PDA

View Full Version : South Dakota House Passes HRC 1009!



Buzz
03-05-2010, 02:38 PM
The South Dakota House of Representatives passed a resolution urging that instruction in the public schools be balanced between global warming advocates and skeptics. There is nothing shocking about that.

The shocking development in HRC 1009 is what the bill urges global warming instruction in the public schools should include:


That there are a variety of climatological, meteorological, astrological, thermological, cosmological, and ecological dynamics that can effect world weather phenomena and that the significance and interrelativity of these factors is largely speculative.

Astrology: “the divination of the supposed influences of the stars and planets on human affairs and terrestrial events by their positions and aspects.”

Cosmology: “a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe” or “a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe” or “a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe.”

Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that investigates principles of reality transcending those of any particular science.

Thermology is a medical imaging technique in which an infrared camera is used to generate an image of the body or an area of interest. This technique is noninvasive, and requires no physical contact with the patient. It can be used as a diagnostic tool for a range of medical conditions and can be performed in a hospital, clinic, or doctor's office, as long as the facility has the necessary equipment.


How cool is that? :cool: My sister-in-law is in the SD Senate. I was relieved when she told me that she voted against the bill...

I guess this is what happens when a bunch of politicians that don't know shite about science, let alone the english language get involved.

YardleyLabs
03-05-2010, 02:45 PM
Well, if those Islamic jihadists are going to lead their followers back to the 12th century to try to rekindle their crusade to conquer the west, we need to respond in kind. Maybe we can drive science all the way back to the birth of Jesus of Nazareth.:rolleyes:

subroc
03-05-2010, 03:05 PM
I like the wording of that sentence. It beats the phrase "man caused global warming is settled science"

Buzz
03-05-2010, 03:10 PM
Gosh I missed one on my first read.

Is interrelativity a word????:confused:

I hope they do better with the language in bills that the state might have to defend in court!

YardleyLabs
03-05-2010, 03:11 PM
As Merriam Webster on-line says "The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above." No spelling suggestions are offered.....

Buzz
03-05-2010, 03:13 PM
As Merriam Webster on-line says "The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above." No spelling suggestions are offered.....


I need to dig out my copy of the Archie Bunker edition.;-)

Franco
03-05-2010, 03:29 PM
[quote=YardleyLabs;578388]

Maybe we can drive science all the way back to the birth of Jesus of Nazareth.:rolleyes:

/quote]

Traveling south of the Mason Dixon is all the time-travel anyone needs! We're still debating the existence of dynasaurs.

YardleyLabs
03-05-2010, 03:37 PM
[quote=YardleyLabs;578388]

Maybe we can drive science all the way back to the birth of Jesus of Nazareth.:rolleyes:

/quote]

Traveling south of the Mason Dixon is all the time-travel anyone needs! We're still debating the existence of dynasaurs.
I grew up in Oak Ridge, TN, 80 miles northeast of where the Scopes Trial was held to try John Scopes for the crime of teaching evolution in his high school class.

Cody Covey
03-05-2010, 03:41 PM
just watched a documentary on Oak Ridge :)

cotts135
03-06-2010, 06:15 AM
The South Dakota House of Representatives passed a resolution urging that instruction in the public schools be balanced between global warming advocates and skeptics. There is nothing shocking about that.

The shocking development in HRC 1009 is what the bill urges global warming instruction in the public schools should include:



Astrology: “the divination of the supposed influences of the stars and planets on human affairs and terrestrial events by their positions and aspects.”

Cosmology: “a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe” or “a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe” or “a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe.”

Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that investigates principles of reality transcending those of any particular science.

Thermology is a medical imaging technique in which an infrared camera is used to generate an image of the body or an area of interest. This technique is noninvasive, and requires no physical contact with the patient. It can be used as a diagnostic tool for a range of medical conditions and can be performed in a hospital, clinic, or doctor's office, as long as the facility has the necessary equipment.


How cool is that? :cool: My sister-in-law is in the SD Senate. I was relieved when she told me that she voted against the bill...

I guess this is what happens when a bunch of politicians that don't know shite about science, let alone the english language get involved.

I wonder if those same intellectuals invested there money with this guy.:rolleyes:

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/sec_charges_americas_prophet_with_fraud_investors. php?ref=fpa

Marvin S
03-06-2010, 12:31 PM
The South Dakota House of Representatives passed a resolution urging that instruction in the public schools be balanced between global warming advocates and skeptics. There is nothing shocking about that.

The shocking development in HRC 1009 is what the bill urges global warming instruction in the public schools should include:



Astrology: “the divination of the supposed influences of the stars and planets on human affairs and terrestrial events by their positions and aspects.”

Cosmology: “a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe” or “a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe” or “a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe.”

Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that investigates principles of reality transcending those of any particular science.

Thermology is a medical imaging technique in which an infrared camera is used to generate an image of the body or an area of interest. This technique is noninvasive, and requires no physical contact with the patient. It can be used as a diagnostic tool for a range of medical conditions and can be performed in a hospital, clinic, or doctor's office, as long as the facility has the necessary equipment.


How cool is that? :cool: My sister-in-law is in the SD Senate. I was relieved when she told me that she voted against the bill...

I guess this is what happens when a bunch of politicians that don't know shite about science, let alone the english language get involved.

You're concerned about a resolution? In political speak that's non binding but an indication that there are zealots in the system who are only advancing one theory. I would note to you that the SD educational system makes proper use of their resources in most cases.

When I was back to my 50th I was basically told by a staff member that they knew what was best & were not interested in input from those who were not in the educator's loop :). I guarantee that I remember that statement when I receive solicitations. Though I do help the Alumni Association when requested.




[quote=Franco;578407] I grew up in Oak Ridge, TN, 80 miles northeast of where the Scopes Trial was held to try John Scopes for the crime of teaching evolution in his high school class.

To attempt to compare SD natives with the thumpers from the Bible belt is indicative of your lack of knowledge of REAL people, you need to stay in your own crowd :confused:.

About 5-6 years ago the SD politicians placed into law the most restrictive anti-abortion law in the nation. SD being reasonably tolerant, Christian & small it's a fertile place for this type of action.

SD also has a right of petition - when the law was passed, a petition was circulated, secured a place on the ballot & the law was overturned :o. It said much about the people of the state, if you overstep you will be called to account.

It's apparent you are in your element in PA, but Buzz needs to think of moving, he doesn't like how things happen in SD. I'm sure one of those bright young people from SDSD&T could more than adequately fill his shoes ;-).

YardleyLabs
03-06-2010, 12:47 PM
...
To attempt to compare SD natives with the thumpers from the Bible belt is indicative of your lack of knowledge of REAL people, you need to stay in your own crowd :confused:.

....
If you read my post you would have realized that it was a direct reply to Franco's comment where he said "Traveling south of the Mason Dixon is all the time-travel anyone needs! We're still debating the existence of dynasaurs." since I too grew up in a similar part of the country. I was not commenting on SoDak at all, although in an earlier comment I certainly ridiculed the notion of politicians attempting to define acceptable scientific truths.

Buzz
03-06-2010, 01:11 PM
It's apparent you are in your element in PA, but Buzz needs to think of moving, he doesn't like how things happen in SD. I'm sure one of those bright young people from SDSD&T could more than adequately fill his shoes ;-).


If I go anywhere, the company will be going with me.;-) No big deal to the state, we're pretty small potatoes. I would hope it won't be too many years before I can split my time between here and somewhere where I can train dogs in the winter time.

I don't have a lot of concern about a non binding resolution. What concerns me is people who would introduce a resolution and vote to pass it without actually understanding what it says. It also makes me wonder about the quality of debate that took place before a vote.

ducknwork
03-06-2010, 02:05 PM
What concerns me is people who would introduce a resolution and vote to pass it without actually understanding what it says. It also makes me wonder about the quality of debate that took place before a vote.

Hmmm. Sounds familiar. Kinda like the current boondoggle that is being 'discussed' in DC.

Henry V
03-07-2010, 08:26 AM
Hmmm. Sounds familiar. Kinda like the current boondoggle that is being 'discussed' in DC.

If you are you talking about health care reform, I could not agree more. A year of demonizing and right wing talking point (aka, lies) has had its effect on the public (see RNC slides for guidance).

When the pieces of the reform bill are explained to people there is much more support. http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/8042.cfm
and http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/01/when_explained_health_bill_pop.html

You are absolutely right, people do need to read and understand what is in this bill before they buy the talking points of either side.

Hew
03-07-2010, 03:57 PM
...although in an earlier comment I certainly ridiculed the notion of politicians attempting to define acceptable scientific truths.
Unless it's global warming.

YardleyLabs
03-07-2010, 05:44 PM
Unless it's global warming.
No, I don't think government should be in the business of dictating what science is taught or practiced with respect to global warming (When did I ever suggest that it should?). I do believe that government needs to make policy judgments based on the best science available to it, recognizing that our scientific understanding of most things evolves over time and is always probabilistic. As I understand it, the best science available suggests that we are facing global climate change attributable in part to human activity.

From a policy perspective, I believe we have a stewardship responsibility with respect to the earth to minimize our negative impact. That includes a responsibility to evaluate our activities to assess the damage they might cause. Obviously we will have an impact no matter what we do, but we can choose how responsible we wish to be. We have known for some time that polluting the air is a bad thing. We have also known for some time that carbon dioxide is a pollutant that, along with sulfur, contributes to acid rain that is killing the Smokies and lakes in New England, among other things. With or without global warming, it needs to be regulated in a manner that forces the producers to pay the true cost of production rather than having free reign to continue polluting.

From a policy perspective, I also believe that we need to begin preparing to address some of the consequences of global climate change that appear more and more inevitable. That includes improving our understanding of how climate change and melting in the north and south are likely to affect both our own geography and that of our allies around the world.

What is wrong from a policy perspective, is to vote for inaction while waiting for a level of proof of harm that can never be matched. The burden of proof, in my mind, rests on those polluting our world. They shuld be called on to mitigate their impact, or prove scientifically that their actions are harmless over the long term.

Marvin S
03-07-2010, 06:12 PM
Unless it's global warming.

:) :) :) :) :).............

Hew
03-08-2010, 05:45 AM
No, I don't think government should be in the business of dictating what science is taught or practiced with respect to global warming (When did I ever suggest that it should?). Your previous quote generically suggested that politicians shouldn't determine scientific truths, but you don't seem to be bothered when they accept the scientific "truths" you believe in...such as global warming. This post of yours fleshes out what you meant and makes a lot more sense. Politicians determine on a daily basis what scientific truths to believe (as do the rest of us). I do believe that government needs to make policy judgments based on the best science available to it, recognizing that our scientific understanding of most things evolves over time and is always probabilistic. "As I understand it," the best science "available" "suggests" that we are facing global climate change attributable "in part" to human activity. I put all the qualifers in your above sentence in underlined quotations. That's an awful lot of qualifying. I appreciate your honesty and openmindedness that what we think we know about global warming is not set in concrete. On the other hand, I think it highly imprudent to hamstring our economy and our way of life responding to what may or may not be fact and which we may or may not be able to effect (as your qualifying words indicate).

.....................

YardleyLabs
03-08-2010, 05:56 AM
...I put all the qualifers in your above sentence in underlined quotations. That's an awful lot of qualifying. I appreciate your honesty and openmindedness that what we think we know about global warming is not set in concrete. On the other hand, I think it highly imprudent to hamstring our economy and our way of life responding to what may or may not be fact and which we may or may not be able to effect (as your qualifying words indicate).
The problem is that those same businesses are making their own judgments when they pollute our environment without cost of liability for consequential damages. It was common, and understandable, 100 years ago and even 50 years ago to assume that nature's ability to absorb what man does without long term consequences. There is no excuse for making similar assumptions today. We have learned too much about how easy it is to damage our world. The responsibility for proving safety rests with those seeking to use the air, water or soil as a dumping place for waste or to incorporate the full cost of managing those wastes appropriately in the price of production. That is not being done now. It should be.

Hew
03-08-2010, 06:27 AM
The problem is that those same businesses are making their own judgments when they pollute our environment without cost of liability for consequential damages. It was common, and understandable, 100 years ago and even 50 years ago to assume that nature's ability to absorb what man does without long term consequences. There is no excuse for making similar assumptions today. We have learned too much about how easy it is to damage our world.
30 to 40 years or so ago environmentalists/scientists pushed us to decide that nuclear power was not the way to go...too dangerous, concerns about the waste, etc. So instead of relatively clean nuclear powered electricity we now have fuel-burning electrical plants all over the country that are the largest producers of CO2. So you'll please forgive me if I cast a suspicious eye towards the same people who largely got us where we are today when they propose to save us (yet again) from ourselves. They were wrong about the dangers of nuclear power. They were wrong about the supposed coming ice age. Fool me three times....

YardleyLabs
03-08-2010, 06:43 AM
30 to 40 years or so ago environmentalists/scientists pushed us to decide that nuclear power was not the way to go...too dangerous, concerns about the waste, etc. So instead of relatively clean nuclear powered electricity we now have fuel-burning electrical plants all over the country that are the largest producers of CO2. So you'll please forgive me if I cast a suspicious eye towards the same people who largely got us where we are today when they propose to save us (yet again) from ourselves. They were wrong about the dangers of nuclear power. They were wrong about the supposed coming ice age. Fool me three times....
Those same environmentalists also convinced us not to continue dumping untreated waste into our oceans and rivers so that it is now actually possible to eat fish caught near my house without dying (as long as you don't eat too many). They also created the pressures that led to dramatic cleanups of air pollution so that there are fewer days when schools have to close to avoid poisoning our children. On the issue of nuclear energy, I believe you are both right and wrong as were environmentalists. 40 years ago incompetence from the operators of three mile island resulted in discharges that threatened the population surrounding Philadelphia. The fact that it did not turn out as badly as in Russia was not through any "fault" of the operators. And today we face significant problems because we have still not figured out how to handle the waste products from reactors over the next few thousand years until they are no longer deadly. In my own hometown of Oak Ridge, that led to a multi-billion dollar cleanup industry. But my father and most of his friends who worked in those early reactors seem to have died quite young from cancer. I believe that nuclear energy represents one of our best options for low carbon footprint energy production. But we must never forget the cost of even small mistakes in the management of reactors and reactor waste, and we still need to make sure we design to manage thermal pollution generated by the plants.

dnf777
03-08-2010, 07:02 AM
Didn't Nancy Reagan admit to using psychics (not coffee enemas! :D)and astrologers before influencing her husband's decisions?

Aside, I'm surprised that whoever wrote that bill gave no mention to soothsayers, tea-leaves, and tarot cards! Sounds like their lack of scientific knowledge is rivaled only by their lack of command of the english language

Pete
03-08-2010, 07:33 AM
Buzz
Astrology is the perverted black art of the stars. It isnt science. Could have been a goof.
Astronomy is a science

Pete