Last week, the South Dakota House of Representatives passed HCR 1009, a resolution calling for the "balanced teaching of global warming in the public schools of South Dakota."
HCR 1009 is so egregiously inaccurate, so appalling wrong in its contemptuous dismissal of established science, so mind-numbing in its appeals to long-debunked pseudoscience, that it is hard not to entertain the thought that perhaps it was meant as an elaborate parody. However, HCR 1009 was not a jest, but rather a serious attempt to influence the science South Dakota students learn. It is the latest volley in a broader assault on science itself.
HCR 1009's "balanced teaching" phrase is familiar to veterans of the wars over teaching "creation science" in schools. A Louisiana law called the "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public Schools Instruction Act" was struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1987. HCR 1009 follows the tactics of the Louisiana law by attempting to insert non-scientific claims into science curriculum in the name of "balance," bypassing the normal fact-checking mechanisms of scientific peer-review and ignoring the near-unanimity of qualified climate scientists about global warming and its causes.
Just as creationists fundamentally misunderstand how evolution works, those who attack climate science often reveal a startling lack of knowledge about the particulars of climate science and how science works.
HCR 1009 offers as evidence against global warming the assertion that in the past "climate was much warmer than in our present age." Climate has been warmer -- and colder, too. That has no bearing on the unprecedented changes humans are now creating. Global warming deniers seem to think that if they can just prove the planet was once warmer, then that somehow means the recent rise in carbon dioxide -- which we know through carbon isotopes to be man-made -- will somehow cease to be a danger.
Earth's climate has indeed varied greatly over time. Geologists know from high-resolution ice cores that this variation has been rapid, and at times dramatic. Geology also tells us of the Cryogenian Period, when glaciers encased the entire planet, and the fact that during the Mesozoic Era, the time of the dinosaurs, climate was perhaps as much as ten degrees Celsius warmer than present. During the Mesozoic, however, this warmer climate raised sea level to the point where South Dakota sat hundreds of feet under water. Climate has varied in the past -- but that in no way affects what is happening today.
Instead of taking the time to understand the science, South Dakota legislators submit as proof against climate change this remarkable list: "[T]here are a variety of climatological, meteorological, astrological [sic], thermological, cosmological, and ecological dynamics..."
No, that isn't a misprint. South Dakota legislators actually proposed astrology as evidence against climate change. Do they think glaciers melt slower when Virgo is ascending?
South Dakota legislators probably meant to say "astronomical," but that also makes no sense. The astronomical influences on climate are well-understood by scientists. Recent climate changes are occurring independently of astronomical influences.
HCR 1009 parrots a common misconception about science: "That global warming is a scientific theory rather than a proven fact." Evolution, too, is frequently disparaged as "only a theory," when the word theory really means, according to UC Berkeley's Understanding Science website, a "powerful explanation for a broad set of observations."
Many people confuse the word theory with "guess." Some people think a hypothesis becomes a theory, then graduates into a fact or becomes a scientific law. These are all common mistakes. They are so common, in fact, that South Dakota science standards require 8th graders to "differentiate among facts, predictions, theory, and law/principles." Perhaps South Dakota 8th graders can help their representatives with this concept.
Even more disturbing than these errors is the underlying premise of HCR 1009: the assumption that political bodies, rather than scientists, should have the final say over scientific issues. We have recently seen this kind of thinking in Louisiana, where a 2008 law opened the door to non-scientific attacks on evolution and climate change. Last year, the Texas State Board of Education rewrote science standards to remove the age of the universe, mandate "different views" on global warming, and include standard creationist talking points against evolution.
Science cannot be legislated. Science is not determined by opinion polls and petitions. South Dakota can outlaw global warming if it wishes, but such decisions mean as much to science as arguments among ornithologists mean to birds.
This political interference in science education is a problem that extends beyond merely getting the facts wrong. Students deserve better than to be pawns of science denialists.
Loading comments… 
http://www
As Mr. Newton and I have mentioned below, one of several reasons for the above is increased methane from thawing permafrost
http://www
Methane is ~21 times stronger a greenhouse gas than CO2. So, the current global methane level of ~1.85ppm (the Times article quotes a pre-indust
http://en.
You make many excellent points. However, I think you are also polarizing an issue that is more complex than "I believe in science or not". Right or wrong, many people believe in science, just not every scientific conclusion
Most people, Climate Deniers included, feel threatened by the personal economic uncertaint
True or not, people don't want to hear "The world's gonna end...the world's gonna end" over and over. Deep inside, everyone knows that a dependence on a non-renewa
Why do you think Obama is for “clean coal” and Nuclear? Because 50% (20% Nuclear today) of our electricit
Dr. Chu, Obama’s Energy Dept Head, was asked since solar is now a proven technolgy why are utilities not putting up millions of them. His response, “the price of solar would have to fall by a factor of 5 to 10 for that to happen”. Google his interviews
Even people in the solar industry, the true believers of the true believers, don’t see the systems getting much cheaper in the near future because building solar cells has already become a commodity industry. They take a fixed amount of raw materials and the price of those raw materials is not falling and in some cases, like rare earth elements, is rising.
Eventually we run out of fossil fuel anyway. We might as well make the change now while we have the time and before we do any more destructio
The denier claim also ignores the intricate and finely tuned web of balances needed to maintain equilibriu
Anthropoge
THE WARMER IT GETS, THE FASTER IT WARMS.
The huge majorities of so-called “deniers” are not really saying it is ok to put more and more CO2 into the air. The real problem is that every solution offered to them costs more than they can afford. They understand that the whole purpose of a “carbon tax” or “cap and trade”, just as proponents do, is to raise prices on current forms of energy so new forms can compete. They read that many of these new forms of energy are many times more expensive that coal, that means electric bills many times higher. They are hearing about a future where they cannot afford energy, that’s too hard to contemplat
And for the Al Gore side who love point to France and say SEE, the French only have 1/3 the carbon footprint per person of an American, so we should do better. Then turn around and fight any new nuclear plants in the US. Obama’s DOE Head Dr. Chu, said wind and solar cannot supply over 20-25% without storage.an
But most left wingers find the LWR (light water reactor) industry repugnant. So, they still don't get that LFTRs, traveling wave reactors, and other Gen-IV designs address most concerns, like reducing existing rad waste and avoiding Chernobyl/
Yet, we know that the LWR industry is another vested interest group, supported by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Thus, major Gen-IV reactor deployment is at least 20 years away, and neither Dr. Chu nor anyone else knows what it will cost because getting them licensed will be a 7 dog fight among reactor developers
Meanwhile, unstored wind is NOT 5 or 10x pricier than coal or nuclear. At ~6 cents/kwh, 20% of electricit
http://en.
And our new reactors will be better:
Dr Chu, Obamas Energy Czar, said “the new generation of nuclear reactors will be significan
Why do you think Obama is for “clean coal” and Nuclear? Because 50% (20% Nuclear today) of our electricit
Dr. Chu, Obama’s Energy Dept Head, was asked since solar is now a proven technolgy why are utilities not putting up millions of them. His response, “the price of solar would have to fall by a factor of 5 to 10 for that to happen”. Google his interviews
Even people in the solar industry, the true believers of the true believers, don’t see the systems getting much cheaper in the near future because building solar cells has already become a commodity industry. They take a fixed amount of raw materials and the price of those raw materials is not falling and in some cases, like rare earth elements, is rising.
The arguments against Climate Change are as “scientifi
Here is the first, and part of the second of the thirteen points made by the Institute of Physics (the leading Physics organizati
1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptation
2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinat
As for the claim of "censorshi
It remains to be seen, when he releases whatever documentat
Duh!
Let science ask the student how did Jesus re-appear on the third day.
Who was the witness?
When was this evidence collected and substantia
I think a good Christian parent would be decidedly against a scientific analysis of the story of Exodus to be taught to their impresiona
Who played Moses? Harry Truman at Spirit Lake? Let me write that chapter of the Bible now, for the Future Testament.
However I don't worry about presenting skeptical positions because that way we get a chance to learn how to validate data and the innacurate arguments they foster.
In Adams county there lies a crater of questionab
But once the hexagonal diamond layer was found, now they think meteor impact. And this impact may have led to the disappeara
Where is the political divide on this one? What would Al Gore say, or James Inhofe?
For most scientific hypothesis you never hear the word hoax or swindle. You don't need faith either. When you do, its time to change sources of informatio
http://www
IPCC member admits he did not even read 75% of IPCC report (lol again)
http://not
I am beginning to understand why AGW supporters place sooooo much faith in these people - they are obviously paragons of virtue.
One of the unfortunat
Can anyone guess how many belittling comments are made about Gore on a popular HuffPost climate change article, and how many of these are by Republican
Imagine what the status of the current climate change debate would be if the message were instead delivered by a renowned scientist not associated with a political party.
Climate change became political when Gore did his presentati
Clearly, and as this article points out, viewing of the bigger non-politi
Dr. Chu, Obama's Energy Dept. Head is telling us it is NOT “Coal” or “wind and solar”, it’s Coal or Nuclear, Solar and wind can only be 20-25% without storage, and cost 5 times more than coal or nuclear.
Dr Chu, Obama’s Energy Czar, said “the new generation of nuclear reactors will be significan
And unlike Al Gore, Dr Chu is a PhD in PHYSICS and a Nobel Prize winner in PHYSICS, Google Dr. Chu’s many interviews
Suddenly many in the Al Gore camp yell don't listen to science, nuclear is evil!