If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   Kansas anti-science bill that would have cast doubt on global warming fails to make it through state legislature--but only because its sponsors were too incompetent to meet filing deadline   (slate.com) divider line 180
    More: Stupid, Kansas, state legislature, global warming, Fields of science, lawmakers  
•       •       •

1794 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Mar 2013 at 7:54 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



180 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-09 09:48:44 PM

Selena Luna: It was in the name of giving teachers the ability to teach unscientific lies instead of the scientific method.


In this case specifically pseudo-scientific propaganda perpetuated and paid for by various big energy concerns meant to muddy the waters in the debate over how best to react to AGW.

On odd days they try much the same thing with Creationism pushed by the fundamentalist lobby.

Sad that the only thing that stopped it from becoming law was incompetence rather than intelligence still I'll take a victory for common sense where ever I can find it.

bmongar: the Kansas senate did kill the anti strip club law Friday.  So they occasionally do do something right.


See, like that right there. Small favors, all that.
 
2013-03-09 09:52:36 PM

Peki: I wonder if there was some sort of a field of .. . I dunno. . knowledge? That could describe the passage of time in such a way that people could predict when something was due.

But nah, that'd be heresy.


You mean Psychohistory?
 
2013-03-09 09:52:57 PM

encyclopediaplushuman: quatchi: Cue Teach the Controversy pics.

[i50.tinypic.com image 450x450]
[i47.tinypic.com image 400x400]
[i50.tinypic.com image 568x397]
[i49.tinypic.com image 440x440]
[i48.tinypic.com image 400x300]
[i46.tinypic.com image 450x450]
[i47.tinypic.com image 450x450]
[i46.tinypic.com image 450x450]
[i48.tinypic.com image 440x440]
[i50.tinypic.com image 440x440]
[i48.tinypic.com image 280x280]
[i46.tinypic.com image 260x260]
[i48.tinypic.com image 450x450]
[i47.tinypic.com image 300x300]
[i45.tinypic.com image 450x449]
[i47.tinypic.com image 450x450]
[i45.tinypic.com image 440x440]
[i47.tinypic.com image 850x478]


Holy crap, man, you collected the whole set.

I thought I'd seen all of those but apparently I'd missed a couple. GJ!

/*Right-click yoink*
 
2013-03-09 09:59:57 PM
The whole man-made global warming "debate" sure brings out the mentally challenged, doesn't it?

Just noticing.
 
2013-03-09 10:04:40 PM

quatchi: Holy crap, man, you collected the whole set.

I thought I'd seen all of those but apparently I'd missed a couple. GJ!

/*Right-click yoink*


And they're all rehosted on tinypic as well so they'll also be here for a while.

Have a nice day.

i47.tinypic.com
/yay
 
2013-03-09 10:23:40 PM

quatchi: *Right-click yoink*


Love that band.
 
2013-03-09 10:44:34 PM

encyclopediaplushuman: quatchi: Holy crap, man, you collected the whole set.

I thought I'd seen all of those but apparently I'd missed a couple. GJ!

/*Right-click yoink*

And they're all rehosted on tinypic as well so they'll also be here for a while.

Have a nice day.

[i47.tinypic.com image 320x320]
/yay


LOUDER.

(And by that, I mean "awesome and I am saving all of those").
 
2013-03-09 10:48:39 PM
 
2013-03-09 11:07:29 PM

dookdookdook: GilRuiz1: To make it more interesting, there's this.   A study published in the journal Nature Climate Change shows the more science-literate a person is, the more they doubt global warming.

Looking at the charts in the actual study (charts are free, article isn't) it looks like the real message is that opinions on global warming are almost uncorrelated with science education, except that somehow "Hierarchical individualists" (read: authoritarian conservatives) seem to get stupider as they get smarter.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n10/full/nclimate1547.html


You ever read Philip Tetlock's Expert Political Opinion?

He shows that the best predictors of future events were people who piece together a lot of different facts and ideas, rather than believing firmly in one big idea. In fact, this correlation was stronger than knowledge on the subject of the prediction, so you can be better off asking one of the former group who studies politics on a totally different continent than one of the latter who's supposed to be an expert.
 
2013-03-09 11:45:27 PM

encyclopediaplushuman: And they're all rehosted on tinypic as well so they'll also be here for a while.


And the T-shirts are still for sale....

/not my gig, just like the designs
 
2013-03-09 11:45:27 PM

Skirl Hutsenreiter: He shows that the best predictors of future events were people who piece together a lot of different facts and ideas, rather than believing firmly in one big idea. In fact, this correlation was stronger than knowledge on the subject of the prediction, so you can be better off asking one of the former group who studies politics on a totally different continent than one of the latter who's supposed to be an expert.


So instead of listening to actual scientists, I should really be asking the people who happened to score well on the 4th-grade-level science quiz the surveyor gave them because they have been relatively uncorrupted by actual research and objective facts?

Yeah, I'll get on that.
 
2013-03-09 11:57:17 PM

abb3w: encyclopediaplushuman: And they're all rehosted on tinypic as well so they'll also be here for a while.

And the T-shirts are still for sale....

/not my gig, just like the designs


I'm actually wearing one right now.

/getting a kick, etc.
 
2013-03-10 12:02:53 AM

Skail: It still baffles me that, in this day and age and in this first-world country, there can be people who are "anti-science."


Jenny McCarthy is the poster child for stupid science. what she pushes is about as anti science as you can get.

Jessica Simpson OTOH is just dumb as a brick. see her chicken of the sea comment.

but both these people are held up as folks to be emulated. or farked, can't remember.
 
2013-03-10 12:05:34 AM
They pass these types of bills so that they can pass these other bills.

Brownback pushing to repeal corporate farming regulations.
 
2013-03-10 12:12:00 AM

dookdookdook: So instead of listening to actual scientists, I should really be asking the people who happened to score well on the 4th-grade-level science quiz the surveyor gave them because they have been relatively uncorrupted by actual research and objective facts?


Not so much. More that you should try and see whether the prediction is coming from a "fox" who knows many things, or a "hedgehog" who only knows one big thing.

There's some of each on both sides in the climate change, but the distribution seems uneven.
 
2013-03-10 12:19:58 AM

GilRuiz1: To make it more interesting, there's this.   A study published in the journal Nature Climate Change shows the more science-literate a person is, the more they doubt global warming.

I assume this is what the scientists who conducted the study look like:
[cdn2.planetminecraft.com image 256x256]


Well, considering that science is largely about not believing something until it is soundly demonstrated, many tests have shown empirical evidence to back up a claim, and then continuing to doubt and ask questions, it doesn't surprise me.
 
2013-03-10 12:26:55 AM

abb3w: There's some of each on both sides in the climate change


So in this (slightly idiotic) metaphor, are the climate scientists with actual education and in-depth knowledge of the problem foxes or hedgehogs?

Because they are the only people whose opinions I give half a fark about.
 
2013-03-10 12:28:18 AM

WTF Indeed: To be fair, the use of a calendar was considered witchcraft at one point.


So now, finding any flaw in agw is the sane as witchcraft?
 
2013-03-10 12:53:50 AM
Wouldn't want to spoil Kansas's reputation as the land of back-assward, corn-shucking hicks, now would we?
 
2013-03-10 12:54:34 AM
Am I the only one that realizes this was the plan? Introduce some legislation to rouse the rabble, then next time you go fundraising you say "We need to try again, we almost passed it last time."

It why they never really get their way. If they got their way it's all over and they wind up in a position of weakness.
 
2013-03-10 01:02:48 AM

GilRuiz1: study published in the journal Nature Climate Change


actually this is what they said

"A study just published online in the journalNature Climate Changesuggests that the answer to both questions is no. Indeed, as members of the public become more science literate and numerate, the study found, individuals belonging to opposing cultural groups become even more divided on the risks that climate change poses."

and  what it means is that the more someone knew about science, the more likely you were to make those facts fit what they thought their peers did about the subject. it  did not suggest the smarter you are in science the less likely you believe in global warming.

Troll-face, indeed.
 
2013-03-10 01:13:57 AM

serial_crusher: whew, that was a close one.  For a minute there I was afraid our students would have to be exposed to Republican propaganda like "critical thinking", and schools would be forced to teach science objectively.


That's bordering on some PocketNinja-level absurdity trolling right there.

+1, would read again.
 
2013-03-10 01:46:52 AM
Marking the first time in history science was saved by bureaucracy.
 
2013-03-10 01:52:56 AM

Alicious: They pass these types of bills so that they can pass these other bills.

Brownback pushing to repeal corporate farming regulations.


Heh.  Curious to how they can sell that to the counties / locals.  There's no feasible way you can dress that up as not screwing over the local communities.
 
2013-03-10 01:52:59 AM
To clarify, saying that this bill died because it "missed a filing deadline" is technically correct, but it implies that there was something to file (such as a committee report) that was not filed for some reason; this bill (Kansas HB2306) died because it was never heard by the committee it was referred to, which is a common way for bills to die in state legislatures and Congress. TFA's author is assuming that this bill was crushed by the bureaucracy of the Kansas Legislature when all that happened was that the chair of the Kansas House Standing Committee on Education (and whoever else is involved in setting the committee's agenda) correctly recognized that this bill wasn't worth the committee's time, and moved on.
 
2013-03-10 03:05:27 AM

bill_01915: GilRuiz1: To make it more interesting, there's this.   A study published in the journal Nature Climate Change shows the more science-literate a person is, the more they doubt global warming.

I assume this is what the scientists who conducted the study look like:

From the article "A study just published online in the journal Nature Climate Change suggests that the answer to both questions is no. Indeed, as members of the public become more science literate and numerate, the study found, individuals belonging to opposing cultural groups become even more divided on the risks that climate change poses."

No, it means idiology trumps education. If you're a republican you doubt the climate research no matter how much science you understand.


It also means that current scientific theory points to global climate change, not global warming...
 
2013-03-10 03:24:36 AM

dookdookdook: Skirl Hutsenreiter: He shows that the best predictors of future events were people who piece together a lot of different facts and ideas, rather than believing firmly in one big idea. In fact, this correlation was stronger than knowledge on the subject of the prediction, so you can be better off asking one of the former group who studies politics on a totally different continent than one of the latter who's supposed to be an expert.

So instead of listening to actual scientists, I should really be asking the people who happened to score well on the 4th-grade-level science quiz the surveyor gave them because they have been relatively uncorrupted by actual research and objective facts?

Yeah, I'll get on that.


You need to re-read what you responded to, because your reply didn't address the point at all.

Either that, or you're just constructing easily knocked-over straw men, in which case carry on.
 
2013-03-10 04:07:22 AM

Animatronik: WTF Indeed: To be fair, the use of a calendar was considered witchcraft at one point.

So now, finding any flaw in agw is the sane as witchcraft?


Of course not; witchcraft isn't actually real. It would be similar to believing in witchcraft, though.
 
2013-03-10 10:12:38 AM

PsiChick: serial_crusher: whew, that was a close one.  For a minute there I was afraid our students would have to be exposed to Republican propaganda like "critical thinking", and schools would be forced to teach science objectively.

Legally forcing teachers to explain that 90% of scientists agree with climate change would have been wonderful, I agree.


See, this is what scares me about the "anti-science" debate.  It's well and good to tell the general public that we need to make policy changes to address global warming, and that we know global warming is our fault because 90% of scientists who study it say that it is.  Because the general public doesn't have the time to keep up with science.
But, you seem to be suggesting that we limit our teaching in schools to that same thing.  "ok science class, the world's getting hotter and its our fault because 90% of scientists said so.  end of lesson, next topic."  So then you've created the echo chamber the Republicans are worried about.  Future generations of scientists agreeing on a conclusion not because they understand the science that led to that conclusion, but because they've been told everybody else agrees with that conclusion.

Selena Luna: It was in the name of giving teachers the ability to teach unscientific lies instead of the scientific method.


If that's the case they did a hell of a bad job of wording the thing.  I think they're under the actual impression that science will be on their side if they can just kill off the perceived echo chamber and get people doing actual science again.
"The legislature encourages the teaching of such scientific controversies to be made in an objective manner in which both the strengths and weaknesses of such scientific theory or hypothesis are covered."
That's step 5 on the sceintific method flowchart.  "analyze results and draw conclusions".
www.sciencebuddies.org
 
2013-03-10 10:18:27 AM

Karac: lacking the imagination to remember how they acted at 17.


I like to remind my colleagues at the school I teach at that they were almost all from the "Sex, drugs, and rock and roll" generation.
 
2013-03-10 10:51:15 AM

serial_crusher: If that's the case they did a hell of a bad job of wording the thing. I think they're under the actual impression that science will be on their side if they can just kill off the perceived echo chamber and get people doing actual science again.
"The legislature encourages the teaching of such scientific controversies to be made in an objective manner in which both the strengths and weaknesses of such scientific theory or hypothesis are covered."
That's step 5 on the sceintific method flowchart. "analyze results and draw conclusions".


Well, it isn't 90%.

Actually, there is more controversy about dark matter  than there is about AGW.  Here is a pie chart...

media.treehugger.com
 
2013-03-10 10:53:01 AM

dookdookdook: Skirl Hutsenreiter: He shows that the best predictors of future events were people who piece together a lot of different facts and ideas, rather than believing firmly in one big idea. In fact, this correlation was stronger than knowledge on the subject of the prediction, so you can be better off asking one of the former group who studies politics on a totally different continent than one of the latter who's supposed to be an expert.

So instead of listening to actual scientists, I should really be asking the people who happened to score well on the 4th-grade-level science quiz the surveyor gave them because they have been relatively uncorrupted by actual research and objective facts?

Yeah, I'll get on that.


You're awesome at reading comprehension, you know that?
 
2013-03-10 11:06:36 AM
I'll not be an ass and expand on the point:

They were all professional political experts being asked about politics. And the best predictors were people who didn't dogmatically hold one to one thesis and specialized in the area in question. It's just that their colleagues in that area who did hold one firm on one big idea (e.g., multiethnic countries always disintegrate under ethnic tension eventually) were worse than a random political scientist who didn't suffer this handicap.

Notice how your 4th grade quiz didn't come into it at all? Funny, that.

The most interesting thing was how staggeringly bad even the good predictors still were. So to do even worse - the bad dogmatic predictors as a group underperformed undergraduates and random guessing.
 
2013-03-10 11:22:37 AM

cereal_cruncher: whew, that was a close one.  For a minute there I was afraid our students would have to be exposed to Republican propaganda like "critical thinking", and schools would be forced to teach science objectively.


I'm glad you put quotations on "critical thinking".
 
2013-03-10 11:47:43 AM

dookdookdook: GilRuiz1: To make it more interesting, there's this.   A study published in the journal Nature Climate Change shows the more science-literate a person is, the more they doubt global warming.

Looking at the charts in the actual study (charts are free, article isn't) it looks like the real message is that opinions on global warming are almost uncorrelated with science education, except that somehow "Hierarchical individualists" (read: authoritarian conservatives) seem to get stupider as they get smarter.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n10/full/nclimate1547.html

[www.nature.com image 417x200]

[www.nature.com image 511x200]


Terms like "egalitarian communitarianist" and "hierarchical individualist" are the spookiest thing about

bill_01915: PsiChick: serial_crusher: whew, that was a close one.  For a minute there I was afraid our students would have to be exposed to Republican propaganda like "critical thinking", and schools would be forced to teach science objectively.

Legally forcing teachers to explain that 90% of scientists agree with climate change would have been wonderful, I agree.

More like 98%, but I'm sure that fact wouldn't be part of the curriculum.


citation please
 
2013-03-10 11:56:09 AM

Skirl Hutsenreiter: dookdookdook: GilRuiz1: To make it more interesting, there's this.   A study published in the journal Nature Climate Change shows the more science-literate a person is, the more they doubt global warming.

Looking at the charts in the actual study (charts are free, article isn't) it looks like the real message is that opinions on global warming are almost uncorrelated with science education, except that somehow "Hierarchical individualists" (read: authoritarian conservatives) seem to get stupider as they get smarter.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n10/full/nclimate1547.html

You ever read Philip Tetlock's Expert Political Opinion?

He shows that the best predictors of future events were people who piece together a lot of different facts and ideas, rather than believing firmly in one big idea. In fact, this correlation was stronger than knowledge on the subject of the prediction, so you can be better off asking one of the former group who studies politics on a totally different continent than one of the latter who's supposed to be an expert.


Remind me of the predictions that have been made by climatologists, and how many of them turned out to be true.
 
2013-03-10 12:00:01 PM

maddogdelta: serial_crusher: If that's the case they did a hell of a bad job of wording the thing. I think they're under the actual impression that science will be on their side if they can just kill off the perceived echo chamber and get people doing actual science again.
"The legislature encourages the teaching of such scientific controversies to be made in an objective manner in which both the strengths and weaknesses of such scientific theory or hypothesis are covered."
That's step 5 on the sceintific method flowchart. "analyze results and draw conclusions".

Well, it isn't 90%.

Actually, there is more controversy about dark matter  than there is about AGW.  Here is a pie chart...

[media.treehugger.com image 492x476]


If that pie chart is true (which I doubt) then it would serve as absolute proof that the peer review process has become corrupt. Because in no field of science, no matter how well established, would you get a ratio so extreme.
 
2013-03-10 12:17:52 PM

THE GREAT NAME: absolute proof that the peer review process has become corrupt. Because in no field of science, no matter how well established, would you get a ratio so extreme.


Really? Try arguing against evolution. Or, for that matter, gravity.

Go ahead... jump off a building and shout as loud as you can "I don't believe in gravity". See how well that works for you...
 
2013-03-10 12:38:44 PM

Skail: It still baffles me that, in this day and age and in this first-world country, there can be people who are "anti-science."


gop logic

science=liberals=socialist=communists=facists=dictators
::
Sceintist are dictators.

and that is only half a joke.   The fact is, the #1 thing the GOP stands for is opposing anything liberal, and since liberals embrace sceince...  well...
 
2013-03-10 12:40:47 PM

quatchi: serial_crusher: whew, that was a close one.  For a minute there I was afraid our students would have to be exposed to Republican propaganda like "critical thinking", and schools would be forced to teach science objectively.

Cue Teach the Controversy pics.


You're welcome to be anti-science all you want, but keep that shiat out of our farking schools.
 
2013-03-10 12:54:19 PM
You're splitting hairs.  If you asked "Does gravity exist?" you would get that ratio.  But if you ask "What is gravity?"  you would get a far different looking pie chart.
Because this topic has become so politicized, all arguments have suffered in terms of credibility.  At this point, a pie chart that shows that an overwhelming number of peer-reviewed articles says one thing so it must be true is no different than a pie chart that shows an overwhelming number of Iranian clerics say one thing so it must be true.
I blame the militant environmentalists that took a hard line on anyone that didn't agree with them, that fudged their numbers, or monetarily capitalized on the subject as much as I blame the religious groups.
Good science should speak for itself.
Go back and start over and this time leave Gore and The Weather Channel and anyone that stands to gain from a specific outcome out of your efforts.
 
2013-03-10 01:23:48 PM

GilRuiz1: To make it more interesting, there's this.   A study published in the journal Nature Climate Change shows the more science-literate a person is, the more they doubt global warming.

I assume this is what the scientists who conducted the study look like:
[cdn2.planetminecraft.com image 256x256]


Either you cannot read or you used the wrong link, because nothing in the article indicated that the study concluded that people with above average scientific literacy have a greater tendency to doubt global warming.

FTFA - "What this study shows is that people with high science and math comprehension can think their way to conclusions that are better for them as individuals but are not necessarily better for society."

So people are more likely to cling to their beliefs instead of facts. Furthermore, people that are a bit better at quantitative thinking and posses above-average knowledge regarding science will STILL cling to their beliefs instead of established scientific facts that have been accepted by the majority of scientists investigating climate change. What is the old adage, sometimes knowing half of the truth can be more dangerous than knowing nothing at all?
 
2013-03-10 01:38:03 PM

Farty McPooPants: You're splitting hairs.  If you asked "Does gravity exist?" you would get that ratio.  But if you ask "What is gravity?"  you would get a far different looking pie chart.
Because this topic has become so politicized, all arguments have suffered in terms of credibility.  At this point, a pie chart that shows that an overwhelming number of peer-reviewed articles says one thing so it must be true is no different than a pie chart that shows an overwhelming number of Iranian clerics say one thing so it must be true.
I blame the militant environmentalists that took a hard line on anyone that didn't agree with them, that fudged their numbers, or monetarily capitalized on the subject as much as I blame the religious groups.
Good science should speak for itself.
Go back and start over and this time leave Gore and The Weather Channel and anyone that stands to gain from a specific outcome out of your efforts.


Right, both sides are bad and it's the scientists fault that the far right political party in the US is full of crap on this.
 
2013-03-10 02:45:54 PM
serial_crusher: PsiChick: serial_crusher: whew, that was a close one.  For a minute there I was afraid our students would have to be exposed to Republican propaganda like "critical thinking", and schools would be forced to teach science objectively.

Legally forcing teachers to explain that 90% of scientists agree with climate change would have been wonderful, I agree.

See, this is what scares me about the "anti-science" debate.  It's well and good to tell the general public that we need to make policy changes to address global warming, and that we know global warming is our fault because 90% of scientists who study it say that it is.  Because the general public doesn't have the time to keep up with science.
But, you seem to be suggesting that we limit our teaching in schools to that same thing.  "ok science class, the world's getting hotter and its our fault because 90% of scientists said so.  end of lesson, next topic."  So then you've created the echo chamber the Republicans are worried about.  Future generations of scientists agreeing on a conclusion not because they understand the science that led to that conclusion, but because they've been told everybody else agrees with that conclusion.


You've never worked with high school students, have you? You  could do that, yes...except A) the students will give no farks whatsoever, B) half of the students  won't understand what you're talking about, and C) the prior two are for an AP science class; in a  normal class, or, worse, an at-risk class, you need that time to catch up on other things, like Newton's laws of physics.

That's the big problem with this bill. When you tell kids there's a controversy, or act like there's a controversy, they hear 'this is not accurate', because all students already know their teachers lie (for example, your average high schooler will not know what communism is, because every teacher studiously avoids mentioning the subject--I had to outright ask one of my teachers to get an answer). You're wasting time. The students don't need to hear that there's 'controversy' around something that is, scientifically, on equal footing with Newton's Third Law, because there  are other topics they need to explore, and there's only so many hours in a day. For quite a few kids, this is their last shot at education, especially in high-risk areas. Simplification is not creating an echo chamber; it's giving them a chance at a full, rounded education.

/CSS: In my HS, someone tried your theory--a long-winded explanation of why people thought evolution worked, treating the student like a fellow scientist. And I was the only person in that class who understood it, because everyone else just BS'd their way through the test. To this day I still can't entirely explain what that guy was on about, either; the only thing I got out of it was 'evolution: animals have DNA, the best DNA is most likely to reproduce, therefore species adapt, pretty much anyone with a brain agrees'. That's about all a high schooler gives a shiat about, and that's what's going to work.
 
2013-03-10 05:06:00 PM

Old enough to know better: Wouldn't want to spoil Kansas's reputation as the land of back-assward, corn-shucking hicks, now would we?


Corn is Nebraska. Kansas is wheat. Please don't get your back-assward hicks mixed up.
 
2013-03-10 06:26:06 PM

serial_crusher: If that's the case they did a hell of a bad job of wording the thing. I think they're under the actual impression that science will be on their side if they can just kill off the perceived echo chamber and get people doing actual science again.
"The legislature encourages the teaching of such scientific controversies to be made in an objective manner in which both the strengths and weaknesses of such scientific theory or hypothesis are covered."
That's step 5 on the sceintific method flowchart. "analyze results and draw conclusions".


Nope. High school students should be taught what the scientific consensus is, if there is one. For anthropogenic global warming, there is one. Doesn't mean we know to a mathematical certainty. But we know well enough that we can tell kids what we think and move on to the next topic. This bill is pure conservative propaganda horsesh*t, and that's all.
 
2013-03-10 06:29:44 PM

maddogdelta: THE GREAT NAME: absolute proof that the peer review process has become corrupt. Because in no field of science, no matter how well established, would you get a ratio so extreme.

Really? Try arguing against evolution. Or, for that matter, gravity.

Go ahead... jump off a building and shout as loud as you can "I don't believe in gravity". See how well that works for you...


Why would I want to do that?
 
2013-03-10 06:32:59 PM

Farty McPooPants: Go back and start over and this time leave Gore and The Weather Channel and anyone that stands to gain from a specific outcome out of your efforts.


Interesting that you mention that.  Do you know who benefits from climate change denial?

The same people who put lots of CO2 into the atmosphere.  Coal and Oil companies.   Do you know which industries funded all of the entire "climate change denial" movement?  Did you know that the consulting companies they hired were the same groups that tobacco companies founded to muddy the links between smoking and lung cancer?

Of course not. You're a denialist and you like to hide behind your "teach the controversy" bullshiat.
 
2013-03-10 06:36:54 PM

wiredroach: serial_crusher: If that's the case they did a hell of a bad job of wording the thing. I think they're under the actual impression that science will be on their side if they can just kill off the perceived echo chamber and get people doing actual science again.
"The legislature encourages the teaching of such scientific controversies to be made in an objective manner in which both the strengths and weaknesses of such scientific theory or hypothesis are covered."
That's step 5 on the sceintific method flowchart. "analyze results and draw conclusions".

Nope. High school students should be taught what the scientific consensus is, if there is one. For anthropogenic global warming, there is one. Doesn't mean we know to a mathematical certainty. But we know well enough that we can tell kids what we think and move on to the next topic. This bill is pure conservative propaganda horsesh*t, and that's all.


Wrong. They should be taught established science. Climate change theory has not made any correct predictions yet and is therefore not established science.

Your "consensus" is just a political phenomenon. It only exists if you cherry pick the people you call "climate scientists". And even then, most of that group don't agree with the massive positive feedbacks that IPCC forecasts (which have all turned out to be false) rely on.
 
2013-03-10 06:42:14 PM

THE GREAT NAME: wiredroach: serial_crusher: If that's the case they did a hell of a bad job of wording the thing. I think they're under the actual impression that science will be on their side if they can just kill off the perceived echo chamber and get people doing actual science again.
"The legislature encourages the teaching of such scientific controversies to be made in an objective manner in which both the strengths and weaknesses of such scientific theory or hypothesis are covered."
That's step 5 on the sceintific method flowchart. "analyze results and draw conclusions".

Nope. High school students should be taught what the scientific consensus is, if there is one. For anthropogenic global warming, there is one. Doesn't mean we know to a mathematical certainty. But we know well enough that we can tell kids what we think and move on to the next topic. This bill is pure conservative propaganda horsesh*t, and that's all.

Wrong. They should be taught established science. Climate change theory has not made any correct predictions yet and is therefore not established science.

Your "consensus" is just a political phenomenon. It only exists if you cherry pick the people you call "climate scientists". And even then, most of that group don't agree with the massive positive feedbacks that IPCC forecasts (which have all turned out to be false) rely on.


Have a glance at maddogdelta's chart above. It's accurate. That's what consensus looks like.
 
Displayed 50 of 180 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report