South Dakota becomes more famous

[dieseltaylor]

The state legislature has managed to create a stir in educated circles around the world by passing a resolution ordering its schools to "teach the controversy" on climate change.

Not that noteworthy other than instructing teachers they must tell students about the " variety of climatological, meteorological, astrological, thermological, cosmological, and ecological dynamics that can effect world weather phenomena."

ASTROLOGICAL!!!! for ******* sake what a bunch of ignoramuses.

One has to weep at the quality of a legislature where apparently not one member or staffer knows what the astrology ****ing means.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

It's an easy slip of the mind to make and overlook. But for it to go totally unnoticed by that many in that environment, yeah, that's not a good reflection on US politics and education.

Also, thermological? Huh?

[dieseltaylor]

Thermological apparently is not a real science. No surprise then. However to be fair to SD some people said it was just a rough draft that was being quoted:

You suggest that this was just a rough draft that was corrected through the normal process of creating legislation or resolutions. But what I discussed was no rough draft of a resolution. It was the final version that the House passed. Thirty-six people voted in the affirmative on this resolution and sent it on to the Senate. Are you saying that the House in South Dakota normally passes incorrect, inaccurate rough drafts for the Senate to fix? If so, that is a really weird legislative process.

The Senate responded to the inaccuracies of the House by entirely removing everything voted on by the House and inserting its own language. The Senate’s amended and perfected the resolution by making a complete deletion followed by a insertion of completely different language. And even with that much more rational language, it only passed by one vote.

Precision of language is important, not only when discussing science, but particularly with legislation that can govern us. The words these legislators vote on matter because those words can become law, determining what we can and cannot do.

The new wording includes this

WHEREAS, there are a variety of climatological and meteorological dynamics that can affect world weather phenomena, and the significance and interrelativity of these factors remain unresolved; and

INTERRELATIVITY!

WTF the word does not exist other than as a company name. I suspect that using "relationship" could not be countenanced because it did not end in an -ology or -ity.

What is it with America that they have to use big words instead of normal words? Prove how educated they are or just BS*itting each other.

[dieseltaylor]

The Actual bill as passed [including interrelavity].

HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 1009

A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION, Calling for a balanced approach for instruction in the public schools relating to global climatic change.

WHEREAS, evidence relating to global climatic change is complex and subject to varying scientific interpretations; and

WHEREAS, there are a variety of climatological and meteorological dynamics that can affect world weather phenomena, and the significance and interrelativity of these factors remain unresolved; and

WHEREAS, the debate on global warming has subsumed political and philosophical viewpoints, which has complicated and prejudiced the scientific investigation of global climatic change phenomena:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the House of Representatives of the Eighty-fifth

Legislature of the State of South Dakota, the Senate concurring therein, that the South Dakota Legislature urges that all instruction in the public schools relating to global climatic change be presented in a balanced and objective manner and be appropriate to the age and academic development of the student and to the prevailing classroom circumstances.

I am curious as to whether any bill using invented or nonsense words could be used for enforcement?

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/46000.html

[Runaway!!!]

If indeed the terms being used are "teach the controversy", I would be concerned for those poor students "learning" about global climate change, especially since these same catch phrases have been propped up to try and discredit the scientific theory of evolution with opposing pseudo science, fallacies, and propaganda. If the "debate" is between scientists on the cause of global warming rather than whether or not it's occurring, then it's nothing to get your mouth frothed up over. But the terminology is highly suspect, and I don't know about the use of the word astrological being all that credible, but I wouldn't be surprised considering the recent demise of the Texas educational system by the state board and their newly redesigning of several textbooks. This could be another one of those epic fails brought to us by our democratically elected.

It's a tossup between local control over our school's curriculum and a universal one between all states. At least with local control these disasters are "usually"... well, localized to one state and not all.

If anyone is interested in the science of global climate change, check out this series by potholer54 on youtube.

1. Climate Change -- the scientific debate

www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo

[dieseltaylor]

Thanks for the link Runway. That is a beautiful series with an intelligent view given to both sides. Particularly sweet is the debunking of the myths that exist in episodes 5-8a.

Bets piece ion climate change I have watched. If the SD made this compulsory watching then I would be impressed with their smarts !!

[dieseltaylor]

A sloppily written law passed by Congress 15 years ago has cost the country several billion dollars in lost oil royalties in the Gulf of Mexico and threatens to cost the country billions more. Representative Edward Markey has been trying, without success, to fix the law. He argues that the profit-rich oil companies are absconding with money that rightly belongs to American taxpayers.

But in 2007 — by which time oil had risen above $70 a barrel — a federal judge said in effect that Congressional intent wasn’t enough, and that companies with leases signed between 1996 and 2000 did not have to pay.

A lot of money has already been lost. Bizarrely, several weeks ago the government began refunding about $2 billion in royalties to companies that had paid up. Future losses could be immense. About 70 of the no-royalty-no-threshold leases are already productive, with more to come. The Government Accountability Office has estimated that lost royalties could run as high as $53 billion over the next 25 years, depending on prices.

Being sloppy costs taxpayers plenty

[John Kettler]

dieseltaylor,

Fooled me! Thought maybe they'd finally finished this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crazy_Horse_Memorial

Regards,

John Kettler

[JonS]

Fooled me!

Let's be honest John; that isn't terribly hard.

Incidentally, how're you going on my superior 'earthquake sensitivity and predictive ability' challenge?