm bodies also affect world weather - it must be true, because the SD legislature says so. And "interrelativity"! They must mean "interrelatedness", but how nice to bring in Einstein's theory here. I can't quite grasp how relativity has anything to do with global warming, but I probably don't know as much physics as the South Dakota legislators.
And then there are flat out lies like this one:
WHEREAS, the earth has been cooling for the last eight years despite small increases in anthropogenic carbon dioxide;
In fact, 7 of the 8 hottest years on record have been since 2001. Again I ask, what sane society allows people who know nothing about a subject determine what should be taught about it?
Politics
Comments
I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt on the "astrological" causes. While they clearly have no idea what they're talking about, they probably confused Astology with Astronomy. Changing those words doesn't help them very much, but its a mistake that's been made many times before.
Posted by: Jim | March 4, 2010 9:35 AM
I don't think that pointing out that they don't know the difference between astronomy and astrology helps their case much, Jim. Know what I mean?
Actually, it really implies that those yokels shouldn't be trying to tell anyone what to teach. Also, they should get a little educatin' themselves....
Posted by: FastLane | March 4, 2010 9:40 AM
The bill was amended to remove the obvious crazy before passage.
The less obvious crazy remained.
Posted by: Paul Schofield | March 4, 2010 9:51 AM
They may actually be onto something with this astrological dynamics effecting the weather stuff. Any time the sun's in Leo it gets pretty hot here. In the northern hemisphere anyway. And it's the other way around when the sun's in Aquarius. It has to mean something.
Posted by: sbh | March 4, 2010 9:51 AM
Mr.Brayton, May I suggest that you get a little more education in science and explore the issue yourself instead of buying the media slant on AGW. The S.D. Legislature statement is scientifically correct and interrelatedness has nothing to do with relativity. They are simply saying that climate is much more complex that the screamers about global warming are willing to admit.
Posted by: Squid | March 4, 2010 10:05 AM
And so it begins...
Posted by: tacitus | March 4, 2010 10:13 AM
Damn, I was just about to start a pool on how long it would be before the first troll showed up. I was going to go with 18, but it appears the Dispatchers are all sleeping late this morning.
Posted by: Jame Hanley | March 4, 2010 10:17 AM
I hasten to point out that there is no relationship between commenter "Squid" above and long-time (if occasional) commenter "Squiddhartha", who not only recognizes the scientific consensus on climate change, but works for a major atmospheric research institution.
Posted by: Squiddhartha | March 4, 2010 10:17 AM
Pass the popcorn!
Posted by: NJ | March 4, 2010 10:19 AM
Squid - and astrology fits in - how exactly? - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | March 4, 2010 10:21 AM
Re Squid
May I suggest that Mr. Squid acquire some education himself instead of parroting the rantings of clowns like Marc Morano. As Mr. Brayton pointed out, 7 of the 8 hottest years on record have occurred since the advent of the new millennium, and the exception, namely the data from 1998 is probably an outlier due to other causes (e.g. a strong El Nino).
Posted by: SLC | March 4, 2010 10:23 AM
In which case it would probably have been a good idea for the statement to have mentioned interrelatedness, rather than this mysterious "interrelativity"... which, of course, was the point of that particular bit of mockery.
Posted by: Morgan | March 4, 2010 10:25 AM
Can one ask where said 'squid' got his/her education in the climate sciences? Surely someone so adamantly opposed to the scientific consensus will have some weight of educational authority behind them. Or is it just WorldNutDaily and Fox filling his/her head with goo?
Posted by: MikeMa | March 4, 2010 10:26 AM
Squid, your ignorance is showing. Relativity is all about integrative activity. In fact, relativity might be considered the ultimate statement about the interrelatedness one finds within the physical universe.
There is no doubt that the climate is extremely complex, that's what scientists have been saying for decades. It's usually the anti-AGW crowd that has decided its not that hard to understand and they can do a better analysis than the experts.
Posted by: Scott Reese | March 4, 2010 10:27 AM
Even the "thermological" and "astrological" parts?
I don't give a damn about the "screamers about global warming", I care about what the scientists have to say. So far, there is a broad consensus among those who actually study climate in all its complexity that the earth is getting warmer and human activity is a significant cause.
Posted by: DaveL | March 4, 2010 10:32 AM
The last peer-reviewed statistically significant survey of science's acceptance of the theory that I've encountered was published in January of 2009 and was done within the community of U.S.-located scientists. Money quote from that study regarding a subset of scientists surveyed which is the those actually involved in doing climate science, the most relevant sub-group within the survey:
Those questions were,
Citation: EOS VOLUME 90 NUMBER 3 20 JANUARY 2009
For those of us who ardently study the subject, understand the science, its findings, and the arguments of denialists and scientific skeptics; there is no current rational reason to doubt the reality that AGW is currently happening and the fact that the ramifications of our continuing current practices will eventually be catastrophic.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 4, 2010 10:50 AM
i am going to give them the benefit of the doubt too. i mean, like, it was just a small mistake.
i heard they amended the bill anyway. they said "oops. of course we didn't mean astrology. we really meant cosmetology."
Posted by: rob | March 4, 2010 11:01 AM
There's what, 12 people in South Dakota? Why don't we ship in a few extra folks and swamp the elections in the next cycle and vote in some people with brains.
Posted by: The Other Lance | March 4, 2010 11:06 AM
Hey, the SD legislature missed out the all-important 'phrenology' in their bill, that’s very important when considering AGW. - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | March 4, 2010 11:10 AM
Ed: Have you filled in your knowledge on global warming enough to blog about it with confidence? You're missing out on some real gems out here. AGW denialists are the new creationists.
Posted by: FishyFred | March 4, 2010 11:20 AM
@FishyFred
Does that mean the old creationists have founded their own micronation/been raptured/been struck by a clue bat?* Please, please tell me it does.
*Option three preferred.
Posted by: snurp | March 4, 2010 11:41 AM
Rob @ 17:
Almost too subtle for me, since "cosmetology" isn't part of my every day vocabulary. ;-)
Posted by: Scott Hanley | March 4, 2010 11:48 AM
Michael Heath, you are clearly missing the money angle. Of course fat cat scientists rolling in their Bentleys to their solid gold houses would agree that humans are causing global warming. They aren't about to kill the golden goose of research grants. They are just picking on the poor powerless coal and oil companies who have altruistically fought to reveal the truth to the American public.
Posted by: penn | March 4, 2010 11:54 AM
oh well, just throw in all the -ologies you can find, there must be hundreds, philology, biology, paleontology, and on...the meaning doesn't matter, if it's only idle chatter, of the South Dakota kind.
Posted by: david | March 4, 2010 11:57 AM
All the SD legislature is trying to say is that because of the quantum effect of thermoplasmic reticulators on the cosmetological constant of the Medieval Climatic Little Ice Period, that global warming is clearly due to the reversed polarity of the homeomagnetopathy of Earth's inner crust, and not caused by CO2 (aka "life").
Don't you people know anything about science?
Posted by: Steve Reuland | March 4, 2010 11:58 AM
i heard they amended the bill anyway.
As I read the SD Legislature's website,
http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2010/Bill.aspx?Bill=HCR1009
... it was only amended after it was passed by the House by a vote of 36 to 30.
Posted by: John Pieret | March 4, 2010 12:04 PM
While they clearly have no idea what they're talking about, they probably confused Astology with Astronomy. Changing those words doesn't help them very much, but its a mistake that's been made many times before.
How many is "many?" The last time I made that mistake, I was twelve years old. And I have no memory of anyone else making that mistake within earshot of me. And I don't exactly hang with actual practitioners of either one.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 4, 2010 1:47 PM
Jim, #1" I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt on the "astrological" causes.
I would give them the benefit of the doubt if they were your usual university faculty senate where someone just thinks up a resolution off the top of her head and then everyone jumps on the band wagon and approves it.
But a government legislature, which is supposed to be a representative of the people, and whose decisions are going to have a large affect on the state? I would expect them to at least run their proposals before the attorneys, officers in the executive branch, and other relevant experts to make sure it is correctly worded and will have the effect that they desire.
Posted by: Chiroptera | March 4, 2010 1:53 PM
Chiroptera
If they'd run this nonsense by relevant experts, they would have been laughed at. I think they (some of them?) knew that and avoided the possibility.
Posted by: MikeMa | March 4, 2010 2:25 PM
MikeMA, #29:
Maybe, but I personally suspect that you are giving them too much credit for being able to look ahead.
I was commenting on whether they deserve to be given the benefit of the doubt for making what may be common confusion of terminology. I'm just saying, no, they do not.
Posted by: Chiroptera | March 4, 2010 2:43 PM
Oh, come on! You're just pulling our leg. A good joke needs to be at least based in reality.
There's no such place as "South Dakota".
Posted by: Modusoperandi | March 4, 2010 2:49 PM
You're going to be really shocked Modusoperandi, when you learn that there is also a North Dakota.
Posted by: Tamarron | March 4, 2010 8:23 PM
Tamarron @ 32:
Even more shocking is that both of them [N. & S. Dakota] in totality enjoy having twice the number of Senators representing them than California.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 4, 2010 9:12 PM
Homeomagnetopathy is an abdominalation unto the LORD!!
Posted by: democommie | March 4, 2010 10:10 PM
The planet has been cooling since 1998, polar bear populations are increasing, as is Antarctic sea ice, and we've had record snowfalls all over the world the past several years. Nevertheless, global warming is going to mean The End Of The World As We Know ItTM. Just ask the Most Wise Goreacle, piss be upon him.
By the way, what's the optimal temperature of the planet anyway?
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | March 5, 2010 6:54 AM
Global Warming Is A Scam, #35:
Very good post. I bet it was the result of an intense astrological and thermological analysis.
Posted by: Chiroptera | March 5, 2010 8:15 AM
Ed,
The references to astrology and thermology (whatever that is) were removed in the amended resolution replaced with,
Do you still have an issue with the amended resolution?
Here in Carmel Indiana there is a group called the Carmel Green Initiative that is trying to push environmental advocacy in the local schools.
It has an entire program of "lesson plans" it is trying to get implemented in local 7-12 grades.
These lessons include indoctrinating kids on typical environmental activist talking points like population control, global warming etc.
One "lesson plan" involves "talking to your parents" about not idling their cars, buying Energy Star appliances, making the "right" kind of home improvements, buying locally grown foods etc.
Do you think kids should be instructed to "talk to their parents" about changing their parents lifestyle to one that better comports with "green" sensibilities?
This is clearly advocacy masquerading as education. Perhaps the South Dakota resolution is a reaction to similar "initiatives" in their schools.
Posted by: Lance | March 5, 2010 8:57 AM
That sounds like a great idea. What sane person would advocate needlessly idling you car? Energy Star appliances save you money in the long run and I'm sure the local farmers would appriciate the buisness.
Posted by: Chilidog | March 5, 2010 9:27 AM
I find it amusing how many creationists and ID supporters are also AGW deniers. I always have to wonder, do they go to their mechanic for legal advice? Their dentist for heart surgery? It appears that when it comes to these two issues they have no respect for, or interest in, the actual experts in the field. They don't bother to do any research, seize upon any "evidence" to try to disprove the actual evidence, and to what Republicans in Congress have taken to doing, "JUST SAY NO!!!!"
As you see in post #35, each of the points is easily refuted with only a few minutes of internet searching:
The only way polar bear populations are increasing is if you take the numbers from the '60s when polar bears were still being hunted in large numbers and completely ignore the bell shaped curve of their numbers since then (IE it went up and is now going down).
The antarctic sea ice expansion is actually part of the problem. It is caused by the damage to the ozone and the impact on the local weather patterns. Also, as pointed out at a few things ill-considered here on science blogs, a regional deviation wouldn't be evidence against climate change. In fact some regions of the earth are expected to get colder due to the general shift in the overall global environment:
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/antarctic-ice-is-growing.php
Finally, record snowfalls are predicted by climate change models. This argument shows that the person making it has absolutely no clue what they are talking about and is either, a moron, or has never lived in a colder environment. The model predicts that rising temperatures will increase evaporation and, where it happens to be cold when those moisture filled clouds pass through, you will see increased snow. Also, in many of the northern states during winter it gets too cold to snow. What we've seen over the last few years is it has been warmer, warm enough to allow it to snow when it previously would have been too cold for precipitation. In other words, the regional climate was warmer.
I love how the denial crowd twists evidence to support their position, as we see above, but then completely ignores the evidence that shatters their claim. Arctic ice sheets are melting at a rate that wasn't expected until 2040, in other words it's worse than expected. At the same time they ignore the extended and more intense hurricane seasons and the record heat waves that hit Europe the last couple of years. Again, it's much like creationists who try to point to a new fossil discovery as "proof" evolution is false, while at the same time they refuse to acknowledge the existing fossil record (IE fossils that "prove" evolution false exist, the millions of fossils that provide evidence to support evolution don't exist). It's also much like the folks that claim that Obama is responsible for the current recession, scream that he's a socialist while ignoring that most of his policies are in line with what Bush did during the previous 8 years, blame the Democrats for gridlock all the while celebrating the Republican efforts to create gridlock.
Really these idiots are three branches of the same stupid tree.
That's really a moronic question. The planet can survive any temperature extreme shy of the sun expanding and burning it into a cinder. Life has more strict guidelines, but that is still a stupid point. The reality is that our society is dependent upon the current climate to survive. If AGW evidence is correct, we're going to see vast areas currently dedicated to feeding the world become infertile. We're going to see coastal regions flooded displacing millions, potentially a billion or more, shattering political and social constructs. We're also going to see more devastating weather patterns, colder winters in some regions requiring greater energy usage just to stay alive, worse hurricanes in other regions destroying important sea ports and points of trade. Again, we're already seeing evidence of this, just because you're willing to stick your head in the sand (or perhaps it's shoved elsewhere) doesn't mean it isn't happening.
Finally, one of the key points is the argument in favor of local, renewable, green energy. All of these points are intelligent ones if you want the United States to be self sufficient, healthier, and if you want industry and our economy to grow. The arguments against these technologies, and the development of these potential industries, is based solely on the fact that the existing fossil fuel industries face losing hundreds of billions of dollars in profits annually. It's really rather sad, but you've been duped by corporate interests using your political ideology against you. Ask yourself why it is that you accept the word of politicians who, at the same time, tell you that you shouldn't trust the government/politicians, etc.?
Posted by: dogmeatib | March 5, 2010 9:32 AM
Chilidog,
I don't think it is the job of public schools to tell kids to lecture their parents on their lifestyle choices. This isn't education it's advocacy and worse it's indoctrinating kids to be advocates to their parents.
How about if the kids were told that "abstinence is the best form of birth control" and that they should "talk to their parents" about not having sex if their parents aren't married.
Cool with that too?
Posted by: Lance | March 5, 2010 9:36 AM
Lance, #37: Do you still have an issue with the amended resolution?
Well, this one is still problematic:
WHEREAS, the debate on global warming has subsumed political and philosophical viewpoints, which has complicated and prejudiced the scientific investigation of global climatic change phenomena:
The only complications and prejudices in the scientific investigation of global climate change is from the global warming denialist politicians trying to interfere with the scientific process and preventing sound public policy based on the scientific conclusions.
Personally, I prefer the original bill: at least its batshit insanity was obvious. This wording is just like the "teach the controversey" nonsense the evolution denialists advocate -- it's nonsense hidden under words that on the surface sound reasonable.
-
Here in Carmel Indiana there is a group called the Carmel Green Initiative that is trying to push environmental advocacy in the local schools.
And everything you list here is just like the anti-littering campaign I was exposed to in grade school. Pushing environmental advocacy? Well, I'm not going to quibble about words: I think advocating certain basic things like not littering is proper in the public schools.
In fact, I'll also note that the things that you list have a direct impact on air and water quality, and so are more important than just not throwing a gum wrapper on the pavement.
-
This is clearly advocacy masquerading as education.
Yes, and so is telling kids to wash their hands after they go to the bathroom. And you are right. Global Climate Change is a serious, serious threat to our and our children's well-being, and warrants an immense effort by all our social institutions to drill this into people's consciousness. The pin heads in South Dakota, probably like the evolution denialists and the social conservatives, feel that basic facts about the real world is a challenge to their cherished beliefs and think they can legislate reality.
Posted by: Chiroptera | March 5, 2010 9:39 AM
Oh and before the howling starts, I am an atheist that has never voted for a Republican for national office, I voted for Obama, I have a degree in physics and teach mathematics.
Also we all should recognize that this resolution is just a political statement, as are all resolutions, and doesn't affect education or anything else for that matter.
It is probably just a reaction to the actions of activists, like the ones here in Indiana, that are trying to push advocacy for their political views into public education.
It's bad when the fundie Christians do it from the right and it's bad when environmental activists do it from the left.
Posted by: Lance | March 5, 2010 9:46 AM
@dogmeatib:
Well, if Orly Taitz is your dentist, you can go to her for your legal advice.
Posted by: Chilidog | March 5, 2010 9:48 AM
Lance, #40: How about if the kids were told that "abstinence is the best form of birth control" and that they should "talk to their parents" about not having sex if their parents aren't married.
Is this because trying to get people to protect the quality of the water we drink and the air we breathe is just like advocating proper morality in the most private areas of our lives?
Man, I lived several years in Eugene, Oregon, so I know how nuts some of the extreme environmentalists are. I forgot that the anti-environmentalists can be just as nuts.
Posted by: Chiroptera | March 5, 2010 9:55 AM
Lance @ 40:
Lance, environmental awareness is not a “lifestyle choice�? any more so than understanding how your community works. Children should be taught that excessive idling of automobiles creates auto emissions that degrade the air in which we breathe. Purchasing locally grown produce helps the community in which you live in many ways. Recycling also helps keep out long term costs of living down by conserving resources and lowering disposal costs.
This is analogous to anti-smoking programs aor healthy eating programs.
You sound like one of those people who drives a ginourmous SUV back and forth to the grocery store only and who circles the parking lot for 20 minutes waiting for the spot closest to the door to open up. I bet you also take up two parking spots whenever you can. That’s a “lifestyle�? choice I despise.
Posted by: Chilidog | March 5, 2010 10:00 AM
Chiroptera,
Littering is illegal. Germ theory has been accepted scientific fact for hundreds of years.
Where I buy my vegetables is none of the school systems business. They have no business telling my kids "to talk to me" about idling my car at stop lights, buying appliances that have Energy Star ratings, using "natural sources of heat and cooling" etc.
Anal sex poses certain health risks that vaginal sex does not do you want your kids to be sent home to tell you that you shouldn't engage in anal sex?
Then there's the "lesson plan" entitles "Have and Have Not"
Including these "instructional points"
Then after this heavy dose of progressive political ideology follows this "homework assignment".
If you think any of that is appropriate for public school kids you are as biased as the people pushing the "Green Initiative"
Posted by: Lance | March 5, 2010 10:04 AM
Chiroptera,
So now I'm "nuts" because I don't want my seventh grade kid to be instructed to send a letter of environmental advocacy to the local paper's editor?
I'm nuts not to want my kids teacher to tell my kids to investigate local "hot" environmental topics?
I'm nuts because I don't wan't my kids teachers to invite "a volunteer from a local environmental group" to speak to his class?
Maybe your time in Eugene has done more damage to your sense of perspective than you realize.
Posted by: Lance | March 5, 2010 10:12 AM
Chilidog,
"This is analogous to anti-smoking programs aor healthy eating programs."
Uh, no. And if kids were being told to go home to lecture their parents not to smoke that would be wrong as well.
Providing facts is one thing, telling kids to "talk to their parents" to influence their parents behavior is certainly not the business of the public schools.
Assignments to write letters of environmental advocacy to the editor of local papers is outrageously inappropriate.
Posted by: Lance | March 5, 2010 10:24 AM
Chilidog,
So because I don't support political indoctrination of school kids, telling them to police their parent's behavior, you have made a bunch of idiotic assumption about me.
I also petitioned, with the help of the local ACLU, the local school system when they used the high school's radio station to broadcast Power Line a thinly veiled Christian proselytizing program.
Your reactions, and Chiroptera's, sound very much like the angry protestations of the local Christian parents that they were just reinforcing "anti-drug" and "responsible behavior" messages.
They had to pull the program from the radio station
They were wrong and so are you and Chiroptera.
Posted by: Lance | March 5, 2010 10:43 AM
I see another reactionary denialist is on his high-horse again...
These lessons include indoctrinating kids on typical environmental activist talking points like population control, global warming etc.
Is there any specific statement of fact in these lesson plans that you wish to show is incorrect?
One "lesson plan" involves "talking to your parents" about not idling their cars, buying Energy Star appliances, making the "right" kind of home improvements, buying locally grown foods etc.
The "talk to your parents" bit does sound a wee bit inappropriate; but what's wrong with encouraging kids to re-examine their daily actions and look for ways to reduce waste or do things better?
Do you think kids should be instructed to "talk to their parents" about changing their parents lifestyle to one that better comports with "green" sensibilities?
Explicitly? Maybe not. But any kind of education comes with the possibility that kids may end up comparing their parents' ways with what they learn in school, and asking a few questions.
This is clearly advocacy masquerading as education.
If the kids are getting true information about a relevant subject, then it's not "masquerading;" it's real education.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 5, 2010 11:00 AM
I'm nuts not to want my kids teacher to tell my kids to investigate local "hot" environmental topics?
Well, yeah, it is kinda nuts not to want a teacher to encourage kids to go out and learn things.
I'm nuts because I don't wan't my kids teachers to invite "a volunteer from a local environmental group" to speak to his class?
You don't want teachers to invite speakers to talk about things in class? Sounds kinda nuts to me.
Maybe your time in Eugene has done more damage to your sense of perspective than you realize.
Your purely emotional georaphical insult (what's wrong with Eugene and why is it relevant here?) indicates that the only one damaged here is you.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 5, 2010 11:07 AM
Bee,
Missing the point as usual I see.
So if the local John Birch Society had lesson plans encouraging teachers to invite one of their speakers, chosen from a website they explicitly endorse, you'd be cool with that right?
Try to actually reply to the point of this post rather than veering off into faux-outrage over something you imagine it says.
Posted by: Lance | March 5, 2010 11:22 AM
bee,
Ya think?
How about the writing letters to the editor assignment after lecturing the kiddies on how American's are greedily gorging themselves on the energy that rightfully should be redistributed to poorer countries while we convert to lifestyles that "indigenous people" enjoy?
Nothing political or inappropriate about that huh?
Posted by: Lance | March 5, 2010 11:27 AM
Lance: getting hot-headed and emotional again I see. Your point was about "advocacy masquerading as eucation," and I addressed that point.
So if the local John Birch Society had lesson plans encouraging teachers to invite one of their speakers, chosen from a website they explicitly endorse, you'd be cool with that right?
Of course; because whenever I advocate teaching something that's obviously true and relevant, that always means I'm just as cool with teaching long-discredited horseshit. Any other apples-to-plutonium comparisons you'd like me to address today?
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 5, 2010 11:35 AM
Lance,
Why do you keep equating teaching kids about global warming with advocating political issues? Not idling your car is the same as inviting speakers from the John Birch Society? What?
Posted by: Jackson | March 5, 2010 11:42 AM
Let's see.
Comparing genuine educational initiatives--based on hard science (scienc with which Lance disagrees) v indoctrinating students about teh EVIL GAY; yeah, that's gonna be a short, acrimonious discussion.
Lance:
"Oh and before the howling starts, I am an atheist that has never voted for a Republican for national office, I voted for Obama, I have a degree in physics and teach mathematics".
And Adolp Hitler loved his dog. Neither his, nor your politics or personal morals have anything to do with climatology. Nor do your expertise in physics and position as a math teacher equip you to argue with climatologists, unless you've been doing a shitload of other reading.
Posted by: democommie | March 5, 2010 11:45 AM
Jackson,
If you don't see a problem with assignments requiring kids to write letters to the editor endorsing green political issues you have a very distorted view of the role of public education.
Posted by: Lance | March 5, 2010 11:54 AM
Lance wrote:
Er, yes, Lance, as a mattter of fact, . . . .
I can see no valid reason why any sane parent would oppose that.
Posted by: Chilidog | March 5, 2010 12:01 PM
democommie,
Way to violate Godwin's Law on your first post.
This isn't about science it's about political indoctrination. The name of the "lesson plan" is "Have's and Have Nots", nothing political about that topic huh?
Forcing kids to write letters to the editor espousing a political ideology is wrong, period.
You of course agree with the nature of the indoctrination so you are ignoring the real issue here, pushing kids to become advocates of environmentalism.
Posted by: Lance | March 5, 2010 12:02 PM
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that political ideologues would agree with their personal political ideology being forced on public school kids.
Disgusted, yes. Surprised, no.
Posted by: Lance | March 5, 2010 12:05 PM
Lance,
I actually didn't do much reading on your off topic rant about a specific groups advocacy in Indiana. If the assignment is to write a letter to the editor in favor of a specific opinion with which the student disagrees, then sure that is a crappy assignment. If, rather, the assignment is to write a letter the editor on the topic of the environment of the students choosing then I fail to see a problem.
However, my post was more in response to your post 37 where you call teaching about global warming as indoctrination and advocacy. And to putting "talking to your parents" in scare quotes as if that is some horrible infringement of the rights of students to never talk to their parents. And seeming personally offended by the suggestion that you shouldn't idle your car.
Posted by: Jackson | March 5, 2010 12:09 PM
Lance wrote
But if we look at the actual assignment as you posted it, it says:
It seems to me that if you have truly indoctrinated you child in YOUR ideology, then their letters or essays would reflect that viewpoint and still beet the requirements of that assignment. Note that the assignment asks for the child’s own thoughts, not a particular political viewpoint.
Posted by: Chilidog | March 5, 2010 12:10 PM
Lance: your hot-headed, emotional and downright idiotic statements here are sinking your credibility and forcing me to question whether you're even getting the specifics of this case right...
The name of the "lesson plan" is "Have's and Have Nots", nothing political about that topic huh?
Well, no, it's kind of obvious that there ARE "haves and have nots." (But thanks for pointing out the misuse of apostropes -- THAT'S something teachers really should not be doing.)
Forcing kids to write letters to the editor espousing a political ideology is wrong, period.
"Forcing?" Really? And what "political ideology" are they "forced" to "espouse," exactly? (Oh, and do you also have a problem with kids being "indoctrinated" about the virtues of the democratic political ideology they live under?)
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 5, 2010 12:12 PM
Chilidog: thanks for the fact check. This pretty much blows Lance out of the water here and proves he has no clue what he's talking about. Here, let me re-paste the relevant bit, with the most important words in CAPS:
Students CAN write essays OR letters to the editor...
So no, no one's being "forced" to "espouse" anything.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 5, 2010 12:17 PM
Chilidog,
PUH LEEZE!
After the lesson that reinforces the idea that American's are profligate consumers of energy that deprives poorer countries of their share and that the use of that energy is destroying the planet I'm sure that these kids are going to fire off a missive that rebukes everything their teacher just forced down their throats.
You're saying its OK to indoctrinate kids and then force them to write letters to the editor because they might somehow exercise enough independent thought to undertake the effort to do further research to educate themselves on counter arguments and formulate a completely different opinion than the one just foisted on them by their teacher.
Yeah, that's a rational response to the situation.
Posted by: Lance | March 5, 2010 12:20 PM
Lance, I'm curious, have you ever been to a third world country?
Posted by: Chilidog | March 5, 2010 12:26 PM
Lance,
I must not be understanding you. So your position is that it is a good idea for state legislators in South Dakota to make a declaration in favor of agw denial. And your argument for this position is because there are a couple of parts of one specific proposal by one specific advocacy group in Indiana that you don't like? Ok.
Posted by: Jackson | March 5, 2010 12:31 PM
Lance, #47: So now I'm "nuts" because...
...you are saying that pointing out that excessive use of automobiles unnecessarily produces pollution that affects everyone's health and well being is the same thing as teaching religiously inspired morality like abstinence only in a health class.
Honestly, if you really can't see the difference, then, yes, you are kind of nuts.
Posted by: Chiroptera | March 5, 2010 2:40 PM
Chilidog,
My wife is Ethiopian and most of my in-laws live there. I have been to Africa many times, sometimes for months at a time.
I have also been to Mexico and central America.
People in those countries would love to enjoy the benefits of our energy "lifestyle" they just can't afford it. The idea that they live "low energy" lifestyles because they choose to is nonsense.
People in Africa want to drive cars, air condition their homes, take overseas vacations etc. It is a fantasy that they are more "responsible" than us evil Americans by choice.
When you make less than a dollar a day and cook your food on a dung fire in your dirt floor shack it's hard to make much of a "carbon footprint". As soon as they can afford even a moped they buy one. When they can afford a car they buy one of those.
These aren't moral choices they make because they are "responsible indigenous people in tune with nature". They are desperately poor people who live mostly brutishly short and miserable lives precisely because they don't have access to the modern conveniences and necessities that our fossil fuel energy economy affords us.
Trying to throw a guilt trip on American school kids so they will buy into an environmentalist agenda is political indoctrination pure and simple.
I said the S.D. resolution, it's not a declaration, was possibly a reaction to programs like the one here in Indiana. It is completely appropriate for elected politicians to express their opinions in legislative resolutions.
It is completely inappropriate for teachers and administrators to push a political agenda onto seventh graders.
Posted by: Lance | March 5, 2010 2:42 PM
Chioptera,
Try answering at least one of my points instead of beating straw men.
Uh no, I never said anything about "pointing out" auto pollution. I said that telling kids to "talk to their parents" about changing their lifestyles was not the business of my local middle school.
Also lecturing kids on the idea that Americans are using more than their "fair share" of energy and then having kids write letters to the editor or essays about that highly political and contentious assertion was inappropriate.
And that inviting people in from GreenPeace or Environmental Defense to lecture to a seventh grade class was also inappropriate.
Try to actually answer one of these points this time.
Posted by: Lance | March 5, 2010 2:51 PM
Lance, #70: Uh no, I never said anything about "pointing out" auto pollution. I said that telling kids to "talk to their parents" about changing their lifestyles was not the business of my local middle school.
Uh, yes. The example you used about lifestyles and to which I responded was about automobiles.
Honestly, if you can't keep track of what you've said, maybe you should write less.
Posted by: Chiroptera | March 5, 2010 3:27 PM
"Trying to throw a guilt trip on American school kids so they will buy into an environmentalist agenda is political indoctrination pure and simple."
Hello children, please use as much electricity as possible and generate as much waste as possible. Do this to prove you are pure and good and American.
Posted by: JohnV | March 5, 2010 3:31 PM
Chioptera,
Telling kids that carbohydrates and sugars can be over-consumed and that it can lead to obesity.-OK
Telling kids that Americans are eating more than their fair share of food and that this is why indigenous people don't have enough to eat and telling them to "talk to their parents" to convince them to change their number of meals per day.--Not OK.
See the difference?
Posted by: Lance | March 5, 2010 3:49 PM
Lance, #73: See the difference?
This whole exchange started when I responding to your comment at #37, the comment about how horrible you think it is to teach kids about the benefits of being energy conscious.
Again, if you are having difficulty remembering what you've said and what we are discussing, then that is a sign you need to be more focused.
Posted by: Chiroptera | March 5, 2010 3:59 PM
People in those countries would love to enjoy the benefits of our energy "lifestyle" they just can't afford it.
And this justifies opposition to teaching kids about the consequences of waste...how?
Posted by: Raging bee | March 5, 2010 4:12 PM
It is completely inappropriate for teachers and administrators to push a political agenda onto seventh graders.
Are they really "pushing a political agenda?" Or are they teaching facts, conclusions and recommendations that don't fit YOUR political agenda? Seriously, I got a hefty dose of environmentalist info in school at that age too: this is what "pollution" is, this is why it's bad, here's where it comes from, here's what we can do to make things a little better.
Then there's all the "teaching opportunities" we got out of that Arab Oil Embargo.
Schools don't just teach facts; they teach values and behaviors that kids need to understand in order to be responsible adults. If it's okay to teach kids "don't litter" and "don't waste food," for bloody obvious reasons, why is it not okay to teach them "don't waste water/electricity/gas" for equally obvious reasons?
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 5, 2010 4:21 PM
Raging Bee, #76:
I think Lance is referring to this mythical environmentalist agenda to get kids to starve themselves and their parents out of solidarity with the third world.
And, no, that doesn't make his point any more cogent.
Posted by: Chiroptera | March 5, 2010 4:27 PM
Lance would it be acceptable to teach about the dangers of overfishing and what the results are to the locals when overfishing destroys fish populations?
Posted by: JohnV | March 5, 2010 4:29 PM
Why can't one of you actually pick a full sentence I wrote and then respond to it?
All of a sudden the subject is "over-fishing" and "littering"?
C'mom guys focus.
Posted by: Lance | March 5, 2010 4:42 PM
yes/no
Posted by: JohnV | March 5, 2010 4:44 PM
Lance, #79: Why can't one of you actually pick a full sentence I wrote and then respond to it?
I did. In fact, I even quoted the sentences to which I responded. Like I did here. You can check. And I linked to your posts that the sentences came from so that you can see that I'm not taking them out of context.
Maybe you need to start all over again. I believe that your initial post was, "South Dakota lawmakers passed a goofy-nut law in response to wacko environmentalists teaching kids that actions have consequences."
Posted by: Chiroptera | March 5, 2010 5:02 PM
Lance:
"This isn't about science it's about political indoctrination. The name of the "lesson plan" is "Have's and Have Nots", nothing political about that topic huh?"
Well, gosh, Lance; let's talk about that, shall we?
Ed's post, unless I'm missing something was how a bunch of fucking idiot legislators in SD passed a bill with ridiculous language, language which was absent any scientific underpinnings.
You have decided, apparently, that since you have some disagreements with a group in IN, where you live, that the SD shitheads did the right thing. I think that's some pretty impressive FAIL.
Yeah, that "indoctrination" of kids to get them to think about not growing up to be like their parents and grandparents generations and continue along the (now somewhat shorter) road to the Malthusian Prospects being demonstrated on a truly awesome scale--that's just horrible!
You are absolutely right about those folks in Africa and other places living without our gadgets and gizmos--fuelled by something like 25% of the world's resource use--because they can't afford to. Why, just look at them chinee heathens. 20 years ago they were still living on collectives in a largely agrarian and pastoral lifestyle. Now they can afford to have cars and stereos and fast food and well, I think we know where this is going to wind up.
Posted by: democommie | March 5, 2010 5:21 PM
Come on lance, ignore the Admiral Ackbar on your shoulder. It's not a trap. Answer the question!
Posted by: JohnV | March 5, 2010 7:15 PM
Raging Bee, #76: ...why is it not okay to teach them "don't waste water/electricity/gas" for equally obvious reasons?
Which we did since the 70s, when I was in school. Don't waste water/electricity/gas for very obvious reasons. Exactly like don't litter and wash your hands after you use the toilet. And we taught these things without any problem from anyone because the reasons were obvious.
Now suddenly there's a noisy political faction that finds anthropogenic global climate change to be threatening for reasons I don't quite understand. Now all basic, obvious environmental education, which was done for decades without any problems from anyone, has become part of some sinister agenda to...I dunno. I still haven't figured out the goal of this sinister conspiracy.
Posted by: Chiroptera | March 5, 2010 7:36 PM
Projecting are we, Chiro? How pathetic. Oh well, religionist is as religionist does, I suppose.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | March 5, 2010 8:38 PM
Global Warming Is A Scam, #85:
*sigh* If I have to explain the joke, then it probably wasn't really funny.
Posted by: Chiroptera | March 5, 2010 8:40 PM
Lance wrote
How's this for a "Local Hot Environmental topic?"
http://www.in.gov/isdh/23650.htm
Don't you want your kids to know about that and the reasons for it?
Posted by: Chilidog | March 5, 2010 8:49 PM
Chiroptera, #86
I thought GWIAS was being saracastic, trying to see how much denialist disinformation he could pack into a small space. I was going to give him a golf clap for subtle snark. Turns out he was serious, lol.
Posted by: shargash | March 6, 2010 7:58 PM