Prev Next
Featured Quizzes
Politix Daily Headlines
Featured Debates
Issues

See all 17 issues

People
White House

See all people

STATES OF DENIAL

Kansas Bill Asks Teachers to Question Climate Change

Or to 'misinform students,' as pro-climate science websites are saying

Next>

by Mary Noble

Senior Editor t

Image: LA Times

The Kansas House Education Committee is seeking to pass a bill that asks science teachers to present the "weaknesses" of climate science. The key text of the bill reads as follows:

The legislature recognizes that the teaching of certain scientific topics, such as climate science, may be controversial. The legislature encourages the teaching of such scientific controversies to be made in an objective manner in which both the strengths and weaknesses of such scientific theory or hypothesis are covered.

"The point of the bill is obviously to misrepresent climate science as scientifically controversial," according to the National Center for Science Education's director Eugenie Scott.

Liberal site Think Progess puts it more strongly: "Kansas Bill would require teachers to misinform students about climate change."

Kansas will be the fifth state to enact such a bill. Texas and Louisiana require science teachers to portray climate denial as a valid scientific stance, while Oklahoma and Tennessee have laws allowing climate skepticism in the classroom.

Read the full text of the bill here.

Via the National Center for Science Education.
Like this article? B Vote Up
?

Does this bill asking teachers to present the "strengths and weaknesses of climate science" sound reasonable?

View results

Comments (view in Forum)

  • DARSB
    !
    "the teaching of certain scientific topics, such as climate science, may be controversial"

    Actually, it's a legislature made up of non-scientist persons with variable educational backgrounds deciding it can define a scientific controversy that strikes me as "controversial".
  • LGRepublican
    !
    You're right about what makes up controversial, but as long as there's a political spin to this "science", it's appropriate to question the motivations and "conclusions".
  • Zazziness
    !
    @LGRepublican Initially, perhaps. But it has been well over a decade. Evidence and scientific consensus have steadily grown till now it is well past time to move forward. We should be talking about sensible ways to respond and/or deal with it by now. Thank goodness, a lot of people are doing that.
  • DARSB
    !
    @LGRepublican There is definitely a role for politics to play here, but not by meddling with the science. The political question isn't about the validity of the IPCC report or the climate change algorithms, it's how we mitigate the effects of climate change. We can do something now or wait 50 years and evacuate Manhattan. Either way, a politician somewhere will have to make a decision.
  • dances-weebles
    !
    @DARSB you know, i really wish that i could type interobangs on these threads because i'd really like to say, WHAT, A POLITICIAN MAKE A DECISION?! are you off your dot?

  • View all 14 replies >

  • Neo_NtheMatrix
    !
    I agree. I'm not so sure we just accidentally came into existence with no plan and no purpose. I couldn't stand to see my children taught they were just lucky accidents. We were created with purpose and a plan. Once the scourge of obama is gone from the White House it will be revealed the purpose of mankind.
  • harold_lloyd
    !
    They already did.

    "The great Kansas debate over teaching evolution continues to, well, evolve.

    Consider Jack Wu, candidate for the Kansas state Board of Education. Perhaps the most relevant qualification on his bio is that he attends the Westboro Baptist Church. That's the one that stages protests at soldiers' funerals, saying God is punishing the U.S. for homosexuality. "

    http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/30/natio...

    Unfortunately, their stupidity is consistent.
  • JimCO55
    !
    LOL, they tried but it didn't quite work out for them:

    Evolution opponents lose control of Kansas school board
    usatoday30.usatoday.com/.../2006-08-01-kansas... ...
    Aug 1, 2006 – As a result of the vote, board members and candidates who...... pro-evolution Republican Jana Shaver picked off a conservative incumbent and won ... a more conservative Democrat who favored the anti-evolution language.
  • u
    Realthinker
    !
    @PNWest Kansas should ignore the junk science peddled by Think Progress and other Soros groups. If they want their children well educated, that is.
  • u
    Realthinker
    !
    @PNWest How about this: We don't know how the earth was formed, but all this harmony didn't not just explode into being one day. We really don't know when either; we may never know. The North thought they were fighting to free the slaves, the South was more concerned with states rights. That's a fact and the question has not really been settled. I have posted a great deal of information here about the flawed and altered science of "climate change". If your mind is closed to the science that shows it isn't happen at least give others the opportunity to see the facts.
  • PNWest
    !
    @Realthinker No - how about this... The Universe was formed about 13.8 Billion years ago, the Earth is about 4 billion years...(see a real science book for the rest).... The Civil War was all about slavery (see a real history book about this).... Somewhere around 97% or so of climate scientists believe that man is responsible for the climate changes we have ween in the last 100 years or so. All of the science items are subject to change upon new evidence being found that contradicts existing beliefs.

  • View all 28 replies >

  • Tralee
    !
    What's the problem? Either it can be conclusively proven (which is has NOT been to date) or it is a matter of opinion. I have heard for almost 30 years that DE would be under water by now, we aren't (neither is our home in SC BTW), if that was wrong, if all that hysteria was incorrect, if the polar caps have NOT melted as predicted, what else did they get wrong. What are the tree huggers afraid of? That they may be proven wrong? Climate Change is just the new religion for the old "New Age" believers.
  • Zazziness
    !
    Why not do even a tiny bit of research before you put forth so many errors in a row?
    "The polar ice caps have melted faster in last 20 years than in the last 10,000. A comprehensive satellite study confirms that the melting ice caps are raising sea levels at an accelerating rate."
    http://www.dw.de/polar-ice-sheets-melting-fas...
    "Definitive study links polar ice cap melting to climate change"
    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/11/29/definit...
    The rest of your post is the same -- not motivated or substantiated by anything but partisanship.
  • Tralee
    !
    @Zazziness They were supposed to be GONE years ago, that was wrong, the north pole did melt some, on one side at least, yet the south pole actually got larger. See, it all depends on which "study" you look at and believe. And your "errors" are actually just something that contradicts something YOU believe, not really an error, simply a difference of opinion and different fact checking, so leave the insults aside, they add nothing to the conversation. Or, keep them up if you must, but then I will get bored and go away to another topic.(Barbie's Rule #1 - leave them wanting more.) The Worshipers of Climate Change (had to even change that from Global Warming) will always believe that we (humans) are to blame for any change in the climate, some long buried sense of guilt over having a good life or something, but in reality, and according to other scientific study, the earth's climate has been changing for eons, cold, hot, cold, hot. Remember (and I have said this many times and have yet to get an answer from any of the "Believers") the "Little Ice Age" - it started around 1400 and ended about 400 years later. And we got warm which was way better than not being able to grow crops where we had formerly been able to. The effects of the little ice age and it's resultant lack of places to grow food and raise herds of whatever, was a factor in the French Revolution. No food, no food available and no place to grow it, it also resulted in a grain based agriculture that could be grown in the new cooler temperatures. So, tell me, just what human error caused that?
  • Russell797
    !
    No, the polar ice was not supposed to gone years ago. It takes centuries to melt Greenland and many thousands of years to melt Antarctica. Sea level has risen 8 inches on average over the past century, and it will continue to rise as the Earth warms. Your expectation of what to expect has been manipulated by folks whose job it is to confuse you. The only reliable source of science information is the peer-reviewed literature and those vetted publications and institutions you can trust to interpret it for you. Where you get your information matters.
  • Tralee
    !
    @Zazziness LOL - Zazzi, I could if I wanted, it's just not worth the effort with you, you wouldn't believe them no matter what, so not going to bother. Let me know when you get that objective transplant, I'll inundate you with links, gladly.

  • View all 27 replies >

  • Zazziness
    !
    Things To Do
    Wednesday
    - 9:00- 9:55 Teach Young Earth Creationism
    - 9:55 -10:00 Teach Darwin's Theory of Evolution; mention Darwin had bad breath
    - 10:00 Break: Lead Talk In Faculty Lounge: Yankees: Why We Don't Like Them
    - 10:30 Redact history texts so that Jefferson does not come off like such a hippie
    (Remember, need more black magic markers!!!)
    - 11:00 Work on Witchcraft 101 teaching outline.
    a) How to burn witches
    b) How to drown witches
    c) How to keep surviving witches out of the corn crops
    - 12:00 Lunch
    - 12:30 Climate Change Denial Session
    - 1:00 Break: Lead Talk in Faculty Lounge: Mormons: Why We Don't Like Them But They're Better Than MormonsYankees
    - 2:00 Grade essays "Fahrenheit 451: Explain why the firemen were the misunderstood heroes of the story"
    - 3:00 Write school board to complain librarian is still stubbornly refusing to reprogram all school computers so students may only visit Kirk Cameron's web site.
  • Neo_NtheMatrix
    !
    Is climate change real? Then why can't we question it and understand it? Why must we just blatantly accept it without scrutiny? The Kansas legislature simply wants climate change questioned. Is that too much to ask for? A strong democracy asks questions, and I support this bill to ask questions and understand what our taxes dollars will be stolen for (carbon credits).
  • Zazziness
    !
    @Neo_NtheMatrix Please, understand it. You're not only allowed to do that, you should. Here's the address for The Union of Concerned Scientists. It's a great place to start and there are many other web sites that have great presentations on it, too. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/
    As for questioning? Science is not a democracy. You do not get to vote on the law of gravity, for instance. If you want to question scientific findings, you don't bring your opinion to the table. You bring solid, reproducible, scientific evidence. That's how science works. The experts have been doing that for many years now and the overwhelming majority agree on the subject; that's why it is inappropriate to "teach the controversy" when what science teachers should be doing is teaching the science.
  • DARSB
    !
    @Neo_NtheMatrix @Neo_NtheMatrix "Then why can't we question it and understand it?"

    You can. You'll have to brush up on your calculus and refresh your basic geology, oceanography, meteorology, organic and inorganic chemistry, biology, astrophysics, and atmospheric dynamics, but once you've done that it's pretty clear sailing. All the studies are published, you know.
  • o
    NTBFW
    !
    @Neo_NtheMatrix that's a great point. It strikes me strange that anyone that asks questions are automatically attacked. I know any scientist that questions it is ostracized in the scientific community and can expect no funding. I know there are valid questions that no one has answered honestly. If they were so sure about it they wouldn't mind it being questioned. The key question is whether man caused it or its just nature doing its thing. One thing I am certain of is we have a way too small of a sample of accurate temp records to make a good prediction and I know there are some holes in their theory that they can't explain. I believe everyone should read state of fear by micheal Crighton to get a better understanding of the issues.
  • stepped_in_it
    !
    @DARSB "brush up"......ya mean study.....read.....understand? Jeez, can't I just refute it by saying it don't exist? <putting head back in sand>

  • View all 31 replies >

  • stepped_in_it
    !
    @culinary You're right, no one's "proved it". All science has done is provide evidence that temps have risen, ice caps have melted, temp fluctuations are happening, random record storms are prevailing......etc. Scientist's educated guesses are much more logical then my uneducated denial......
  • Tralee
    !
    @Zazziness LOL - What are yours? Scientific "Theory" is simply that, a computer workup of certain facts and hypothesis to get a desired result. Usually the desired result of the group providing the grant. Or, in plain English, Garbage In - Garbage Out.

  • View all 11 replies >

  • u
    BossTweed
    !
    Critical thinking is missing in the Sea of Social Engineering and Thought Manipulation in our Schools. Responsible American Parents don't want kids taught anyones political agenda!
  • DrFunkenstein
    !
    Science questions everything but what these people are doing is Denying. Keep your political and religious beliefs OUT of the science classroom. We don't try to teach chemistry in your Church.
  • u
    BossTweed
    !
    At least Kansas pays attention. In Calif. the kids are brain washed in leftwing agenda madness rather that educated and the parents are to self absorbed to even pay attention. Teachers should expose kids to both sides of EVERY important issue or leave it alone.
  • FollowTheMoney
    !
    Scientist are on both sides of the issue. One side is making a lot of MONEY promoting their findings, the other isn't. The popular side is where the money is. Makes me wonder.
  • harold_lloyd
    !
    Critical thinking should start with the legislature.

    The first thing they should acknowledge is that they are not competent to judge the validity of scientific research.

    That's why we have the National Academy of Science, and the National Science foundation. Or in their case, the University of Kansas, which offers a degree in Atmospheric Science.

    What the legislature could do, but won't, is to fund public schools to adequately to be able to carry out their purpose.
  • Dan_Tien
    !
    One of the greatest obstacles to scientific advancement is dogmatic adherence to scientific conventions. If scientific evidence for climate change is presented, then it should also be questioned. If the evidence is strong enough then it will stand. Leave political correctness out of science. It was less than 30 years ago when many scientists were claiming that the earth was headed for another ice age.
  • Russell797
    !
    While it is always wise to question scientific findings, the notion that there exists significant weakness in the scientific basis for man made global warming and climate change is false. There is none whatsoever. That is not to say there are no remaining uncertainties, there are, but those uncertainties pertain to the details rather than the big picture that the Earth is warming and that human activities are the primary force behind it. To teach that there is significant scientific debate over this issue is wrong, the debate exists at the public level, while within the fields of science which are represented by the peer-reviewed science the evidence in support of AGW remains unchallenged. There are those of you out there who will refuse to accept what I say, because you have been conditioned to think there is great controversy in the science when there is not. Teach the kids the reality of public debate, while also explaining that debate does not represent the scientific understanding of the issue.
  • OpEn_MiNdEd
    !
    Let's get one thing straight, this topic is POLITICALLY controversial not scientifically controversial. If it really is a myth, then who benefits from this 'lie'?? Deniers have never been able to properly answer this...
  • PNWest
    !
    @zachsquatch We love human life. That's why we would opposed Bush's needless war in Iraq and why we would like to see reasonable gun control. Just look at the mounting toll of gun related deaths since the Newtown gun massacre..... http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politi... Over 2000 people have died by gun violence since then. Tragic. Why do conservatives want to see more of this?
  • zachsquatch
    !
    Anyone that's out of the 5th grade knows that the climate is going to change whether we like it or not, but as a follower of science myself, questioning is necessary. Now, the pro-climate change people are not about nature, they're about man made climate change, which in itself begs to be questioned. There is NO conclusive evidence supporting man-made climate change.
  • AntiPorcheria
    !
    The "man made" climate change theory cannot be conclusively proven. Too many flaws in the reasoning and too many forms of misinformation floating around out there plus they ignore the natural cycles that are inherent in the solar system and our sister planets.

    The "natural" climate change has much more scientific hard evidence, but is totally ignored by the "man made" crowd or dismissed out of hand. However those furthering the "natural" side dismiss the impact (to whatever degree) that human beings have had on this planet.

    IF there were a truly independent and unified conclusion drawn by respected fellows in their field and supported unilaterally as undeniable science that made THIS planet fluctuate in temperature dramatically AND was significantly different than the "natural" rises and falls of our sister planets, then the entire world would be forced to see the truth of the results.

    But the fact is that neither side can prove conclusively. Conclusive for their side and their peers, yes. But overwhelming facts of Science that destroy argument? No.

    IMO: Each class, order, family, genus and species that has significantly populated on this planet has left an indelible mark on our planet before fading into history. Ours will be the great mountains, rivers and plains of concrete and tar without the planet giving us the least concern.

  •
    Arumizy
    !
    Climate change is a natural occurrence that has happened throughout the earths history. The question is, how much is man made and it seems like the left and the pro-climate change crowd want to say most/all without acknowledging that it is a natural process that can not be stopped and most happen.
  • Zazziness
    !
    "... the pro-climate change crowd want to say most/all [is due to man's influence.] Please recall that "the pro-climate change crowd" includes the vast majority of the world's scientific experts on the subject. And even if it can't be stopped, we should certainly be discussing how we will respond to the changes.
  • scotta
    !
    Reminds me of "Global Warming". It is just another scare tracts to create another sucker of tax payers money. Feel the vacume on your wallet it is the government
  • R Load more comments...