Comments on: South Dakota House denies climate change, interferes with public education of science http://www.cejournal.net/?p=2926 News & Perspective from the Center for Environmental Journalism Thu, 09 Sep 2010 00:29:03 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Dan http://www.cejournal.net/?p=2926&cpage=1#comment-6195 Dan Thu, 11 Mar 2010 02:41:11 +0000 http://www.cejournal.net/?p=2926#comment-6195 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that members of a political body seeking to pass legislation that would steer the teaching of science, must themselves have a minimal grasp of science, particularly if their legislative position disagrees with the overwhelming majority of scientists in the world, most of the world's governments, and every major scientific institution on the planet. "Balanced" teaching about an issue about which virtually all of the scientific evidence supports one side, is ridiculous and in my opinion, borders on criminal. This is not about "skepticism;" it's about dogmatism and a refusal to believe science that disagrees with one's cherished values. What's next? "Balanced" teaching about whether the Holocaust really happened? How about Erich Von Daniken's theories of aliens influencing ancient cultures? Or how about the most ridiculous thing I can imagine -- "balanced" teaching on creationism vs. the theory of evolution? Oh wait, that seeming impossibility actually has a ton of support in South Dakota. Gee, it MUST be a coincidence.... BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that members of a political body seeking to pass legislation that would steer the teaching of science, must themselves have a minimal grasp of science, particularly if their legislative position disagrees with the overwhelming majority of scientists in the world, most of the world’s governments, and every major scientific institution on the planet.

“Balanced” teaching about an issue about which virtually all of the scientific evidence supports one side, is ridiculous and in my opinion, borders on criminal. This is not about “skepticism;” it’s about dogmatism and a refusal to believe science that disagrees with one’s cherished values. What’s next? “Balanced” teaching about whether the Holocaust really happened? How about Erich Von Daniken’s theories of aliens influencing ancient cultures? Or how about the most ridiculous thing I can imagine — “balanced” teaching on creationism vs. the theory of evolution? Oh wait, that seeming impossibility actually has a ton of support in South Dakota. Gee, it MUST be a coincidence….

]]> By: Greg http://www.cejournal.net/?p=2926&cpage=1#comment-6130 Greg Thu, 04 Mar 2010 06:04:17 +0000 http://www.cejournal.net/?p=2926#comment-6130 Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant,” the resolution said, “but rather a highly beneficial ingredient for all plant life.” [from a resolution passed by the South Dakota House] Suppose your doctor told you that sodium and potassium were not poisons but elements essential to life. Of course, he'd be absolutely correct. And, of course, if you took a daily ten gram dose of sodium chloride you'd risk the possibility of extreme high blood pressure events. An intravenous dose of ten grams of potassium chloride will stop your heart. Hydrogen sulfide, nitrous oxide and carbon monoxide also have essential uses in the functioning of the human body—and are deadly if present in relatively small excess over the level that the body has provided for. Saying that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but a beneficial ingredient for life states an essential truth, but one that is absolutely unconnected to the subject of atmospheric warming due to greenhouse gas (which, in itself, is essential to the development of life on Earth), or the subject of possible uncontrolled warming that can cause anything from regional climatic difficulties to irreparable damage to the environment that sustains seven billion humans today. This statement shows woeful lack of technical and scholastic understanding by a political body entrusted to provide education to children of any time, let alone the twenty-first century. That the resolution also cites "...astrological {sic}, ...dynamics that can effect world weather phenomena" leads one to wonder if the legislators are even educated themselves. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant,” the resolution said, “but rather a highly beneficial ingredient for all plant life.” [from a resolution passed by the South Dakota House]
Suppose your doctor told you that sodium and potassium were not poisons but elements essential to life. Of course, he’d be absolutely correct. And, of course, if you took a daily ten gram dose of sodium chloride you’d risk the possibility of extreme high blood pressure events. An intravenous dose of ten grams of potassium chloride will stop your heart.
Hydrogen sulfide, nitrous oxide and carbon monoxide also have essential uses in the functioning of the human body—and are deadly if present in relatively small excess over the level that the body has provided for.
Saying that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but a beneficial ingredient for life states an essential truth, but one that is absolutely unconnected to the subject of atmospheric warming due to greenhouse gas (which, in itself, is essential to the development of life on Earth), or the subject of possible uncontrolled warming that can cause anything from regional climatic difficulties to irreparable damage to the environment that sustains seven billion humans today. This statement shows woeful lack of technical and scholastic understanding by a political body entrusted to provide education to children of any time, let alone the twenty-first century. That the resolution also cites “…astrological {sic}, …dynamics that can effect world weather phenomena” leads one to wonder if the legislators are even educated themselves.

]]> By: Science fun facts: Does a climatologist weigh the same as a duck? « DougDisneyland http://www.cejournal.net/?p=2926&cpage=1#comment-6117 Science fun facts: Does a climatologist weigh the same as a duck? « DougDisneyland Mon, 01 Mar 2010 15:15:58 +0000 http://www.cejournal.net/?p=2926#comment-6117 [...] South Dakota state legislature passed a bill attempting to bring what they comically refer to as balance to the teaching of climate change in the state’s public schools. I’m just guessing here [...] [...] South Dakota state legislature passed a bill attempting to bring what they comically refer to as balance to the teaching of climate change in the state’s public schools. I’m just guessing here [...]

]]> By: Paul Talley http://www.cejournal.net/?p=2926&cpage=1#comment-6111 Paul Talley Sun, 28 Feb 2010 13:30:41 +0000 http://www.cejournal.net/?p=2926#comment-6111 I happen to have an issue with the legislation. 1. Astrological? Do you suppose they actually meant "astronomical" 2. Do the legislator is South Dakota know the difference between affect and effect? 3. Assuming for a moment that "climate change" is a theory and not proven science. Does that detract from efforts being put forth to try to stop and reverse climate change due to human contriubtion to global greenhouse gasses by diverting funds and research to "proving the theory" rather than "fixing the problem". 4. Why is this a political football? I would propose the following. That all those don't believe in climate change, or believe that human interaction with the environment is detrimental to the overall well being of the human, volunteeer to be prematurely turned into "Soylent Green" when the science is proven out. Pardon me, but I like my "Soylent Green" with marmite. pt I happen to have an issue with the legislation.

1. Astrological? Do you suppose they actually meant “astronomical”

2. Do the legislator is South Dakota know the difference between affect and effect?

3. Assuming for a moment that “climate change” is a theory and not proven science. Does that detract from efforts being put forth to try to stop and reverse climate change due to human contriubtion to global greenhouse gasses by diverting funds and research to “proving the theory” rather than “fixing the problem”.

4. Why is this a political football?

I would propose the following. That all those don’t believe in climate change, or believe that human interaction with the environment is detrimental to the overall well being of the human, volunteeer to be prematurely turned into “Soylent Green” when the science is proven out. Pardon me, but I like my “Soylent Green” with marmite.

pt

]]> By: klem http://www.cejournal.net/?p=2926&cpage=1#comment-6087 klem Fri, 26 Feb 2010 13:20:30 +0000 http://www.cejournal.net/?p=2926#comment-6087 "BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Legislature urges that all instruction on the theory of global warming be appropriate to the age and academic development of the student and to the prevailing classroom circumstances." What is wrong with this resolution? They are suggesting that perhaps showing Al Gores propaganda flick might leave a mildly unbalanced picture of the AGW theory. Perhaps schools might consider showing one of several available anti-AGW propaganda flicks as well. And perhaps a more balanced student might emerge rather than just another generation of environmental apparatchiks. I see nothing wrong with this resolution. I would like this resolution in my area too. “BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Legislature urges that all instruction on the theory of global warming be appropriate to the age and academic development of the student and to the prevailing classroom circumstances.”

What is wrong with this resolution? They are suggesting that perhaps showing Al Gores propaganda flick might leave a mildly unbalanced picture of the AGW theory. Perhaps schools might consider showing one of several available anti-AGW propaganda flicks as well. And perhaps a more balanced student might emerge rather than just another generation of environmental apparatchiks. I see nothing wrong with this resolution. I would like this resolution in my area too.

]]>