SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Fluffeh writes:
"For a few years the National Research Council, National Science Teachers Association, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have been working to put together a set of standards for teaching science in public education schools. So far, nine states and the District of Columbia have adopted the standards. Wyoming doesn't appear to have issues with evolution. Instead, climate science appears to be the problem. That's not because any of the legislators have actually studied the science involved and found it lacking. The issue appears to be solely with the implications of the science.
State Representative Matt Teeters had this to say '[The standards] handle global warming as settled science. There's all kind of social implications involved in that that I don't think would be good for Wyoming.' Specifically, Teeters seems to think that having citizens of the state accept climate science would 'wreck Wyoming's economy,' which relies heavily on fossil fuel production."
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Fluffeh on Monday March 17 2014, @04:27AM
Well, that's the funny thing here. They don't seem to be trying to debunk it in any way - just want it omitted as it "doesn't make them look good" to sort of paraphrase. It really seems to be a case of "See no Evil, Hear no Evil, certainly Speak no Evil". Geroge Orwell would have been impressed with this Doublethink [wikipedia.org] - to both accept Climate Change as true, yet to totally remove it from education lest it is questioned by the youth.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 17 2014, @04:38AM
You are jumping to the conclusion. Opposition on the ground that it hurts my pocketbook doesn't mean admission of its validity. The guy is probably a lawyer, and likely used to pushing his argument on any and all grounds, even those that contradict each other.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Fluffeh on Monday March 17 2014, @04:54AM
...even those that contradict each other...
You realize that is EXACTLY the whole concept of Doublethink right?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 17 2014, @05:00AM
And you exhibit a similarly asinine behavior of pulling stuff out of their context. Good luck to your propaganda campaign.
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Monday March 17 2014, @05:05AM
It's not wrong, it's that the kids will eventually grow up and they might make us do something about it.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Angry Jesus on Monday March 17 2014, @03:35PM
> It's not wrong, it's that the kids will eventually grow up and they might make us do something about it.
Seems like the progression in thinking has been:
1) Climate change is not real
2) Climate change is real, but is a natural phenomenon
3) Climate change is real, is man-made, but it is no big deal
4) Climate change is real, is man-made, is a big deal, but humans will just invent news ways to cope like GMOs
The one thing in common is that at every step of the way the goal is to come up wtih an excuse to protect the oil industry.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Monday March 17 2014, @12:06PM
"to both accept Climate Change as true, yet to totally remove it from education lest it is questioned by the youth."
That's widely seen as an excellent idea when the topic is changed to "measurable racial variations in average intelligence" or any number of other controversial topics. So as an argument that is pretty weak.
"Nothing good is likely to come of discussing that" certainly applies to climate change, which invariably involves a wallet-grab.
I can add something useful to the discussion which is from the right perspective what gets under their skin about climate change is the fundamental dishonesty of it. So... fundamentally, you want to take away my money and give it to someone more politically useful to you. I can respect that. I can totally disagree with it but I can respect the honesty of it. But from a right perspective the fundamental dishonesty of it is "star trek technobabble so I'm gonna grab your wallet".
Consider a mugger. Walks up, says "I'm literally hungry so I'm gonna steal your wallet". I don't like that but I respect that a lot more than hearing "Jesus told me to steal your wallet so you can't judge or blame me". In the end they're going to steal your wallet anyway, its just why the heck can't they be a little more humane, a little more honest, a little more ethical about it? Its not like it'll cost anything.
(Score: 1) by Angry Jesus on Monday March 17 2014, @03:30PM
When your go to counter-example is scientific racism [wikipedia.org] you know you are on rock-solid ground. What's next? Will you be telling us that the overwhelming majority of anthropologists believe that race is the primary determinant of intelligence?
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday March 18 2014, @01:55PM
Although calm and reasoned appeals to authority via wikipedia (as if wikipedia is much of an authority) or scientists does superficially appear to undermine by claim that its the most toxic discussion topic imaginable, in context in a semi-educational setting I don't think calm and reasoned logical fallacies would be likely, probably the result would more likely to resemble a riot as I claim.
Another way to look at it, is I'm trying to identify which discussion topic is most likely to incite a riot in a semi-educational setting, and even if I step back and agree its at least in theory possible to discuss in a civilized manner as per the above paragraph, I still think that particular topic can still remain as "the most likely of all topics to incite a riot". As a counterexample to this paragraph, I would have to admit defeat if you provided a counterexample of an even more "likely to incite a riot" discussion topic.
So you bring up a good point as a theoretical counter example, but I still claim that even if I take two small steps back from my original claim, its still fundamentally a correct argument that its the most riot inducing of all topics. Have a nice day!
(Score: 1) by Angry Jesus on Tuesday March 18 2014, @02:12PM
Your position appears to be that scientific racism, a theory barely more viable than homeopathy, is the equivalent of climate change because the concept pisses people off. That is to completely miss the forest for the trees.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday March 18 2014, @02:21PM
I more or less agree with your assessment, and explain my reasoning as incitement to riot has no educational value. Wasn't the whole point, to provide educational value?
(Score: 1) by mvdwege on Tuesday March 18 2014, @09:55AM
Yeah, those measurable racial variations that disappear if you account for confounding factors like language differences, cultural influence and social status.
Why don't you fuck off back under your rock, you bigoted piece of shit?
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday March 18 2014, @01:41PM
Awesome, thanks for making my point via example of "Nothing good is likely to come of discussing that".
Its an inherently toxic discussion in modern culture, just like climate change. I had to mentally stretch a bit to find that topic as an example. There are probably other example of inherently toxic discussion topics. Cultural imperialism vs western Renaissance era liberalism. How about, in a word, religion, or more specifically who exactly is going to hell and why according to whom. But I think I selected the "best" inherently toxic discussion I could think of, at least WRT being the most toxic of all possible topics. Have a nice day!
(Score: 1) by mvdwege on Wednesday March 19 2014, @10:23AM
Sometimes a bigoted prick is just a bigoted prick. It is good that discussions are toxic to them.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday March 19 2014, @12:59PM
(shakes head slowly)
I was trying to avoid the meta Godwins law of mentioning Godwins law, but I'm basically paraphrasing that law, that there exist some discussion topics so toxic that they eliminate all further discussion. Godwin says Hitler will do it. I say discussing climate change will do it. I also mention other topics that work just as well and people freak out at the mere public mention of the topics, which was exactly the point I was trying to make, which is kind of hilarious.
Are you familiar with Godwins law? That might be the place to start if we're to have a meeting of the minds on this topic. The next little step is I say there exist many other discussion topics just as toxic as hitler. Then a tiny little baby step from there, to I claim climate change is a member of the set of toxic discussion topics.
I am making the (huge?) assumption that pointless kneejerk flamewars and riot inducement and distraction from the original issue is inherently uneducational, which was where the whole discussion began, with the assumption that riot inducement is a great educational technique or some such assumption.