Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Wyoming Is First State To Reject Science Standards Over Climate Change

Soulskill posted about 3 months ago | from the in-the-case-of-science-v-politics dept.

Education 661

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes: "Time Magazine reports that Wyoming, the nation's top coal-producing state, has become the first state to reject new K-12 science standards proposed by national education groups mainly because of global warming components. The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) are a set of science standards developed by leading scientists and science educators from 26 states and built on a framework developed by the National Academy of Sciences. The Wyoming science standards revision committee made up entirely of Wyoming educators unanimously recommended adoption of these standards to the state Board of Education not once but twice and twelve states have already adopted the standards since they were released in April 2013. But opponents argue the standards incorrectly assert that man-made emissions are the main cause of global warming and shouldn't be taught in a state that ranks first among all states in coal production, fifth in natural gas production and eighth in crude oil production deriving much of its school funding from the energy industry.

Amy Edmonds, of the Wyoming Liberty Group, says teaching 'one view of what is not settled science about global warming' is just one of a number of problems with the standards. 'I think Wyoming can do far better.' Wyoming Governor Matt Mead has called federal efforts to curtail greenhouse emissions a 'war on coal' and has said that he's skeptical about man-made climate change. Supporters of the NGSS say science standards for Wyoming schools haven't been updated since 2003 and are six years overdue. 'If you want the best science education for your children and grandchildren and you don't want any group to speak for you, then make yourselves heard loud and clear,' says Cate Cabot. 'Otherwise you will watch the best interests of Wyoming students get washed away in the hysteria of a small anti-science minority driven by a national right wing group – and political manipulation.'"

cancel ×

661 comments

Global Warming Standards? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46971675)

Standards? Politically-specified truth? In science?

Good luck, USA. The rest of the world has already seen through the scam...

Motivated rejection of science (4, Insightful)

benjfowler (239527) | about 3 months ago | (#46971677)

It's called 'motivated reasoning', but I doubt these idiots have ever heard of it.

Must be a conservative state, because this peculiar strain of stupidity is generally right-wing in nature. It's all about me! me!! me!! and screw the consequences, especially for the environment, our grandkids, or poor people.

Re:Motivated rejection of science (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46971711)

Oh, you're such a saint! What a wonderful person you are! Doing what the television tells you. You fucking idiot. You 'useful idiot', more like.

There is no such thing as 'catastrophic man-made global warming', which is why they RENAMED IT 'climate change'.

www.climatedepot.com

But nice to see you included the 'think of the children' meme... hilarious.

Re:Motivated rejection of science (3, Insightful)

DogDude (805747) | about 3 months ago | (#46972139)

You fucking idiot. You 'useful idiot', more like.

This particular troll listens to Glenn Beck, who invented the meaningless phrase "useful idiot". This is a particularly vile kind of troll.

Re: Motivated rejection of science (5, Insightful)

Hardhead_7 (987030) | about 3 months ago | (#46971717)

Don't forget ideology. Get ready to read a bunch of posts from people who pride themselves on being scientific, but reject a theory that enjoys more support in climatology than the Standard Model does in physics. Just because they're conservative and it would be inconvenient for their politics.

Re: Motivated rejection of science (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46971777)

But, there are natural weather cycles, why didn't the stupid scientists think of that!?

Tide goes in, tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. You canâ(TM)t explain that.

Re: Motivated rejection of science (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46971887)

Because Man made, natural or a mixture of both the end result is the same either way. We have to learn to deal \ mitigate it.

I recommend all government aid for relief due to any problems they deny is withdrawn. If you bang on about personal responsibility all the time then they wont mind stepping up to the plate.

Re: Motivated rejection of science (3, Insightful)

milkmage (795746) | about 3 months ago | (#46972081)

I don't know why you got modded down.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

Neil Tyson vs. Bill O'Reilly

Re: Motivated rejection of science (0, Troll)

BenfromMO (3109565) | about 3 months ago | (#46971807)

Science is about logic and not using logical fallacies to prove your case. Here, you use the old tired fallacy of Argumentum ad populum (appeal to widespread belief, bandwagon argument, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people) – where a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because many people believe it to be so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... [wikipedia.org]

In other words, yes we need better science education because you and the grandparent hardhead both failed to argue without a logical fallacy. Don't call people an idiot if you are being one. And don't assume that something is true just because you are on the band-wagon and think you know what you are talking about. We need better education for sure and this involves teaching children about logic as well as band-wagon popular science. Its too bad you learned from these new standards which pride itself on the band-wagon approach to science where the most popular theory is heralded as the correct theory and any other competing theories are dismissed out of hand.

Re: Motivated rejection of science (5, Insightful)

KeensMustard (655606) | about 3 months ago | (#46971867)

Its too bad you learned from these new standards which pride itself on the band-wagon approach to science where the most popular theory is heralded as the correct theory and any other competing theories are dismissed out of hand.

"It might be bad for the coal industry" is not a competing theory on the cause of the present climate change.

Re: Motivated rejection of science (1, Flamebait)

BenfromMO (3109565) | about 3 months ago | (#46971895)

But natural causes is...and if you are not teaching children that the warming could very well be simply natural warming than you are not teaching them the scientific method which tells us that the null hypothesis is always assumed to be true until its proven false.

Re: Motivated rejection of science (1)

WhiteZook (3647835) | about 3 months ago | (#46972013)

What is the chance the current temperature rise is just natural variation (i.e. noise) ? And what would be the limit to conclude that this hypothesis is false ?

Re: Motivated rejection of science (1)

the_B0fh (208483) | about 3 months ago | (#46972109)

Rather than asking this, why not just do a search for it? If you are using Google for searching, go into incognito mode so that you don't get results that "you like".

This particular question has been covered numerous times, and very very well.

Re: Motivated rejection of science (1)

WhiteZook (3647835) | about 3 months ago | (#46972147)

I already know the answer. I like to hear what parent thinks.

Re: Motivated rejection of science (5, Informative)

sg_oneill (159032) | about 3 months ago | (#46972091)

But natural causes is...and if you are not teaching children that the warming could very well be simply natural warming than you are not teaching them the scientific method which tells us that the null hypothesis is always assumed to be true until its proven false.

Yes, but as David Hume would point out. The preponderance of evidence of apples falling from trees doesn't *prove* that gravity is real, just that its incredibly unlikely that its not.

We're at that point with man made climate change. We know that if CO2 doesn't trap IR heat, nearly 140 years of physics needs to be turfed, we know that we've put in a certain amount of CO2 that outstrips by a huge margin any natural source, and that x amount of CO2 will introduce Y amount of energy into the climate system. We can do rudimentary models that show a general trend and lately we've been doing more complex models track a more specific trend with astonishing accuracy when applied to historical data.

The odds of human induced climate change being wrong are so low that its simply not up for debate anymore in the sciences, just as evolution or gravity isn't because that would be silly.

The fact that outside of the sciences a lot of people seem to think theres scientific controversy isn't really important here.

Science isn't a democracy, its a dictatorship of evidence. And the evidence is in. AGW is real.

Re: Motivated rejection of science (-1)

dreamchaser (49529) | about 3 months ago | (#46972127)

Human sources of CO2 are dwarfed by natural sources, please do your homework before making such claims. The additional CO2 humans are adding to the mix is tiny but could have an impact.

Re: Motivated rejection of science (5, Informative)

WhiteZook (3647835) | about 3 months ago | (#46972179)

No, you do your homework. Natural sources are huge, but so are natural sinks. Without the human contribution, they would balance each other out. Human CO2 production is tipping the scale, year after year after year.

Re: Motivated rejection of science (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46972197)

We have three classes of CO2 sources. The natural seasonal variations in the carbon cycle do, yes, dwarf human and volcanic emissions, and yet the last have still been able to drastically alter the climate historically. Compared to volcanism, humans are still a couple of orders of magnitude away from the largest periods of volcanic activity in the Earth's history, but those periods lasted millions of years, and "a couple orders of magnitude away" means that in 1000 years at the current rate we will have equaled the largest periods of volcanism in Earth's history. In more direct terms, we're doing about one Pinatubo per day, or about two Yellowstone Supervolcanos per year.

It could, indeed, have an impact.

Re: Motivated rejection of science (1)

BenfromMO (3109565) | about 3 months ago | (#46972177)

Models are only a success on their training data, they have failed at predicting the future at every step. Any idiot can get a model to match up to the training data. That is modeling 101 and is not proof that your model is correct or even "probably correct."

If that is your only evidence that you are correct, well than I don't know what to say.

AGW is real, because every human on this planet has an impact on our planet. The question as always is how large is that impact? And if you teach children BLINDLY that this impact is large with nothing but trained models to say so, well you aren't teaching them science but Gospel Truth. I did not state that humans have no impact.

Re: Motivated rejection of science (2)

AlterEager (1803124) | about 3 months ago | (#46972097)

No, "natural causes" is not a competing theory of climate change.

Without details about what "natural causes" you're talking about it isn't even a theory.

Re: Motivated rejection of science (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46972039)

Rather than an appeal to popularity, it looks more like he's saying that it's more likely to be true given the fact that most in the scientific community say it is true based on the evidence we have gathered. Given the scientific community's track record, I'd say this is perfectly reasonable, and the best indicator of truth that we have.

Before spewing forth the names of logical fallacies, at least try to understand the point he's making.

Re: Motivated rejection of science (1)

BenfromMO (3109565) | about 3 months ago | (#46972135)

Its never reasonable to let someone else think for you.

Re: Motivated rejection of science (1)

WhiteZook (3647835) | about 3 months ago | (#46972191)

So you personally design all bridges that you cross ?

Re: Motivated rejection of science (-1)

tp1024 (2409684) | about 3 months ago | (#46971821)

Do you remember how much support the standard model of macroeconomics enjoyed in 2006? The great moderation was proof that we finally understood how the economy works, a global recession was perfectly impossible because you could always just lower interest rates and be fine. If you had sampled 12000 articles in economic journals, you would have found very little dissent indeed.

Surely, they must have been right, because we all know that consensus is the best way to judge the veracity of scientific theory.

Re: Motivated rejection of science (4, Funny)

ericloewe (2129490) | about 3 months ago | (#46971851)

Economics. How scientific. /s

Re: Motivated rejection of science (1)

SomeKDEUser (1243392) | about 3 months ago | (#46971875)

But the whole thing is: these models were and are pretty much correct. Simply, rates cannot go below zero (they can, and this is called a tax on capital and is apparently politically impossible in the US, so they can't). Many people forgot to consider what happens if rates hit the zero lower bound.

But people who did wonder about that found exactly what is happening now.

Beware people who will not trust models to their limits: they might be worried about the validity of the model, but in many cases are afraid of what they might learn.

Re: Motivated rejection of science (3, Insightful)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 3 months ago | (#46971939)

A 19th century survey of 12000 towns would've yielded an even more astonishingly high percentage of citizens with god-belief.

The science is more widely accepted by the folks who have the time to pay attention, but for the most part, it's a propaganda scheme that headlines enough opposition theory to leave the average billpayer some room for doubt.

Funding opposition studies is just a business expense for large companies engaged in controversial industry.

Re: Motivated rejection of science (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46971985)

Actually, around 2000, the Nobel prize of Economics winner Stiglitz already complained about the unrealistic assumptions made in "the standard model",
making those theories crap for the description of actual economies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_model

Now you tell me who has debunked what unrealistic assumptions in climate science?

Re: Motivated rejection of science (3, Insightful)

tp1024 (2409684) | about 3 months ago | (#46972025)

Well, Stiglitz wasn't taken seriously at the time. You could have shown what Stiglitz said to Alan Greenspan and he would have rejected it, along with most other mainstream economists.

It doesn't matter who debunked the unrealistic assumptions in climate science, since you won't take it seriously anyway. If you don't think the fact that temperatures are 0.5 degree below the predictions that were made 25 years ago and again 13 years ago, is any indication that the models failed, it doesn't matter what evidence I present. That's because you don't care about normal scientific standards that say: if the prediction is consistently wrong, the theory is wrong.

Re: Motivated rejection of science (2)

the_B0fh (208483) | about 3 months ago | (#46972119)

are you really an idiot? Comparing a social science subject to a hard science subject in terms of scientific rigor?

Re: Motivated rejection of science (2)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 3 months ago | (#46971837)

I think this example has less to do with the actual Climate debate, than it does with good, old fashioned, Don't bite the hand that feeds you, company-town loyalty.

FWIW, I grew up in a small town where my father, uncles, and friend's parents worked in a local mill. Three quarters all the jobs in this town were at that mill, in addition to almost all the good paying ones; and hell, they had a softball league and gave us each a turkey at Thanksgiving.

For reference's sake, try to get something in a German schoolbook about pollution by the automobile industry.

Re: Motivated rejection of science (2)

ericloewe (2129490) | about 3 months ago | (#46971863)

Sure there is. Not everyone covers their ears and starts shouting, afraid of the truth.

Re: Motivated rejection of science (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46971973)

Sure there is.

There is what? The GP doesn't ask whether "there is" something, or state that "there is no" anything.

Re: Motivated rejection of science (5, Interesting)

Adriax (746043) | about 3 months ago | (#46971917)

Couple years ago the University of Wyoming took down a large sculpture on campus well before its planned exhebition run was done because the oil industry felt it was insulting. I'm pretty sure "don't bite the hand that feeds you" was an exact quote from a state official demanding it be taken down immediately.

Actually, (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46971885)

Get ready for a bunch of cunts like you to post about a "theory" that is not falsifiable, depends on models that have been shown to fail reality, yet are supported anyway because "Climate Disruption" is the new Gay Marriage.

Re: Actually, (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46972019)

People are going to post about Christianity and Intelligent Design in a thread about climate change?

Re:Motivated rejection of science (1)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | about 3 months ago | (#46971769)

It's all about me! me!! me!! and screw the consequences, especially for the environment, our grandkids, or poor people.

Indeed - though I wonder why, if they feel that the science side is too one-sided (not sure how that works out, as long as it's science), they wouldn't simply counter with a new program in social studies / economics. Surely they can convince the kids that, yes, coal is a horrible pollutant - but considering it employs their daddy, uncle, aunt, Bob, John and Mary, and brings in $xB to the state, it really isn't all that bad.

Let kids make up their own minds about whether or not they'd rather go for cleaner but more expensive sources.

At least, that's how creationism vs evolution was handled for my generation. Evolution (science/biology class), creationism (religious/social (not as much - was more about the impact of religion than the content of those religions) studies). That still seems like a fine approach to me.

Re:Motivated rejection of science (2)

SomeKDEUser (1243392) | about 3 months ago | (#46971921)

You misunderstand the scope of the problem. The issue is that there is a very real risk that we might be headed towards a global extinction event. Which no amount of money is worth enough to compensate for.

Further, it is a "risk" because it is a future event. But at this point it is also a very highly probable one. And you talk about religion, which is probably one of the root of the problem: too many people refuse to consider the risk because religion.

There is further a lot of uncertainty about whether we have time to let the kids make up their mind -- it's pretty clear at this point that solar/wind are the future, but the present is coal, and this might kill us. We would not have this problem if the ecologists had not killed nuclear, but it's probably too late for that. Post-apocalypse execution squads hunting for Greenpeace activists might make for a good film, but it won't help.

Re:Motivated rejection of science (0)

XanC (644172) | about 3 months ago | (#46972011)

A "global extinction event" is "highly probable"? And the future is wind and solar?? Talk about drinking the Kool-Aid.

Re:Motivated rejection of science (1)

SomeKDEUser (1243392) | about 3 months ago | (#46972093)

I wish the future were atomics, but politics are what they are...

Re:Motivated rejection of science (0)

BenfromMO (3109565) | about 3 months ago | (#46972023)

How in the world will we head for an extinction level event? Have you even LOOKED at the data yourself? You do realize that this planet has seen CO2 levels 10 times what we have today (even 20 times higher) and not once did an extinction event play out due to CO2 increases. In fact, at one point in our past, the planet had roughly 2000 PPM CO2 (5 times today's levels) and we were in the midst of an ice-age.

You are expecting people to believe that you know what you are talking about and how catastrophe is going to happen when history tells us otherwise. If CO2 never caused this kind of disaster in our planet's past, how do you know it will today? And why do you believe this is so?

Solar and wind are NOT the future, but the past. You are forcing these choices onto everyone else because of weird beliefs on how CO2 will start TODAY to cause catastrophic warming when the history of our planet shows that it did not once do so. If you want to solve the CO2 crisis, embrace nuclear or go home. Wind and solar power are nothing but welfare for the rich and it will further destroy our nations lower and middle classes as they get even more poorer.

Want to know why that is? Because we all pay more for power, but those with resources are able to put up solar panels and wind turbines (the rich who pay income taxes...and the poor typically don't pay 8000 or more for the necessary taxes to benefit from this) and so in the end wind and solar is nothing but welfare for the rich. And good luck getting a poor person to benefit from a million dollar wind turbines, those truly are toys of the rich who than get free power thanks to the poor and the middle class who now pay more for power. Thanks rich people!

Re:Motivated rejection of science (4, Informative)

SomeKDEUser (1243392) | about 3 months ago | (#46972077)

I'll just leave this here.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/w... [wikimedia.org]

Last time we had the kind of temperatures we are heading for, the dinosaurs ruled the Earth. Normally, organisms have millions of years to adapt to these kind of changes. This is how we are headed to an extinction event.

Re:Motivated rejection of science (3, Informative)

WhiteZook (3647835) | about 3 months ago | (#46972089)

In the history of the planet, when CO2 was 20 times higher, the output from the sun was also (significantly) less.

Re:Motivated rejection of science (0)

knobsturner_me (1210594) | about 3 months ago | (#46971793)

Poor people, both in the USA and elsewhere in the world are already paying dearly for alarmism. In Germany hundreds of thousands have no electricity due to crazy pricing. More people die every winter when they have no power. In Africa, instead of reliable electricity, wells and hospitals, wind turbines are being installed.

As Richard Lindzen puts it
"Stated briefly, I will simply try to clarify what the debate over climate change is really about. It most certainly is not about whether climate is changing: it always is. It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should. The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to the innumerable claimed catastrophes. The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak – and commonly acknowledged as such. They are sometimes overtly dishonest." Ref: http://judithcurry.com/2012/02... [judithcurry.com]

Re:Motivated rejection of science (2, Insightful)

SomeKDEUser (1243392) | about 3 months ago | (#46971959)

Nice misinformation here. The situation _is_ catastrophic. We _are_ in big trouble. Do not mistake the insane German policies [1] for a model of how things happen when you want to curb CO_2. The climatologists know very well how bad the situation is. Simply, it is so bad that they realise at this point people are not willing to listen to the truth, so they _minimise_ the risks.

[1] We would like solar, but really, we need energy, and since our crazy greens won't allow nuclear, we go for coal.

On your footnote (0)

dbIII (701233) | about 3 months ago | (#46972175)

Our "crazy" banks and governments won't allow nuclear but it's a lot easier to take to cowardly way out and blame a bunch of harmless hippies that won't fight back.
The major thing holding back nuclear power is that nobody wants to put the money in to build the things.

As for the insane German policy - any perceived insanity happened many years ago when they halted new construction. The only thing new is changing it from a slow slide down to nothing to a quick one. Their nuclear industry died years ago and all they have now is caretakers to keep it running.

Re:Motivated rejection of science (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46971795)

But that doesn't justify bringing a political agenda into the science curriculum. It should be about science instead of conditioning kids to a small group's weak justification for more government control and less freedom.

Stupidity rules (4, Interesting)

X10 (186866) | about 3 months ago | (#46971681)

Or is it the money that rules?

Re:Stupidity rules (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46971721)

Money rules the stupid.

Why the hell... (4, Insightful)

NoKaOi (1415755) | about 3 months ago | (#46971687)

...should a lawyer get to determine the science curriculum? Shouldn't it be, you know, people who are educated in science that decide the science curriculum? (yes, that was rhetorical, I know damn well what the answer is)

I think Wyoming can do far better.

I agree!

Re:Why the hell... (0)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 3 months ago | (#46971815)

"educated in science" is in and of itself an oxymoron.

You can't be educated in science.

You can be educated in the scientific method. You can have curiosity and observation. But you can't be "educated in science". When science ceases to be about observation and becomes about education, it becomes indoctrination, no different from any other religion.

Re:Why the hell... (2)

SomeKDEUser (1243392) | about 3 months ago | (#46971975)

The "scientific method" is a way to verify what is true. The set of observations Humanity has accumulated across the millennia and the theories that explain how these observations mesh together _is_ Science.

And it is very much something you have to learn to build upon and further your understanding. Science education is no oxymoron, you simply misunderstand what is Science.

Re:Why the hell... (1)

Cantankerous Cur (3435207) | about 3 months ago | (#46971995)

I'm afraid don't agree.

What exactly does taking courses in Biology or Chemistry or Physics mean then if not being educated in science? One learns the 'rules' that govern this reality. These rules are foundation of understanding the physical world and making conjecture about it.

Re:Why the hell... (1)

dkf (304284) | about 3 months ago | (#46971907)

...should a lawyer get to determine the science curriculum?

Perhaps we should get a musician to determine the law curriculum and a scientist to determine the arts curriculum. It makes just as much sense.

How About... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46971937)

Yeah! Fuck all that Representative Government shit!

Let the science people decide!

Tell ya what, there is a new book out that shows race has a genetic factor. [amazon.com] Now, in most polite company, people hearing that suggested would shit their pants. How about we include that in the curriculum? No? You don't agree? It's based on science. Some people dispute the science, but they are just Deniers.

So fuck off you stupid cunt. The people in Wyoming pay for the teachers and the schools and elect their Representatives. It's for them to decide if they want to include chicken little, unfalisfiable and failed model based science.

Re:How About... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46972071)

Wait, what? You needed A New Book With Shocking Discoveries to find out that skin pigmentation and plenty of other features are passed on from your parents? You also think it's something Extremely Controversial?

"Oh, did you know that higher concentration of melanin in the skin of people of African descent is a genetically inherited trait?"
"OMG WHAT THE FUCK U RACIST SCUMBAG STOP UR LIES!!!1"

how to have no issue (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46971689)

Shutdown all public schooling today.
No more bullying issue for the president to whine about.
No more arguments over God, science and what to teach or not teach.
No more taxing the hell out of citizens,
Wow, issue solved.

Re:how to have no issue (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46971701)

But the union!
The holy union!
And Progress!
Who will step up to pollute our precious bodily fluids?
Who will teach it to rub the lotion on its skin?

They don't agree with us! Burn them! (3, Insightful)

cookYourDog (3030961) | about 3 months ago | (#46971693)

As someone who believes in climate change, I'm growing very uneasy with the language being used by both sides to describe dissenting opinions. It feels like the biggest threat we'll face in the future is not a changing environment, but one another.

Re:They don't agree with us! Burn them! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46971707)

Yes, in particular, language like the word "believe" being used for scientific theories.

Re: They don't agree with us! Burn them! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46971927)

Scientific consensus is perhaps a better word than believe, but only the most simplistic approach to science do not understand that much of science works within uncertainties and changes. Science that even many climate sceptics take for granted have the exact same type of scientific consensus behind it.

Re:They don't agree with us! Burn them! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46971949)

I'm liberal (left). I feel we should focus on cutting pollution for it's own sake regardless of the effect on global warming. I do question how much humans are causing global warming. But see the part where I said we should cut pollution for it's own sake.

Yes, "believe" is the word. They should talk about the issue sincerely and in an intelligent manner, if they talk about it at all. In other words, they can show the correlation between the rise of the Industrial Revolution and increases in temperature over time. They can explain that correlation is not causation, then explain why they think the correlation is valid--that being the carbon dioxide and the effect in the atmosphere. They can explain that they are always learning new things, and that nothing in science should ever be considered a given.

Re:They don't agree with us! Burn them! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46971741)

Well, the important thing is that you've found a way to feel superior to both.

Re:They don't agree with us! Burn them! (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 3 months ago | (#46971831)

As someone who is certain about his own observations about climate change- the real problem is playing the blame game. Assumptions about cause have obscured the effect to the point that we can no longer deal with the effect politically because everybody is too busy pointing fingers about the cause.

With the melting of the tundra 10 years ago, we hit a tipping point, it became too late to stop climate change. It is now a positive feedback loop. You could remove every human being from the planet, and global warming would continue.

Our only choice now is to adapt, not stop the process.

Re:They don't agree with us! Burn them! (1)

BenfromMO (3109565) | about 3 months ago | (#46971947)

Oh, do most positive feedback loops contain stagnant data that does not change? Like 15 years without warming?

Yea, I did not think so. You sir have no idea what a positive feedback loop is. The heat keeps building up under that theory, and currently temperatures are stagnant like they have been for the last 15 years. Warming stopped. Scientists don't know why, and as one famous scientist says "its a travesty we can not explain it."

It might very well be "too late" to stop climate change, but that is not because of a positive feedback loop as you explain, but mainly because we can not control the climate and it will change with or without us perhaps in the future. Heck, we ARE going to go into another ice age at some point, and what the heck do we think we are going to do to stop that? Stand in the tracks of that train with our hand held up to stop it?

Re:They don't agree with us! Burn them! (1)

the_B0fh (208483) | about 3 months ago | (#46972165)

Why do you denialists just ignore data? There has been no stagnation, you denialist.

It Is Not Politics (-1, Troll)

Jim Sadler (3430529) | about 3 months ago | (#46971703)

Such nonsense should never play out under the banner of political debate. This state is evil and disgusting. The use of fossil fuels causes disease and ruin to the environment. If Wyoming is so screwed up that they can't make a living without pushing fossil fuels or cheating the children out of a real education then it is time to abandon that state and go to a place where people can earn a living. And yes, all global warming may not be the result of human activity. However even if most warming is caused by forces of nature the urgency to stop adding to the heat issue would mean taking the same steps anyway. When faced with warming you simply do not want to add more heat to the environment. What Wyoming may be proving is that people should never be allowed to vote or be self regulating in any way because some people sell out for a hand full of silver. Shame on Wyoming!

Re:It Is Not Politics (1)

buddyglass (925859) | about 3 months ago | (#46971893)

We're talking about public schools. Run by the government, at some level or another. So if "political debate" means "debate taking place in the context of government" then what they teach will always be a political debate.

Deniers are too stupid to read -- prove me wrong! (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46971719)

Anyone that can make it through an undergraduate text on atmospheric science and still maintain that CO2 does not cause warming is fooling themselves. One one side of this argument we have idiots who fundamentally do not understand what they are arguing against. Radiative transfer is not that hard, and if you're going to argue that the science is bullshit, then you should know the science. Not the global climate simulations, but the absorbtion spectra of various gases in the atmosphere, because those can be trivially measured. The effects of anthropogenic climate change are up for debate, that CO2 causes warming and that humans are really fucking good at generating it is really not. If you don't like it, prove me wrong.

You could start reading here [scienceofdoom.com] , or pick up a real textbook. It might take you a whole afternoon. Be warned, it's chock-full of actual observations and -- dare I say? -- inconvenient truths.

Re:Deniers are too stupid to read -- prove me wron (1)

E++99 (880734) | about 3 months ago | (#46971841)

The question isn't whether "CO2 causes warming" but whether a change from 290 to 330 ppm in the troposphere can be the cause of a measurable change in the heat content of troposphere. Since it's all so trivial, I'm curious whether your undergraduate text explains why increased CO2 concentration in the stratosphere causes the stratosphere to loose heat.

Re:Deniers are too stupid to read -- prove me wron (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46971847)

They can read. It's just that they dismiss anything that doesn't agree with them.

Re:Deniers are too stupid to read -- prove me wron (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 3 months ago | (#46971859)

Anyone that can make it through an undergraduate text on atmospheric science and be convinced about the propaganda in the undergraduate text on atmospheric science.

Wow, who knew?

Re:Deniers are too stupid to read -- prove me wron (1)

AmazinglySmooth (1668735) | about 3 months ago | (#46971909)

I wish I could mod this up.

Re:Deniers are too stupid to read -- prove me wron (5, Interesting)

buddyglass (925859) | about 3 months ago | (#46971953)

The main skeptic with whom I dialogue holds the following beliefs:

1. Warming is happening.
2. CO2 concentration is atypically high.
3. CO2 concentration is atypically high due to man-made emissions.
4. CO2 concentration has some upward effect on global temperature.

However, he also holds these beliefs:

1. The earth's climate is too complex to accurately model and predict.
2. There are feedback mechanisms that mute the severity of CO2-induced warming.
3. Even if warming happens at the predicted rate, we can't really know what the impact will be in terms of human suffering.
4. From #1 and #2, the dire predictions on future warming can't be trusted.
5. Even if warming were going to happen at the predicted rate and the consequences would be as dire as predicted, the economic cost of transitioning of fossil fuels on a global level would induce a huge amount of human suffering on its own,
6. Given the cost, there's no way the various world governments are going to come to an agreement and actually make a significant dent in fossil fuel usage anyway. So the whole discussion is academic.

*grabs popcorn* (3, Informative)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | about 3 months ago | (#46971725)

Re:*grabs popcorn* (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46971899)

Which is why so many children will starve when we are successful at shutting down that environmental holocaust. It's too bad, but there will always be victims in any sort of progress.

Re:*grabs popcorn* (0)

BenfromMO (3109565) | about 3 months ago | (#46971965)

Excellent, the state knows that CO2 is beneficial to the planet as this NASA study shows:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.g... [nasa.gov]

Obviously since this data was taken during a time period where the planet both WARMED and CO2 increased, we should pump even more CO2 into our biosphere. CO2 is a plant fertilizer!

Re: *grabs popcorn* (1)

Adriax (746043) | about 3 months ago | (#46972059)

Of the 4 routes out of my area, all of them require driving 100+ miles before you reach another major town (as defined as having more than 1 gas station and a post office that opens atleast an hour a day).

Your claim is not exactly a shocking revelation.

What you get (5, Insightful)

hebertrich (472331) | about 3 months ago | (#46971729)

Yep .. that's what you get when you let corporations pay for the politicians bills.
They are owned by industry and will never side with the People they are supposedly there to represent .. which they are not.
Democracy is dead in the US .. rather .. it never existed. All an illusion.

Re:What you get (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46971889)

Cue the imbeciles arguing that the US is a republic, and not a democracy.

the progression (3, Funny)

BonThomme (239873) | about 3 months ago | (#46971737)

it's not happening.

if it is happening, it's a good thing.

ok, it's happening, but it's not man-made.

ok, it's not good, but it's still not man-made.

jesus would fix it if we had prayer in school.

Money (1)

masonc (125950) | about 3 months ago | (#46971747)

Wyoming has the best politicians money can afford. It won't matter as kids get information from all over, so they will see this through this pretty quickly.

Sceptical doesn't cover it Wyoming... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46971753)

So they are sceptical about man made climate change, that is good, science should not be taken as gospel. But once you read and understand the peer reviewed science the scepticism should be abated. Otherwise you not sceptical you are in denial, you are a climate change denier.

In the same vein I am sceptical about the existence of a man made Wyoming, can someone demonstrate scientifically (outside of a mass human psychosis) that this alluded/deluded place actually exists. Yes I've see some nice rock formations out there (devil's tower), but if some young person claiming to be from there comes to me for a job that includes science as a requirement do I:-

a) Send them to the funny farm
b) Ask for peer reviewed science to prove their alleged education
c) Once proved to my satisfaction reject them for having an inadequate education.

Fathers and Uncles (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46971755)

No doubt they're going to reject anything that blames these students' fathers and uncles employers for hurting the planet. Rewind back to the Kasnas' State Board of Education anti-evolution campaign...
 
Long live the Flying Spaghetti Monster!!

Not the only problem... (2)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 3 months ago | (#46971765)

Amy Edmonds, of the Wyoming Liberty Group, says teaching 'one view of what is not settled science about global warming' is just one of a number of problems with the standards.

It's may be "one of a number of problems", but for some reason it's also the only "problem" mentioned.

Re:Not the only problem... (1)

zippthorne (748122) | about 3 months ago | (#46971935)

The other problems they had probably weren't interesting to reporters.

I'm also skeptical (0)

purpledinoz (573045) | about 3 months ago | (#46971767)

that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Have you been into space and seen the Earth revolve around the Sun? I didn't think so. Just look into the sky, clearly the Sun revolves around Earth.

Job creation for other countries (1)

dimeglio (456244) | about 3 months ago | (#46971791)

This is why the US needs to import foreign knowledge workers. The US school system teaches falsehoods and outputs ignorance.

17+ Years, no increase in Global Temperatures (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46971819)

The Earth disagrees with your 'Settled Science' claim.
There is no sinister conspiracy to protect coal and keep your lights from going out. The purpose is to keep science class from being indoctrination class.

ummm... (1)

buddyglass (925859) | about 3 months ago | (#46971879)

I question why climate science needs to be part of the standards at all. It seems weirdly specific. When so many kids leave high school not knowing what an electron is, I'd say there are other areas where we might focus our pedagogical effort.

Obligatory stereotype spoiler alert (1)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 3 months ago | (#46972061)

We don' want none of yer pedagogical freakshow in our classrooms, son.

It's only "settled" in the minds of zealots... (0)

Fringe (6096) | about 3 months ago | (#46971933)

Wyoming may not be "politically correct" on the issue, but they are correct that "global warming" being caused primarily by man-made emissions isn't settled science. (And no, computer scientists are not the correct scientists. ;) )

Regardless of local effects, the basic problem is that we should be warming right now, and we aren't.

Why should we be warming right now? The Medieval Warm Period (950-1250) was much warmer than the period that followed - and warmer than now. Wine grape grew in England back then. This was followed by the Little Ice Age (1350-1850). These are considered cyclical, so we should be getting warmer for a few hundred years, starting around 1950. Regardless of human-sourced emissions.

But the other problem is, we're not really, at least not on the activists' schedules. The IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report concedes for the first time that global temperatures have not risen since 1998, despite a 7 percent rise in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Despite global human CO2 emissions in the last 15 years representing about one-third of all human CO2 emissions since the start of the Industrial Revolution, temperatures didn’t budge.

If man-made global warming is your religion, it looks like settled science despite the actual results. If science is your religion (rather than your credential), there's no enough evidence to support the hysteria yet, and a growing amount calling it into question. So why should it be considered "fact" in a kid's textbook? Are we trying to teach them to think or are we trying to indoctrinate them?

Re: It's only "settled" in the minds of zealots... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46972131)

Wine grape grows pretty succesfully in england now. Google 'English Sparkling Wine'. It's been getting easier to do this for the last twenty years, and the results are winning awards internationally.

Hi, we're so smart... (1)

Coditor (2849497) | about 3 months ago | (#46971945)

... we know better than people who devoted their lives and spent a decade being educated in a scientific discipline. We stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

The earth is flat!!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46971951)

Hmm, first they claim a new ice age is on the way, then global warming and now climate change! Was not the earth flat at one time and at the center of the universe?

What is "science education" in the US? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46971981)

For someone not familiar with the science education standards, can someone explain how it is done? Generally, science education should be about scientific methods. Analyzing nature, finding a mathematical description of it, verifying or falsifying it experimentally. Whether this is done on topic X or Y doesn't really matter, as long as such topics are accessible to students - mathematics and experiments are within reach.

An alternative kind of education might focus on teaching results, common opinions without giving students the opportunity to learn scientific methods.

As global warming doesn't seem to be easy to tackle with tools available at school (both mathematically as well as experimentally), it would necessarily fall in the second category.

Follow the power (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46971997)

On both sides of the debate, its all about control, political power, and in some sititutions, money.

Good for them (1)

hallkbrdz (896248) | about 3 months ago | (#46972033)

National or UN derived standards (common core) are wrong - keep education control local to meet local requirements. Way to go Wyoming.

Wyoming is rejecting politics, not science (0)

towermac (752159) | about 3 months ago | (#46972055)

I know you advocates want to say it isn't so.It may not even be your fault; possibly the Koch brothers are fully responsible for politicizing climate change.

The fact is, you got politics in your science. Possibly to fill in the fact that you haven't fully followed the scientific method on this one. The testing part is missing; the repeatable testability by independent parties of an hypothesis. So they're technically not wrong, it's not settled science. Yes btw, I do see the political self-interest. Let's look at that.

The politics you're offering them is tax increases and higher prices for nothing in return. If you want to say Wyoming's weather will get better, and that's the payoff, well; if you could prove that, then you'd have something. You got nothing. You got freaking windmills. And death ray solar compounds. I'm not so surprised it's a hard sell.

Easier to sell, would be something better than they have now. Dirt cheap electricity is about the only thing that will do it. This is where I would mention the 'n' word, but the most ardent climate change advocates are it's fiercest opponents. That right there, is nothing but politics.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...