This blog printed on 100% recycled electrons.
Rep. Kopp has been backpedaling for a week, trying to distance himself from the embarrassing belief in astrology that the original resolution declared before the Senate amended the resolution into meaninglessness. He repeated on SDPB's Dakota Midday today his claim that some of the nuttier text in the resolution was slipped into the resolution by someone in the Legislative Research Council and that he didn't catch it before the House vote.
Wait. Really? If Kopp is suggesting the LRC fudged a bill, that's more than a screw-up or a prank. That's an unelected bureaucrat attempting to subvert the legislative process by hijacking legislation written by an elected official. Even on a resolution, that's an enormous accusation. If it were true, I would expect a lot of shouting and heads rolling.
But I seriously doubt the Legislative Research Council would risk the public trust by daring to insert an entire paragraph of "goobledy-guck," as Kopp called it on SDPB this noon. And even if that remarkable claim were true, can we accept Kopp's further claim that neither he nor the 35 other House members who approved the original laughable text noticed the gobbledy-guck? Only if we assume that resolutions really mean so little to legislators that they aren't paying attention.
Kopp certainly seems to wish now that no one were paying attention to his resolution. More than once in today's SDPB interview, Kopp emphasized that his proposal is just a resolution, not a bill, and doesn't require anyone to do anything.
Well, a non-binding resolution certainly doesn't seem to have been his original intent:
Schools in South Dakota should teach both sides of the global warming issue, Republican state Rep. Don Kopp of Rapid City says. Kopp plans to push that idea during the upcoming legislative session with a bill that would require public schools that teach the threats of global warming to also provide students with the skeptical view of climate change.
“If a school is paid for with public funds, if they teach global warming or show Al Gore’s video, as most of our schools here in Rapid City did, then they will have to show the opposing view,” Kopp said Monday. “I believe that’s only fair. If they only hear one side of the story, that’s all they get.”
Kopp said he has pre-filed legislation in the Legislature that would change the law requiring both sides of global warming to be covered in school classes, if the issue is brought up at all. He doesn’t intend to include a penalty for schools that don’t follow the law but also doubts it would be necessary.
“If it passes, I assume they (schools) will follow the law and show both sides of the issue,” he said [emphasis mine; Kevin Woster, "Rapid City lawmaker: Schools should teach both sides of global-warming," Rapid City Journal, 2010.01.04].
Bill. Law. Require. Kevin Woster makes mistakes... but I doubt he'd make that many in one article.
I suspect the GOP leaders talked enough sense into Kopp to get him to go for a resolution. But the above text tells me Kopp wanted a law. He wanted to force science teachers to give equal time to global warming denialism... and maybe astrology. Kopp's resolution, watered down as it is, still declares the anti-science agenda that he wants, and now that the South Dakota Legislature officially wants. By trying to dodge responsibility with more unlikely claims, Kopp only makes his legislative effort more derisible.
I hate to say it, but on this issue, our fair state deserves all the mockery it gets.
-----------------
Update 2010.03.04: Badlands Blue agrees: Kopp's claim of LRC mischief means real scandal in Pierre: either heads roll on the Capitol third floor, or Kopp gets censure for insulting institutional integrity.
"Global warming denialism"? What a hoot! A new term coined by a science-denier.
ReplyDeleteWhile the "astrology" thing was definitely a mistake (probably meant "astronomical" since, while liberals can't seem to grasp that the 11,000 degree star in the middle of our solar system is a likely culprit for planetary warming, most reasonable people realize that astronomy has considerable bearing on conditions here on earth), the silly hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming is what is truly "anti-science."
This wacky hypothesis (I'm being generous, here) is supported only by the wild ideas of people hungry for research grants, and those who like a little "fudge" in their computer models.
The actual science--mountains of it--points overwhelmingly to natural and cyclic climate change going back thousands of years, influenced by things like the sun, the oceans, and such.
For just a taste of why this theory doesn't even deserve air time on a D-grade Sci-Fi Channel Saturday afternoon movie, read this: http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/10/taking-action-against-anthropogenic-global-warming/
You're right about one thing concerning "deserved mockery": anyone who would insist on believing in this unscientific, flimsy, silly theory after having been exposed to the large body of contrary science, does indeed deserve all the mockery they get.
Bob, how can you claim there exists mountains of research against human-caused global warming and claim Cory is a science denier all while ignoring the mountains of evidence that say otherwise?
ReplyDeleteIf you want everyone to openly acknowledge whatever data you're referring to don't you think you should give the majority of scientists' data a chance?
Adam, you have been woefully misled if you think "mountains of evidence" pointing to anthropogenic global warming exists.
ReplyDeleteWe should be careful to distinguish assumption from fact--something that is very, very hard for some people to do. Just because a person--even a scientist--has an idea, doesn't mean that idea is a fact. For some reason, this elementary truth is really hard for some people to grasp, but it is critical that it be realized.
Unfortunately for those who contend human activity is dangerously warming our planet, that is absolutely all they have available to support their hypothesis: conjecture.
Even the much-vaunted climate models are only that: models. They attempt to project climate change, they do not measure it. And they do a lousy job of predicting because even in the limited years they've been attempting to make projections, those projections have proved sorely off base. And when you consider that these models, as illustrated by the leaked model code from the Climate Research Unit, have built-in "fudge factors" (because they simply don't have the hard data to make a scientific projection)...well, to any reasonable person, it becomes astonishingly apparent that the theory of AGW is nothing more than what it contends to be about: hot air.
I encourage you to read the information to which I provided a link. And follow those links to their sources. You will quickly find that the actual scientific evidence points overwhelmingly to natural and cyclic change. Meanwhile, there is simply no substantive scientific data which points to a conclusion of AGW.
So Bob:
ReplyDeleteHow old is the solar system?
You beat me to it Larry. Talk about science deniers Bob takes the cake with his young earth theory.
ReplyDeleteYup, Ellis's science chops bite the big one. But what's worse, so do his logic, philosophy, theology, and etiquette skills. He needs to go back to school and hit the books for real this time.
ReplyDeleteBill, I noticed you didn't respond with any scientific information to attempt to contradict or refute what I said...and it's probably good that you didn't try because there isn't any (conjecture and "fudged" computer models don't count as real science, in case you were wondering).
ReplyDeleteYour attempt at insulting my grasp of science is indeed the pot calling the kettle black. You don't seem to know enough about real science to even know how astonishingly ignorant you are. You are so clueless, you think a loose hypothesis is the same thing as scientific fact. And your feeble grasp of science makes you look like a giant compared to your understanding of theology.
You must think you're a god of some kind; only God can create reality simply by thinking it. Outside of God, liberals are the only creatures in the universe who believe something is real just because the notion pops into their head.
I can understand this kind of blind thrashing around from someone who is ignorant, i.e. they simply haven't been exposed to the the information. I was ignorant at one time...though most of the time I didn't make a fool of myself by publicly arguing things about which I was clueless. But to be so obtuse that one can't even accept reality when it's presented to them on a silver platter? Only a truly closed mind can accomplish that feat.
Of course, the possibility exists that it isn't a mental issue at all for you. It may very well be that you actually do understand how thin is the evidence for the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, and that there simply isn't nearly enough real scientific information to raise it beyond a very loose hypothesis. It could be that you know this, but find the hypothesis to be a very convenient theory to advance your socialist agenda--one too convenient to abandon until it has been made a total laughingstock...which it is already known as by many, and is well on the way to being recognized by most.
As for etiquette, you have me there. I've never been much for entertaining ideas that are absurd on their face, nor have I ever had a whole lot of patience with people who are too stupid to realize how ignorant they are--especially when the ignorance they're peddling advances assaults on my freedom and my country.
I've always found more value for everyone concerned in being straight up with people than coddling them in their errors and pretending they aren't wrong. How else are people going to figure out that they're wrong unless you tell them?