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: 3, Interesting) by wjwlsn on Monday March 17 2014, @04:41AM
I think you might have skimmed the summary a little too quickly. It wasn't the "pro-warming-educator" crowd that made the "settled science" claim in this case. Rather, it was the Wyoming state legislator expressing a concern that the proposed standards seemed to push a "settled science" agenda; his position actually appears closer to what you seem to believe (based solely on your reply).
Please note - this post is *not* expressing support for any side of the climate change / global warming debate. I refuse to get drawn into that quagmire. I think we've all pretty much chosen sides on that argument, for now... and are hopefully willing to change our opinions (either way!) should compelling new evidence come to light.
I am a traveler of both time and space. Duh.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 17 2014, @09:33AM
Fourier called, basic chemistry is not a debate. (anymore)
(Score: 2) by wjwlsn on Monday March 17 2014, @02:30PM
You don't even know what I believe about climate change or global warming, and I'm not going to enlighten you. However, that is an interesting statement you just made... Suppose there was some major new discovery that had the potential to change our understanding of basic chemistry -- or of any other science that currently seems set in stone -- would you still say that it's not up for debate?
I am a traveler of both time and space. Duh.