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