Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 19 submissions in the queue.
posted by LaminatorX on Monday March 17 2014, @03:54AM   Printer-friendly
from the head-in-the-sand dept.

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."

 
This discussion has been archived.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: 1) by Hairyfeet on Tuesday March 18 2014, @12:40AM

    by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Tuesday March 18 2014, @12:40AM (#17864) Journal

    If your fire dept was taken over by a group that raised taxes by 3000% and sent it overseas and gave you in return a picture of a fire truck would YOU support them? It honestly doesn't matter whether AGW is 100% proven or not if THE ONLY SOLUTIONS the 1% allow are "Give us money to send more jobs to China" and that is ALL we are getting. Carbon indulgences, cap and trade, its gonna not cause AGW to drop by a single ounce, and in fact might speed it up as it sends more to countries that have less protections than the west, so all you are doing by supporting the "We gotta DO something!" mindset is giving the 1% more money for doing jack shit....is that REALLY what you want?

    --
    ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
  • (Score: 2) by etherscythe on Tuesday March 18 2014, @04:46PM

    by etherscythe (937) on Tuesday March 18 2014, @04:46PM (#18156) Journal

    You say that like there's only two solutions to this problem. That's a false dichotomy.

    Due to consumer pressure, MBA types have decided it's now a great idea to start playing the Green Business game. Now that they've begun to bother with it, many have discovered that they could have been saving money all this time doing things like growing grass on the roof of their big manufacturing facility, cooling it by absorbing sunlight rather than let it hit the aluminum panels and reducing the energy bill for air conditioning. When that reduces load on the coal-fired power plant, this is a very positive step against AGW, not to mention waste in general.

    Yes, industrial operations are a disproportionate percentage of the waste, and keeping them following the spirit of the solutions available will require vigilance. Yes, cap-and-trade has some problems. There's not always a silver lining to every aspect of the issue. But the only way to ensure failure is to stick your head in the sand and refuse to do anything about it.

    --
    "Fake News: anything reported outside of my own personally chosen echo chamber"