Comments on: Climate Change Preps for Its Scopes Trial

By: Preston

Preston — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 17:25:17 +0000

There is evidence for climate change, and there is evidence for it not being a reality. Why not present these two sides and let kids learn from it as they will?

By: Robert

Robert — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:33:32 +0000

James,

The best way to shut these climate change believers up is not by bashing one scientist’s methods, that’s easy to refute, and hiding the data doesn’t prove the data is false. We need to give them a dose of their own medicine- the peer reviewed evidence that the climate is not changing and if it is, it’s not our fault, or evidence that it’s Mars that’s the culprit. The writer linked to the article in Science from 5 years ago that showed the scientific literature overwhelmingly came down on the climate change is real side. I’m sure there must be lots of good research since then that demonstrates just the opposite. Just enlighten these people by pointing them to it, that will shut them up. (but my advice is don’t use the stuff from the weatherman in San Diego, it doesn’t stand much scrutiny.)

By: James Mayeau

James Mayeau — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 08:40:21 +0000

Well Martin, I certainly hope that the data will eventually come out. Unfortunately the climate scientists don’t practice the scientific process, as witnessed by Prof P Jones of the CRU today in an UK Parliamentary enquiry by the Science and Technology committee.
Jones testified that it is “standard procedure” for climate scientists to keep their data hidden from critics.

You don’t want science teachers teaching your children to hide their homework, right? Maybe they can use climate science as an example of the negative- what not to do when following the scientific method.

By: Martin Dennis

Martin Dennis — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 21:55:39 +0000

A previous commenter is correct: this is a resolution, not a bill. In fact, the state Senate version of the resolution was fairly neutral: it called on public school teachers to teach a “balanced and objective” approach to climate change, in the context of climate science’s complexity and of the political noise that the science generates (as seen in James Mayeau’s comment). As a parent of three South Dakota schoolchildren, I certainly hope their science teachers take advantage of a complex topic like climate change to teach about scientific process–i.e. evaluating claims based on logic and empirical evidence–as well as content. The problem, of course, is that the data will eventually come out to support one side, so providing “balance” will eventually mean presenting a foil to demonstrate the give-and-take of scientific argumentation, not to provide a legitimate alternative theory. I suspect that this is *not* what the legislators meant. The original House version was more clearly “bipartisan” (again, not a good thing in science).

By: James Mayeau

James Mayeau — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 05:56:22 +0000

Kovacs later apologized, explaining, “My ‘Scopes monkey’ analogy was inappropriate,” as it undermined his insistence that the Chamber “is not denying or otherwise challenging the science behind global climate change.” That's a pity, because there is so much to challenge. Maybe South Dakota should find some politicians with a firmer resolve, willing to end this abhorent practice of compelling the indoctrination of children.

By: Jack

Jack — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 04:06:29 +0000

Enough with the global warming scam — we the people have enough of the bogus claims. God is in charge.

By: Tim

Tim — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 03:14:19 +0000

When DNA was first discovered scientists felt the sequences contained all of the secrets to life. i.e. DNA was the blueprint that determined a person’s biological destiny.

Science has progressed a lot since then and scientists understand that DNA is not necessarily destiny and that a host of environmental factors affect what genes get turned on.

Climate science is at the stage that DNA science was 50 years ago. They understand one part of the puzzle but they are largely clueless on how that part fits into the big picture.

When DNA was first discovered the simplistic determinism of it led to the things like eugenics. This lead to some scientists like Shockley advocating some pretty odious policies based on the “science”.

The same battle is repeating with climate and CO2. In 50 years people will laugh at the naivity of today’s scientists who thought they could explain everything with CO2.

By: Josh Rosenau

Josh Rosenau — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 04:44:36 +0000

Phaedrus: How many scientific challenges begin in secondary school and then take over the scientific community? This is what creationists and global warming deniers want to do.

Existing state laws in every state already give broad leeway for teachers to explore all sides of genuine scientific controversies. Bills like this one (even if nonbinding!) draw a big red circle around a specific topic, which suggests to teachers and students that it is a topic that has two sides, and that even if there is only one scientifically legitimate side, they ought to prop up a non-scientific alternative out of “fairness.”

By: Phaedrus

Phaedrus — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 20:26:31 +0000

I haven’t thought about this long and hard – but objecting to a bill that encourages open challenge seems the wrong tactic for Science.
I understand that this is an attempt to allow pet theories of creationists and others to be discussed in science class – but it seems like it is THAT that should be challenged, not the text that allows them to discuss controversy.
If there is no scientific basis for their theories (creationism, ID, global warming denial-ism) then why can’t they be challenged on the merits if they introduce these topics into the curriculum. There is no scientific controversy, so creating one in a science class should be actionable.

By: Josh Rosenau

Josh Rosenau — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 18:31:56 +0000

While the resolution does not have legal penalties attached to it, local school districts and parents will surely use it as a way to harass teachers who want to teach the science accurately. It also creates a conflict between state science standards and the legislature. A local school board could take that conflict and decide to order teachers to present denialist claims; violating district orders would be a firing offense for the teacher. As in most states, the South Dakota science standards are essentially advisory for teachers (no penalties for deviating from them, just like this bill), but because they are the basis for standardized testing, the standards do have a lot of power over local school boards.

By: denature

denature — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 03:57:32 +0000

It is a resolution not a bill, thus there are no penalties. It’s the legislatures way of telling its citizens what they should do when the actual authority to do so may be lacking.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 03:11:36 +0000

The bill is linked to in the text. “HCR 1009″ is a link to the actual bill.

It doesn’t read like an actual law, more like a recommendation. it “urges” schools to teach a set of bogus statements about climate change. No penaltys are mentioned if they aren’t taught.

By: Frank A. Lornitzo

Frank A. Lornitzo — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:14:20 +0000

What is the wording of the proposed ordnance or statute ? What does it actually say? What penalty
adjoins for violation? Is it intended as an instrument of law or meant to intimidate?

I would like to see this quoted in form that can be sent to the major newspapers and outlets so that the folks can take pride in foolishness.