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This discussion has been archived.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: 2) by Geezer on Friday May 16 2014, @11:16AM

    by Geezer (511) on Friday May 16 2014, @11:16AM (#44154)

    The only way to stop stupid and/or corrupt interference by coal state politicians at all levels is to make the issue moot and cripple their financing by eliminating the demand for coal. The EPA has been accused before of a "war on coal", so why not throw down and get real about it? Make regs on coal plants so tight that gas, nuke, wind, and solar become economically sounder choices. Higher prices? Sheesh, it's not like the power gods aren't going to keep raising rates anyway, regardless. Might as well get some environmental benefit for the buck.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by khallow on Friday May 16 2014, @11:53AM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 16 2014, @11:53AM (#44164) Journal

    so why not throw down and get real about it?

    Because they aren't going to stop with just a "war on coal".

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 16 2014, @12:57PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 16 2014, @12:57PM (#44175)

      Wow you can predict the future, but not see the climate changing before your very eyes?
      Where is your peer reviewed study from an unbiased source etc etc.
      Dumb hypocrite.

      • (Score: 2) by khallow on Friday May 16 2014, @07:49PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 16 2014, @07:49PM (#44385) Journal

        Wow you can predict the future, but not see the climate changing before your very eyes?

        The problem rather is that I can see the climate changing before my own eyes and the parts which are changing fast, just aren't due to AGW - like the Syrian drought. By that last statement, I mean that there's an obvious explanation for the big current day climate changes, like human incompetence or natural variation of climate and weather, which doesn't require any contribution from AGW in order to achieve the observed severity of the event. And the parts which can be reasonably tied to global warming such as modest sea level rise or modest warming in the upper northern hemisphere, just aren't that significant.
         
         

        Where is your peer reviewed study from an unbiased source etc etc.

        There is no such thing as an unbiased source.

      • (Score: 1) by meisterister on Saturday May 17 2014, @05:58PM

        by meisterister (949) on Saturday May 17 2014, @05:58PM (#44671) Journal

        Have you ever considered that some people see it happening but believe that we're already too far gone? Might as well live as nicely as possible while we can.

        --
        (May or may not have been) Posted from my K6-2, Athlon XP, or Pentium I/II/III.