In the last few years school boards and state legislatures in Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Tennessee have introduced a requirement that science teachers acknowledge in their classroom instruction that the theory of AGW isn’t “settled” science and that climate skepticism is a valid scientific position. Los Angeles Times reporter Neela Banerjee, who like so many MSM reporters starts with the assumption that AGW is an incontrovertible fact, and that skeptics are self-evidently wrong, opens her news report by begging the question with a false equivalence:
A flash point has emerged in American science education that echoes the battle over evolution, as scientists and educators report mounting resistance to the study of man-made climate change in middle and high schools.
The National Center for Science Education uses the same “argument” to defend AGW against these climate-change-denying snake-handlers:
Long a leader in the fight to defend the teaching of evolution in public schools, the National Center for Science Education now sees creationist-like tactics being used in the attack on climate education.
The inconvenient truth for the warmists, of course, is that belief in AGW is itself an article of faith to many of its proponents, as evidenced by their countless attempts to suppress the heretical views of modern-day Gallileos through browbeating, censorship, and propaganda.
Remarkably, the LA Times’s Banerjee blames the states’s long overdue pushback against the warmists’s politicization of classroom science on — wait for it — the politicization of science:
Although scientific evidence increasingly shows that fossil fuel consumption has caused the climate to change rapidly, the issue has grown so politicized that skepticism of the broad scientific consensus has seeped into classrooms.
That gal’s article is crippled right off the hop by her implacable claims as to concensus and “settled science”.
Basically starting off with false assumptions and then proceeding to insults.
Referring to “skeptics” as “snake-handlers” misrepresents the now established pattern of warmists behaving like snake handlers.
However, she did avoid playing the race card…so that much is progress…..no doubt she was tempted…..
“seeps”
Like poison gas fumes.
What else “seeps”?
Does anything good “seep”
Was “slouched” taken?
Was “slouches” taken?
duh
Another robot trying to explain reality, when living in a politically fabricated fantasy. Than trying to look smart by repeating the now defunct talking points of an ever odious, dictatorial, dogmatic groups of pseudo-scientists.
I thought the NORMAL scientific position was to be a skeptic. What the hell do I know? I thought science was based on theories, not facts. But what the hell?
What, evolution isn’t real?
“What, evolution isn’t real?
Posted by: johnbrooks at January 18, 2012 7:44 PM ”
I have no dog in the evolution vs creationism fight, but I think the antics and argumentitive skills(?) of the AGW-cultists proves beyond a doubt the fact of DE-evolution.
Who are the creationists and who are the evolutionists in the field of AGW theory? It was al gore who was predicting the end of the world (by 2012?) not the AGW skeptics. It was the AGW believers who want(ed) to create global laws to regulate everyone in the service of Gaia like some mideaval catholic church including Spanish inquisition style corporate and state tactics to ensure compliance.
It is the AGW lobby and it followers who are acting like religious zealots – not the skeptics.
It goes on and on. I don’t know any sensible person who takes AGW seriously.
Lucky me, you will say. But I have to listen to the drivelling idiots.
Gord Tulk “It is the AGW lobby and it followers who are acting like religious zealots – not the skeptics.” Well said Gord and it fits right in with EBD’s thread heading “Heretics in the classroom”.
The war between the warmists and skeptics is just a continuation of the late 1800s war between evolutionists and creationists (of whatever stripe) and now includes the addition of leftist Marxist, Malthusian and eugenics in the mix.
The watermelons yearn for the social acceptability of the Spanish Inquisition to deal with heretics. The fact that greens are for the most part also socialists confirms that their motivation is power-driven rather than knowledge-driven. The expressions, AGW skeptic and heretic are interchangeable. Suzuki and his ilk are the metaphysical equivalent to Arch Bishops of the Watermelon Church Police.
Neela Banerjee? Is that a Bengali name by origin? Isn’t the Bengal part of the South Asian sub continent subject to flooding? Isn’t the Bengal area of India and all of Bangladesh (East Bengal)a third world country? Wouldn’t they have had a Bonanza under Kyoto? I suppose only a racist would draw such a line of thought?
There’s no comparison between the theory of evolution and the religion of CAGW. Anyone who works in the evolutionary area realizes that they are dealing with incomplete information and that at any time new information might arise which will invalidate large sections of what was previously assumed to be happening. We see evolution in action around us all of the time (although in the case of watermelons it’s devolution in action).
The primary thing that students should be taught in school about science is that nothing is certain. There are some observations that have been repeated millions of times such as an object being dropped from a height accelerating at 9.8 m/sec^2; this doesn’t preclude someone someday neutralizing the force of gravity on the object and it will just sit unsupported above the ground.
As far as climate change goes, the earth’s climate has always been changing and the goal should be to develop a sufficient degree of energy production that we could modify the climate if another ice age is starting. We’re far from that point now. The other thing about any area of science is to try to destroy ones own theories once one has created them. If you don’t do that, then someone else will do it for you as is happening now to CAGW.
CAGW is best viewed as a watermelon religion. I believe the US has a prohibition on teaching religion in the classroom. If I was in a position to influence science teaching in the US, I would go for the CAGW as religion argument which would totally eliminate it from the science curriculum. It might have a place in a comparative religions course. Those who compare opposition to CAGW with the battle over teaching evolution are completely unaware that they’re on the same side as the religious zealots who opposed the teaching of evolution. They’ll suffer the same fate.
And speaking of teachers..see story at GatewayPundit about teacher turned ‘activist’ arrested at Occupy LA for ‘lynching’
Gord
“””It is the AGW lobby and it followers who are acting like religious zealots “””
and here I thought they were acting as TAX collectors:-)))
The two similarities I see with Evolution and AGW is the insufficient cause and the non-replicable outcome. Well that and the ‘shout down all dissenters’ politics that have driven both to their present dominant position.
Gravity should be repealed by popular vote, about 10% of it, that way I wouldn’t have to lose a few pounds. Thanks in advance science dudes!
A consensus of mental midgets. If teachers don’t know that a scientific consensus is not possible for AGW until the theory is proven beyond any and all doubt (is elevated to that of a LAW). They should be fired & the schools closed
Then again it may be that children are not easily fooled!
I think Al only predicted that there would be no ice cap this year. He’s still got 11 months. Perhaps he and the Iranians could enter into a mutually beneficial testing agreement.
Rush Limbaugh has a countdown clock to algoregeddon on his site.
AIEEEEE! (rends garment)
Behead the climate infidels!
Lululululululululul!
// The National Center for Science Education uses the same “argument” to defend AGW against these climate-change-denying snake-handlers: //
Not really.
// climate education is not like the evolution education issue in several key respects, and so cannot be handled in the same way:
Place in the Curriculum.
Basic biology is fundamental to science education, and evolution is the cornerstone of biology. Accordingly, evolution is taught (or at least, should be taught) as a bedrock part of the high school science curriculum across America. This is not the case, however, with climate science. It is not even clear, necessarily, which science “class” this interdisciplinary subject belongs in: Physics? Chemistry?
So there is vast heterogeneity in how climate science is being taught in U.S. schools, in what class—and indeed, in whether it is being taught at all.
Legal Precariousness of Messing With Good Science.
Defenders of the teaching of evolution in public schools have always had held a kind of trump card in their hands. It is called the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and it bars mingling church and state. Creationism and “intelligent design” are obviously fundamentally religious ideas, so teaching them in public schools is easily shown to lack a legitimate secular purpose—to be all about advancing religion. Through such a strategy the defenders of evolution have won again and again in court.
But with global warming, this advantage disappears. Is climate denial a religious idea? I actually do think that it is a doctrine believed “religiously” by many—but I wouldn’t want to have to go into a courtroom and try to demonstrate that, say, libertarianism is a religion.
So I don’t expect the defenders of good climate science to be using lawsuits as a strategy to defend its teaching.
There Is No Clear “Opponent.”
In the evolution fight, there was the Institute for Creation Research, and then the “intelligent design” promoting Discovery Institute. In the climate education battle, there is no central clearinghouse organization on the political right that is pushing global warming denial in schools. There are many think tanks and individuals putting out educational materials, of course, but this is really more of a conservative grassroots phenomenon. //
If justice prevailed, saying “I’m a science teacher in Tennessee” should get you a free drink in any part of the civilized world.
dizzy
“So there is vast heterogeneity in how climate science is being taught in U.S. schools, in what class—and indeed, in whether it is being taught at all.”
I suspect the most likely place to see climate science would be in social studies classes taught by philosophy majors.
Should have said Louisi-Yana , we have more illegal mexicans pouring in heya everyday than you see in Matamoros. They have taken over a lil northern town called Bernice (nothing but chicken houses and now it seems a slaughter house is being planned) I am all for building our poultry industry up, but it will just open the floodgates for Illegals. But, back on topic, I’ll ask the 10 year-old what her science teacher has said about AGW that ought to generate an interesting response, seeing as how she is not afraid to voice her opinion. Why just the other morning on the way to school I asked how her girlfriends Stormy, Taylor and Jalia were doing. She says; ” Dad, I am not a lesbian, I don’t have girlfriends they are my buddies.” I spilled my coffee all over the floorboard.
“Is climate denial a religious idea? I actually do think that it is a doctrine believed “religiously” by many…..” – dizzy
You have identified a logical fallacy of trying to prove a negative. The “warmers” are asserting settled science, consensus, (every other form of closure of inquiry) that catastrophic man made global warming is occurring. The key word is catastrophic, otherwise they would not have insisted on spending $35 billion and counting on marketing their unproven hypothesis.
The “deniers” are saying: no, you haven’t proven anything by your models except that there is a huge market for hysteria. No educated skeptic would deny that there is some level of AGW, albeit at the theoretical level and no mater how trivial.
Rather than equate skeptics as some kind of faith-based antithesis of the “warmers”, I would class them (us) as falling into two general categories: Those that have taken the time to inform themselves of the state of the scientific inquiry; and, Those that, due to the almost perfect partisan political divide in the “debate” that is never to be officially allowed by the warmers, and with their cult-like behavior in being only too keen to expand state coercion in the process, by association, are too corrupted to be taken seriously.
Smelling a rat is the essence of a skeptic. Most of us know where the rats politically congregate.
Given that the warming “deniers” are the skeptics in this debate, would they not be closer in spirit to evolutionists than creationists in the Scopes analogy?
Ellie in Hogtown
Yes. The skeptics are challenging the institutionally invested and politically correct wisdom.