Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Friday May 16 2014, @03:49AM   Printer-friendly
from the Head-in-the-Tar-Sands dept.

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."

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Hairyfeet on Friday May 16 2014, @08:23AM

    by Hairyfeet (75) <bassbeast1968NO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday May 16 2014, @08:23AM (#44133) Journal

    I don't have a problem with the AGW part, its the anti-AGW rock being sold that I personally have a problem with. you look at the ONLY plans being looked at such as cap and trade [nakedcapitalism.com] and carbon credits [youtube.com] and you'll see its a TOTAL SCAM, with "indulgences" for the worst polluters and ZERO penalties for simply moving factories offshore, its no wonder that Rev Al Gore is pushing it, since it'll make him a billionaire several times over [thenewamerican.com]. Notice rev Al has NEVER said we should penalize China, who is dumping so much in the air we can detect it on the west coast? Wanna know why? because that is where they are sending the factories, you silly peasant lulz!

    So I must be in the so called "deniers" which frankly just the fact that such a name exists ought to show you the propaganda at work pushing AGW, because I refuse to support a position whose sole and ONLY answer is "give some rich people trillions more and if you are REALLY lucky and click your heels three times they MIGHT do something about it". because we have seen where that road lies, its trickle upon and voodoo economics all over again only slapping a shiny coat of "ZOMFG we've got to DO something! Quick give that rich guy all your money!" layer of bullshit and snake oil on top, and I'm not buying and neither should you.

      You wanna put strict limits to emissions AND put up tariffs so that the corps won't just move the pollution overseas? I'm right there with ya, support ya 100%, but I'm not giving my money away for some magic beans made of bullshit.

    --
    ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by hoochiecoochieman on Friday May 16 2014, @11:23AM

    by hoochiecoochieman (4158) on Friday May 16 2014, @11:23AM (#44156)

    So, because cap & trade and carbon credits are scams (which I agree) makes the AGW problem a non-existing one?

    That's like saying a house is not burning because the fire-fighters are drunk.

    • (Score: 2) by khallow on Friday May 16 2014, @11:50AM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 16 2014, @11:50AM (#44163) Journal

      So, because cap & trade and carbon credits are scams (which I agree) makes the AGW problem a non-existing one?

      I guess the theory is that if AGW were really a serious, urgent problem, the powers-that-be would be a little more interested in protecting their butts from the consequences of AGW. But instead, they're behaving like it's just another convenient feed trough.

      • (Score: 2, Funny) by hoochiecoochieman on Friday May 16 2014, @12:04PM

        by hoochiecoochieman (4158) on Friday May 16 2014, @12:04PM (#44166)

        if AGW were really a serious, urgent problem, the powers-that-be would be a little more interested in protecting their butts from the consequences of AGW. But instead, they're behaving like it's just another convenient feed trough.

        You think that's a strange behaviour? Where have you been in the latest 5.000 years?

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Friday May 16 2014, @03:30PM

        by tangomargarine (667) on Friday May 16 2014, @03:30PM (#44227)

        It evidently takes the equivalent of a dirty hobo punching a politician in the face repeatedly to make them actually care about something--regardless of how pressing an issue it seems. Global warming is Somebody Else's Problem. Let the dirty Indians who live on the coast deal with that while I go to my Wyoming ski chalet. Just turn up the fake snow blowers a couple notches, Jeeves.

        --
        "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
        • (Score: 2) by khallow on Friday May 16 2014, @07:52PM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 16 2014, @07:52PM (#44391) Journal

          So why don't they have concern about dirty hobo punching? If AGW is as bad as some are claiming, then they should be pretty worried about getting caught out in riots and such.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 16 2014, @07:57PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 16 2014, @07:57PM (#44397)

            Why do you think they're so dead-set on creating a Police and Surveillance State?

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Maow on Friday May 16 2014, @06:11PM

        by Maow (8) on Friday May 16 2014, @06:11PM (#44328) Homepage

        So, because cap & trade and carbon credits are scams (which I agree) makes the AGW problem a non-existing one?

        I guess the theory is that if AGW were really a serious, urgent problem, the powers-that-be would be a little more interested in protecting their butts from the consequences of AGW. But instead, they're behaving like it's just another convenient feed trough.

        I accept the scientists' claims that there are imminent serious problems with climate change, but "the powers-that-be" have always been known for their short-sightedness.

        Plus they've got "useful idiots" covering their (the powers-that-be's) non-responsive backsides with citation-free allegations [soylentnews.org] that make it sound as if those useful idiots have done research... but failed to provide any cites:

        The big problems remains. Climate proxy data from before the age of instrumentation remains unreliable and not up to the task of supporting the dire warnings of the catastrophe crowd and the data since is just too little to support the claims made. There are still huge, unacknowledged conflicts of interest among researchers and policy makers concerning this subject. Too much of the so-called debate is just blatant exercise of logic/statistics fallacies (particularly, the trio of confirmation bias, observation bias, and argument from authority). And in the small area where we can actually test predictions of the effects of climate change models, namely their effects on near future climate, they are coming up short.

        So some armchair critic thinks he knows more than an entire field of scientists and proposes a "theory" which relies on those in power having wisdom and foresight, upon them not being corrupt or benefiting from the main sources of the problem...

        Then gives denialist talking points, spouting off about logical fallacies...

        And uses that house of logical cards to refute AGW in a giant circular logical fallacy.

        Ooookaaaayyy then.

        • (Score: 2) by khallow on Friday May 16 2014, @07:18PM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 16 2014, @07:18PM (#44356) Journal

          So some armchair critic thinks he knows more than an entire field of scientists

          This is argument from authority. And it is easily deflated by my previous noting that there was no one measuring temperature or other climate data more than roughly 150 years ago. There aren't actually any authorities for the period of time in question.

          Estimates of temperature and other climate parameters from before the modern era are mated to the modern age via a narrow bridge of weather observations over that century and a half and correlations made over that narrow time period. Further, some temperature proxy data, particularly tree ring data, is truncated (the last half century of tree ring data is ignored on the still unverified theory that it was heavily tweaked by current human activity). That also means that tree ring data may be invalid in the past as a temperature proxy for the same reasons it is invalid today.

          Also, this was a period of growing human industrialization. We don't actually have a valid pre-industrialization instrument-measured baseline with which to compare to modern climate. This all is fact not theory.

          and proposes a "theory" which relies on those in power having wisdom and foresight

          "Wisdom and foresight"? I wouldn't say that having the instinct to metaphorically stick one's head in a waiting feed trough requires much in the way of wisdom and foresight.

          And uses that house of logical cards to refute AGW in a giant circular logical fallacy.

          A fallacy which doesn't apply, let us note. The above problems that I noted are facts not assumptions which I then prove circularly. The latter condition is necessary in order for it to be circular reasoning.

        • (Score: 2) by khallow on Friday May 16 2014, @07:35PM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 16 2014, @07:35PM (#44374) Journal

          with citation-free allegations [soylentnews.org]

          Ok, so it's another ridiculous game of "let's play scientist". The first part of my rebuttal is the observation that my post is not in a vacuum. It is part of a comment thread and a clearly designated reply to another post [soylentnews.org] by mendax. Thus, it has a built-in default citation. The first paragraph of assertions which are all about the previous post is therefore cited by the post I replied to.

          The second paragraph is common knowledge. The only different is the degree of confidence I assign to paleoclimate data versus the usual consensus.

          The third paragraph expresses personal opinion and hence, is self-citing.

          The i's are dotted and the t's are crossed. This game of "scientist" is over.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 16 2014, @07:55PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 16 2014, @07:55PM (#44394)

        Welcome to Capitalism. I take it you're new here?

    • (Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Friday May 16 2014, @04:22PM

      by Hairyfeet (75) <bassbeast1968NO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday May 16 2014, @04:22PM (#44253) Journal

      No its the simple refusing of being lied to and ripped off. If I told you "rape is a serious problem therefor every person in the USA should send me a thousand dollars a year for my "anti-rape panties" and if they don't hand it willingly the government will take it from you, because rape is a serious problem" you'd demand I provide proof my panties actually worked or fuck off, yes? So WHY IN THE FUCK are you willing to hand at LEAST that much money to several banksters who give you ZERO evidence that what they are proposing will do anything but send the pollution (and the factories and jobs that go with it) overseas to their increased profit?

      Again if you want to do something REAL about the problem, like strict limits to pollution AND tariffs and penalties to overseas polluters so that it doesn't simply move the pollution across the border or around the world? I'm with you 110%, all for it, we can actually work on stopping and reversing AGW tomorrow. but do NOT be trying to tell me I should be paying a grand a year for anti-AGW panties while staring down the barrel of a federal gun while the ones actually polluting are handed indulgences and cash the checks, and you are frankly a fool if you line up to buy some anti-AGW panties under the "we have to DO something ZOMFG!" line of alarmist bullshit being pushed by those cashing the checks.

      --
      ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
      • (Score: 1) by hoochiecoochieman on Friday May 16 2014, @04:33PM

        by hoochiecoochieman (4158) on Friday May 16 2014, @04:33PM (#44263)

        Be slower on the trigger and read what I wrote. Pay more attention this time.

        • (Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Friday May 16 2014, @07:37PM

          by Hairyfeet (75) <bassbeast1968NO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday May 16 2014, @07:37PM (#44376) Journal

          I read EXACTLY what you wrote, you wrote basically an "us vs them" screed with you on the side of AGW panties. Sorry, don't intend to buy your panties, not interested. We only have TWO camps, not three, not eight, two. Either you are FOR AGW panties or you are not, which puts you in the "deniers" camp since those in charge of the AGW camp are the ones selling the panties...now which is it?

          --
          ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
          • (Score: 2) by tathra on Friday May 16 2014, @08:07PM

            by tathra (3367) on Friday May 16 2014, @08:07PM (#44402)

            i'm going to ignore this whole "panty" analogy because it doesnt make much sense, but i do want to try to understand your argument.

            are you saying that some of the AGW 'deniers'* actually agree that humans are having a negative impact (from human perspective) on the climate, and that their real issue is the proposed "solutions", such as cap-and-trade and carbon credits, which i agree are a scam?

            if so, then they shouldnt be against AGW and in the camp of 'deniers', instead they should be calling out the proposed scam 'solutions'. if my understanding is correct, those 'deniers' are doing everyone a disservice by agreeing that the "problem" doesnt exist simply because they dont like the "solution"; they instead need to make it clear that they agree that "problem" is real but that the "solution" is a scam.

            i agree with the GP's analogy, or something close to it - its like saying the house isnt on fire because the firemen on the scene arent actually interested in putting out the fire.

            * dont get caught up on that word - its not meant to be offensive, just trying to lump everyone who claims that AGW doesnt exist/isnt a problem in to one group

            • (Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Friday May 16 2014, @09:30PM

              by Hairyfeet (75) <bassbeast1968NO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday May 16 2014, @09:30PM (#44449) Journal

              Nooo...I'll try to explain this VERY simply, since you seem to be having trouble grasping how the thing works...now there are TWO camps, you have the AGW camp which has been hijacked by Al Gore and Goldman Sachs for quite awhile now, no different than how the tea Party got hijacked by the Koch bros "tea party express" so if you say you are for AGW? then your local congress critter will go "Oh he is for cap and trade and carbon credits, here is your AGW panties, do I make out your check to Gore or GS?" then there are the "skeptics" "deniers" whatever you want to call it that aren't really FOR anything so much as AGAINST the AGW panty camp. Now some don't believe AGW exists, some like me believe that AGW panties are snake oil, some believe that there are better ways to handle AGW, all they have in common is they see the three card monty being pushed by AGW express.

              So either you are FOR AGW panties or you are AGAINST it, which is it? You can't say there is a third choice, not unless you have the money required to start a lobby group with equal or greater money than AGW express, just as you can't be for SOME of the tea party platform because its owned by Koch bros and TPE. So you really only have A or B, there is NO C because no lobbying group is pushing C so if you stand for AGW you WILL end up with AGW panties...so do ya want 'em or not?

              --
              ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
              • (Score: 2) by tathra on Friday May 16 2014, @10:16PM

                by tathra (3367) on Friday May 16 2014, @10:16PM (#44462)

                why do you keep referencing panties? what do they have to do with anything? and why are you insisting that accepting the science behind AGW automatically means you're wanting carbon credits and cap-and-trade? because i have never seen that come up anywhere, except from you, just now.

                • (Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Friday May 16 2014, @11:17PM

                  by Hairyfeet (75) <bassbeast1968NO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday May 16 2014, @11:17PM (#44497) Journal

                  Would you prefer magic rocks? Snake oils? choose your poison. i personaly use panties because its about as ridiculous as the whole crap and trade/carbon indulgences three card monty, its all snake oil that will do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT AGW, unless you call making a handful of rich old white guys even richer "doing something".

                  And I really don't give a rat's ass if you believe in AGW, flat earth, whatever because at the end of the day all it comes down to is WHAT YOU SUPPORT. Now if you vote FOR those that are in favor of "stopping AGW" you WILL be supporting cap and trade, carbon indulgences, the whole nine yards because THAT IS WHAT THE PLATFORM IS NOW as its been hijacked by AGW Express. Same as you can't vote FOR having sensible border regulations or stopping taxing the lower middle class because THAT platform has been hijacked by Tea party Express and Koch bros so if you vote for THAT platform you'll be voting FOR tax cuts for the 1%, offshoring, H1-Bs, the whole mess.

                  So believe what you want, your beliefs affect me not one bit, but you better damned well make sure you support the entire platform of AGW Express because if you simply vote for the guy that says "we have to do something about AGW!" you can bet your soon to be taken last dollar you WILL be buying the snake oil, magic beans, whatever you prefer to call getting your wallet raped by the 1% running AGW Express.

                  --
                  ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
  • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday May 16 2014, @03:26PM

    by tangomargarine (667) on Friday May 16 2014, @03:26PM (#44226)

    Notice rev Al has NEVER said we should penalize China, who is dumping so much in the air we can detect it on the west coast? Wanna know why?

    Umm...because we have no jurisdiction over there? I suppose we could try blockading or censuring or whatever the hell it is we're currently doing to Russia to them, but I'm sure China wouldn't take offense at that and turn off all our GPS receivers or something worse.

    --
    "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
    • (Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Saturday May 17 2014, @06:01AM

      by Hairyfeet (75) <bassbeast1968NO@SPAMgmail.com> on Saturday May 17 2014, @06:01AM (#44591) Journal

      The word you are looking for is "tariff" something they have done to American products for over 30 years but dumb fuck Americans keep getting fed that "free trade" horseshit and are sadly too ill informed to know THEY ARE BEING SCAMMED! these corps will say "Oh they are buying levi's and Coke" and you know where those Levis and Cokes came from? China, because they won't let American products in lulz!

      So not only would real tariffs actually help stop AGW by keeping polluters from simply skipping over to China to avoid our regulations but as a bonus we might actually have some jobs here! Wouldn't that be nice? but instead you'll be fed bullshit about free trade when if you look at what is really going on? they allow THEIR products to come here but do NOT allow your products to go THERE. hell they won't even allow American movies, did you know that? The reason we are getting those shitty 3D conversions is because China ONLY allows 35 American movies PER YEAR and 20 of those slots are for 3D movies...wow, isn't free trade great? the Chinese leadership sure as fuck does, they are making out like bandits, raising their quality of living, and fucking dumbass capitalist America which pleases the old guard! Its a win/win!

      --
      ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.