Tuesday, March 9, 2010

Your State Representatives at Work

<$BlogMetaData$>March 10th, 2010


Your State Representatives at Work

For those of you that read this column living in Iowa, consider yourselves lucky. For the rest of us, we have state representatives in our district of the state that have lost their minds. Representatives Jim Bolin (Canton) and Dan Lederman (Dakota Dunes) sponsored a joint resolution in the Legislature that is absolutely the dumbest thing ever brought before the legislative body. They probably spent more time on this piece of paper than they spent on the budget cuts for the state. This was a joint resolution for both the house and Senate. Thank Goodness MaggieGillespie could see through the smoke screen. I sent Jim an email asking if he lost his mind. He hasn’t responded yet, and probably won’t. (Both Lederman and Bolin are Pro Hyperion by the way.)Ok enough suspense, here it is in a nutshell. Teaching balanced opinions of global warming and climate change in schools.

State of South Dakota

EIGHTY-FIFTH SESSION

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, 2010

363R0643

HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 1009

Introduced by: Representatives Kopp, Bolin, Brunner, Cronin, Curd, Feickert, Gosch,

Greenfield, Hamiel, Hoffman, Hunt, Iron Cloud III, Jensen, Juhnke, Kirkeby,

Lange, Lederman, Moser, Novstrup (David), Olson (Betty), Olson (Ryan),

Pitts, Putnam, Rausch, Russell, Schlekeway, Sly, Steele, Tidemann,

Turbiville, Van Gerpen, Verchio, and Wink and Senators Brown, Abdallah,

Bradford, Haverly, Maher, and Schmidt

1 A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION, Calling for balanced teaching of global warming in the

2 public schools of South Dakota.

3 WHEREAS, the earth has been cooling for the last eight years despite small increases in

4 anthropogenic carbon dioxide; and

5 WHEREAS, there is no evidence of atmospheric warming in the troposphere where the

6 majority of warming would be taking place; and

7 WHEREAS, historical climatological data shows without question the earth has gone

8 through trends where the climate was much warmer than in our present age. The Climatic

9 Optimum and Little Climatic Optimum are two examples. During the Little Climatic Optimum,

10 Erik the Red settled Greenland where they farmed and raised dairy cattle. Today, ninety percent

11 of Greenland is covered by massive ice sheets, in many places more than two miles thick; and

12 WHEREAS, the polar ice cap is subject to shifting warm water currents and the break-up

13 of ice by high wind events. Many oceanographers believe this to be the major cause of melting

1 polar ice, not atmospheric warming; and

2 WHEREAS, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but rather a highly beneficial ingredient for

3 all plant life on earth. Many scientists refer to carbon dioxide as "the gas of life"; and

4 WHEREAS, more than 31,000 American scientists collectively signed a petition to

5 President Obama stating: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of

6 carbon dioxide, or methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable

7 future, cause catastrophic heating of the earth's atmosphere and disruption of the earth's

8 climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon

9 dioxide will produce many beneficial effects on the natural plant and animal environments of

10 the earth":

11 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the House of Representatives of the Eighty12

fifth Legislature of the State of South Dakota, the Senate concurring therein, that the South

13 Dakota Legislature urges that instruction in the public schools relating to global warming

14 include the following:

15 (1) That global warming is a scientific theory rather than a proven fact;

16 (2) That there are a variety of climatological, meteorological, astrological, thermological,

17 cosmological, and ecological dynamics that can effect world weather phenomena and

18 that the significance and interrelativity of these factors is largely speculative; and

19 (3) That the debate on global warming has subsumed political and philosophical

20 viewpoints which have complicated and prejudiced the scientific investigation of

21 global warming phenomena; and

22 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Legislature urges that all instruction on the theory

23 of global warming be appropriate to the age and academic development of the student and to

24 the prevailing classroom circumstances.

Now either these legislators really believe this or somebody or someone is laying the groundwork to a statement to come out that 19 million tons of carbon dioxide coming out of the Hyperion refinery is good for us because of all the beneficial effects on the natural plant and animal environments of the earth. Don’t forget that carbon dioxide isn’t harmful and they want this taught in the schools to balance the comments about climate change being caused by manmade sources, like the wind causing large chunks of ice to break away from glaciers. OH COME ON NOW. SURELY THEY DON’T BELIEVE THIS!

I believe climate change is cyclical and that it evolves over time, but this is about as radical as one can get. If one looks at museums in the state of South Dakota you will see sea shells, remains of dinosaurs, fossilized plant life from seas and jungles. But this evolved over millions of years and it may happen again. The problem is that with all the pollution that is manmade, we are rushing natures natural process. That my friend is the problem! We were put on this earth to be stewards of the land not destroyers. That is enough from my soap box, please please write to Mr. Bolin and Mr. Lederman and ask them what were they thinking .

6 Comments:

At March 10, 2010 at 7:30 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At March 12, 2010 at 1:29 AM , Anonymous RunningWithLaughter said...

600 years ago everyone knew the Earth was flat

400 years ago people believed the Sun rotated around the Earth.

A few years ago some swore with 100% certainty that global warming was fact and we were all doomed.

More recently the terminology has been altered to "climate change" because their were parts of the Earth that were not getting warmer, but instead cooler.

What harm is there in challenging the global warming/climate change and educating both sides of the argument?

Do you not support teaching and allowing students to use their cognitive thinking?

As the bill stated 31,000 scientists do not subscribe to the global warming/climate change theory. What advanced degrees do you have to say they are idiots?

Gore's "hockey stick" graph has been thrown out because the data was manipulated (see: climate-gate) so please do not use that as your "absolute proof".

 
At March 12, 2010 at 5:52 AM , Blogger Doug said...

if you look at what the resolution says, the legislators want to make it mandatory to teach both sides of this question. i am opposed to mandatory teaching. i think we should leave this up to the board of regents and school boards. the legislature has enough to do and is stepping into areas they have no business being.

 
At March 12, 2010 at 7:36 AM , Anonymous RunningWithLaughter said...

It has been a long time since you have been in the public education system so I will forgive your naivety.

The schools and school boards can do little to manipulate the information published in science books.

The boards can look to find books that do not teach either side of the argument, but they may be left with choices that fall short on other levels.

Also, there are a lot of science teachers in the state and many of those teachers will make their own lesson plans. Part of their task as teachers is to motivate their young charges to learn. One easy way to do that is to discuss what the media is blasting on the internet, TV, newspapers and radio.

Would you rather the students learn from media or from the certified teachers?


Wow, I just read the resolution again, you are way off.

The bill only mandates balanced lesson plans, but does not mandate any lesson plan. It is up to the school to determine if it will be taught at all. If it is, then it should be a balanced approach.

Double wow, I just read your post lambasting the bill and legislators.

Nowhere does it mention you are upset about mandated teaching. You seem to be more upset regarding Lederman and Bolin are pro Hyperion and how the refinery will contribute to global warming.

In your post you wrote, "The problem is that with all the pollution that is manmade, we are rushing natures natural process."

You did not write, "The problem is each school district should decide what should be taught. Mandating lesson plans is a bad idea."

So your comment to my comment makes you a liar, and I just proved it. Now, I wonder if you will be hypocritical enough to not post my comment.

 
At March 12, 2010 at 7:57 AM , Blogger Doug said...

RunningWithLaughter you are very astute i am very much against Hyperion. i'm glad you can deduce that. i also am confused by your statements. first you say the teacher selects the material to be taught then you say the schools select them.
i would much rather the teachers teach what is in the media no matter how biased it is because the children might learn more than one side of a story. you know as well as i do that these kids's minds are a vacuum and will be filled by what they are taught. the children are eager to learn. i would prefer they learn the truth.

 
At March 16, 2010 at 6:49 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

All I can say at this moment is "stupid is as stupid does"

Rachel

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home