Kansas Bill Would Require Teachers To Misinform Students About Climate Change

[one...two...tree 2,762]

ast week, the Kansas House Education Committee introduced a bill that mandatesteachers question the scientific basis of global warming, becoming the latest state to take up one of American Legislative Exchange Council's "model bills" aiming to misrepresent climate change in schools.

Kansas would join Texas, Louisiana, Tennessee and Oklahoma as the fifth state to cast climate change as a "controversial" topic. But climate change is only controversial in political and polluter circles, not the scientific community. 97 percent of climate scientists actively publishing in the field agree climate change is human-caused.

As National Center for Science Education executive director Eugenie C. Scott explained, "The only effects of enacting such a misguided bill would be to discourage responsible teachers from presenting climate science accurately and to encourage irresponsible teachers to misrepresent it as controversial."

Read the text of the bill:

The bill resembles an ALEC "model bill," written for corporate lobbyists. ALEC's model bill mandates "a range of perspectives presented in a balanced manner," "instruction in critical thinking so that students will be able to fairly and objectively evaluate scientific and economic controversies," and present climate change "in language appropriate for education rather than for propagandizing." At the same time ALEC's legislation has gained ground in other states, the similarities to Kansas' bill are striking, even though the state battles a destructive drought made more likely and severe in a warming climate.

http://thinkprogress...ange/?mobile=nc

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Wow! Critical thinking in science -- what a concept!

[Karee 4,190]

What's the problem here? It says the legislature encourages the teaching of scientific controversies.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The principle itself of dogmatic religion, dogmatic morality, dogmatic philosophy, is what requires to be rooted out; not any particular manifestation of that principle.

The very corner-stone of an education intended to form great minds, must be the recognition of the principle, that the object is to call forth the greatest possible quantity of intellectual power, and to inspire the intensest love of truth: and this without a particle of regard to the results to which the exercise of that power may lead, even though it should conduct the pupil to opinions diametrically opposite to those of his teachers. We say this, not because we think opinions unimportant, but because of the immense importance which we attach to them; for in proportion to the degree of intellectual power and love of truth which we succeed in creating, is the certainty that (whatever may happen in any one particular instance) in the aggregate of instances true opinions will be the result; and intellectual power and practical love of truth are alike impossible where the reasoner is shown his conclusions, and informed beforehand that he is expected to arrive at them.

John Stuart Mill - "Civilization," London and Westminster Review (April 1836)

[Ban Hammer 13,400]

What's the problem here? It says the legislature encourages the teaching of scientific controversies.

a good global warmer never questions, just obeys.

[Ban Hammer 13,400]

3 posts removed, 2 for tos violation and 1 for quoting.

admin action has been taken.

Edited February 20, 2013 by charles!

[james&olya 1,121]

What's the problem here? It says the legislature encourages the teaching of scientific controversies.

Actually, if the law were followed to the letter it would result in students being taught just how weak and pathetic the arguments made by global warming deniers are. And if any of them are even slightly intelligent and informed it should sway them against right wing politics for a long time to come!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Actually, if the law were followed to the letter it would result in students being taught just how weak and pathetic the arguments made by global warming deniers are. And if any of them are even slightly intelligent and informed it should sway them against right wing politics for a long time to come!

Fat chance. We're talking about Kansas here...

[ready4ONE 5,400]

What's the problem here? It says the legislature encourages the teaching of scientific controversies.

Scientific controversies, yes, but similar to including creationism in a science class, it actually legislates confusing science with corporate and political fiction.

Edited February 20, 2013 by ready4ONE

[james&olya 1,121]

Fat chance. We're talking about Kansas here...

You are right. There IS something wrong with Kansas!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Scientific theory is neither controversial nor up for debate outside of peer review. Some high school biology couldn't start teaching that the theory of anthropogenic climate change is open for debate any more than he could say the same about evolution theory. People who think theory in science is just a flimsy assumption don't know sh!t about the modern scientific process.

[james&olya 1,121]

Scientific theory is neither controversial nor up for debate outside of peer review. Some high school biology couldn't start teaching that the theory of anthropogenic climate change is open for debate any more than he could say the same about evolution theory. People who think theory in science is just a flimsy assumption don't know sh!t about the modern scientific process.

Are you trash-talking about the GOP?

[Teddy B 17,252]

Actually, if the law were followed to the letter it would result in students being taught just how weak and pathetic the arguments made by global warming deniers are. And if any of them are even slightly intelligent and informed it should sway them against right wing politics for a long time to come!

Global warming as it was first introduced has been proven to be bunk and it has also been proven that the "scientific numbers" used as the basis of Climate Change have been conveniently adjusted to suit the cause. For anyone to buy into any type of Climate Change theories without questioning it would be foolish based on past experience.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Global warming as it was first introduced has been proven to be bunk and it has also been proven that the "scientific numbers" used as the basis of Climate Change have been conveniently adjusted to suit the cause. For anyone to buy into any type of Climate Change theories without questioning it would be foolish based on past experience.

You don't question the basic tenets of a faith based belief system.

[james&olya 1,121]

Global warming as it was first introduced has been proven to be bunk and it has also been proven that the "scientific numbers" used as the basis of Climate Change have been conveniently adjusted to suit the cause. For anyone to buy into any type of Climate Change theories without questioning it would be foolish based on past experience.

The final truth about the details of global warming will only be known for a certainty after it has fully played out, and even then there will probably be some questions. Global warming is absolutely NOT bunk! The basic theory has had more and more confirmation. Yes, the details are still being filled in and nobody suggests we know all now. Just because some peoples' conjectures associated with the broader theory have missed the mark does not in the least disprove the theory. This is very reminiscent of the way the tobacco lobby attacked the association of tobacco and lung cancer. It is pathetic to see how many of you willingly, almost eagerly, chug that corporate kool-aid! As this man-made calamity gradually unfolds over the coming decades I hope all of you who were willing torch-carriers for the fossil fuel lobbies and their disinformation campaign will have the integrity to acknowledge the active role you played.