Regular readers of the Thumb will recall that in February, the
Ohio State Board of Education removed the "critical analysis of evolution" standard, benchmark, and lesson plan from the state's science standards. The matter was referred to the Achievement Committee of the Board, with instructions to consider whether a replacement should be inserted, and if so, what it should be. That was a hammer blow to the creationists on the board and to the Disco Institute.
Now, consistent with the creationist tradition of repackaging old trash, we learn that the creationists on the Achievement Committee of the Ohio State BOE are pushing yet another load of of the same odoriferous garbage, this time extending it to include global warming as well as evolution. This is the Disco Institute's replacement for its failed "teach the controversy about evolution" tactic, broadening it to include still more pseudoscience.
More below the fold.
First, recall the
Wedge document's Governing Goals:
To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.
In aid of the latter, the Disco Institute and its allies are widening their assault on science in Michigan and Ohio.
We have learned that at the Board's June retreat, shielded from the scrutiny of the public and the press, a subset of the Achievement Committee discussed a proposal to implement the Discovery Institute's latest strategy. Watchdog groups did not attend because this meeting was not scheduled on the OBE agenda. Thus, the meeting appears to violate sunshine laws.
The proposal brewing in the Achievement Committee is very similar to a bill recently introduced in the Michigan legislature -- see
Ed Brayton's posts on the Michigan situation. Part of the Michigan bill, supported by the Disco Institute, says
(a) Use the scientific method to critically evaluate scientific theories including, but not limited to, the theories of global warming and evolution.
Apparently, as in football, there's a race between Ohio and Michigan creationists to subvert science.
Why global warming? Religious attacks on global warming/climate science have been growing, and they parallel attacks on evolution. As with evolutionary theory, the scientific consensus is clear. According to
a very recent report from the National Research Council, the earth's temperature is increasing rapidly, and the increase is at least partly anthropogenic.
The committee pointed out that surface temperature reconstructions for periods before the Industrial Revolution -- when levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases were much lower -- are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that current warming is occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence. (Emphasis added)
The science is there.
Like the attacks on evolution, the attack on climate science is driven by the sectarian conviction that "materialistic" science is untrustworthy and must be replaced. As with intelligent design creationism, science-deniers' so-called evidence takes the form of claims for the insufficiency of current scientific explanations rather than concrete, testable alternative hypotheses. As in the evolution debate, religious extremists use the clever strategy of denigrating the scientific consensus on causality (global warming is human-caused via pollution) by pretending it contrasts sharply with an alternative scientific theory that, properly-understood, is really just a more nuanced view that's not really in opposition (current global warming is part of the earth's natural cycle but is being exacerbated by pollution). This exaggerates the intensity of normal scientific debate in order to suggest there's something wrong with climate science, and then uses this manufactured controversy to cloak the anti-science view and smuggle it into classrooms -- sectarian religious evangelism masquerading as science.
The Ohio proposal being considered takes a legitimate passage (originally taken directly from the National Science Standards) in the current Scientific Ways of Knowing section of Ohio's
Science Standards (10th Grade Indicator 2 under Benchmark A, pp. 90, 146, 237) and sabotages it by tacking on a section directing students to apply it preferentially to Evolution and Global Warming (and cloning & stem cell research). The effect would be to undermine students' understanding of scientific methods and processes by singling out evolution and climate science for special scrutiny not needed in other sciences. Once again, the Ohio State Board of Education is being pushed to set Dover traps for unwary local districts.
We urge our friends in Ohio to attend the July Ohio State Board of Education meeting, and to contact
their representative on the board. The July meeting is July 10th and 11th at the Ohio School for the Deaf, 500 Morse Road, Columbus. The meeting agenda is
here. The Achievement Committee meets at 9:00 a.m. Monday, July 10, in the Delaware Room. The President of the Board has apparently set aside time on the agenda of the full board to discuss the matter, but our current information is that there's no concrete proposal ready for Board action yet.
RBH
84 Comments
Wheels · 6 July 2006
So basically they tried to circumvent the "Why are you singling out Evolution?" inquiry by also attacking global warming and embryo-related medical science, issues religious conservatives have been vocal about for years? And not even half a year after they failed to attack evolution the first time?
Clearly they have discovered an unstoppable Juggernaut of a tactic.
normdoering · 7 July 2006
sparc · 7 July 2006
Posted by normdoering: They like some science
They do not like science at all. At best they accept knowledge that is necessary for engineering. They just do not care about the scientific background of any technology, they just need some simple rules to follow and some easy explanations that will not challenge their attitudes. Strange though, that they prefer these rules and explanations being expressed in scientific-like terms. On the other hand this habit explains why Dembski can abandon any upcoming reasonable discussion over at uncommondescent by a few bold printed ex cathedra statements.
Michael Suttkus, II · 7 July 2006
Why do they hate global warming? Several reasons, including those given by normdoering. The basics are:
1. Genesis 1:28 "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."
The key here is "have dominion". WE rule the Earth as God rules us, in their mindset. The Earth doesn't get to smack back.
2. It smacks of a rather incompetent designer if he makes a world where the mere success of his favored species mucks up the air conditioning.
(Has anybody checked to see if the filters need replaced? That's usually the problem when my house gets too hot. I'm not sure where Earth's dust filters are, but I'm sure somebody knows.)
3. Their partners in the unholy alliance of the Religious Wrong and the Republican Party (which used to be conservative, once) like having business unfettered by restraints, moral or financial. Global Warming and attempts to deal with it annoy them, so their friends in the RW are willing to help out by denouncing it. Deny it enough times and it will surely go away.
4. I doubt this is actually a reason, but it amuses me to note that if a relatively small change in the gas composition of the atmosphere can produce global warming, creationist canards like Noah's flood and the infamous "vapor canopy" are made to look truly preposterous. Not that they don't look truly preposterous on any given day, but this just highlights it.
Brendan Hogg · 7 July 2006
Michael makes many good points in #110468. But there's also the fact that many of the fundie base seriously believe that the End Times are a-coming soon, and so the "some time in the next few decades things will get much more difficult" message of Global Warming is essentially irrelevant to them (they'll have been Raptured, and rising sea levels etc. are as nothing to the Tribulations the rest of us will be living through), even if they did accept the science.
Tim Lambert · 7 July 2006
They've explicitly made the connection themselves, writing: "It is ironic that many supporters of the ECI rely heavily on the claim of scientific consensus to buttress their view of global warming. The role of the IPCC in climate studies is similar to that of the Jesus Seminar in New Testament scholarship in the 1990s and Darwinism for the past century."
Heinz Kiosk · 7 July 2006
They don't understand science at all. They assess the truth value of scientific propositions according to their emotional reaction to them. Any scientific conclusion that is disliked emotionally is automatically labelled as "junk science" and rejected. No consideration of the evidence needs to get in the way of the jettisonning of inconvenient science. The thought process runs as follows:
"It would be real bad if global warming were true, so it is false"
"Evolution doesn't sound anything like Genesis, which Christ endorsed. If the Bible is wrong about that it might be wrong about other things, and I might not be going to heaven, so evolution must be false."
"If goo to zoo to you is true then absolute morality doesn't exist which would be really terrible, so evolution must be wrong"
It horrifies me that conservatism is being hijacked by the wilfully ignorant, who expect the universe to adjust itself to fit their emotional comfort.
Mephisto · 7 July 2006
I'm not being aggressive here, but what exactly are you going to do about it? I don't think I'm wrong in saying it's the responsibility of other genuine conservatives to take their movement back by the scruff of the neck and shake some sense into it. Are you prepared to vote against candidates who espouse this nonsense even if they otherwise agree with your political worldview? Are you prepared to support moderates in primary elections against them, even if apart from those issues you'd rather support the anti-science candidate? Are you prepared to aggressively support candidates who wish to stamp this sort of thing out, even if they're a different type of conservative to you?
I read FreeRepublic some times, mostly because the majority on the site are stark-raving lunatics and it provides a bit of light entertainment, and I've seen exactly what you're talking about. There'll be some knuckle-dragging anti-evolutionary article, and as soon as someone voices the slightest bit of concern, they're shouted down and called a "liberal" or "anti-god" or some other kind of brownshirt-like nonssense. Are you prepared to be the guy on FreeRepublic campaigning to make others join the 21st century?
It shocks me the degree to which science has become a partisan issue in America. It doesn't bode well for the generation of the future and the advancement of its culture.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 7 July 2006
Ron Okimoto · 7 July 2006
Critically analyze the two "controversies." What are the alternatives for global warming, and what is the scientific evidence for each? What are the alternatives for biological evolution and what is the evidence for each. If this is done properly, you get students to feel for the sliding scale of science. There is some science on both sides for the global warming issue, and it is an example where one side has the preponderance of evidence. On the other hand even the godfather of the ID/creationist/Wedge strategy admits that there is no science worth mentioning in the religious controversy about biological evolution. Just put up the Dover transcripts and Johnson's quotes about this, along with all the IDiots backtracking and claiming that ID might amount to something in the future.
The evolution controversy turns out to be scam. The global warming issue turns out to have some gray areas, but scam is still a part of the controversy because the side with the least evidence backing them up is advocating their side not because of the weak science, but for political reasons. There are politics on both sides of the global warming issue, but you can still knock one side more than the other, and what is the losing side resorting to? ID scam like tactics can be used by anyone that wants to use ignorance to further their political goals.
You'd have to see the lesson plan to see if it is a scam plan or they really want to educate the students about these issues.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 7 July 2006
Anthony Kerr · 7 July 2006
A meeting at the Ohio school for the deaf eh? Is this a portent?
(This recalls a line by insensitive British comedy character Alan Partridge. "My new house is next to a special school for deaf children. Just to clarify - does this mean there will or won't be noise?")
Mephisto · 7 July 2006
Back of the net!
Gerard Harbison · 7 July 2006
Pete Dunkelberg · 7 July 2006
Real Climate . org fyi.
Mephisto · 7 July 2006
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply he wasn't already. I should should have said "What are you doing about it," as opposed to "What are you going to do about it."
A lot of conservatives who know better tend to stay on the sidelines on these issues because the fundies are better at braying and kicking up a fuss and they don't want to be seen as liberals or whatever. Heinz might be an exception to that rule, but I do think the rule still stands.
I agree with Lenny on this one - we need to make it so that running as a fundie makes you unelectable. Part of that is real conservatives calling them out for what they are - ignorant, embarrassing fundies.
Tricia from Ohio · 7 July 2006
I wish I could... My board rep is Cochran, and I can't be nice to him. I'm on vacation that week, so I will get there one way or another....
normdoering · 7 July 2006
normdoering · 7 July 2006
Heinz Kiosk · 7 July 2006
As I am a British conservative there is little I can do about it other than what I am already doing on FreeRepublic, which is trying to show that you don't have to reject well-evidenced science to be a conservative. I don't think that pro-science posters on FR can possibly get anywhere with the hardcore bible-bashers but it wouldn't surprise me to learn that quite a few lurkers take something away from the debates; that one side calmly uses reason and logic and evidence, while the other side shrieks, "Jesus wasn't a liar!" and "My Grandaddy wasn't no ape!". I've personally had quite a few private emails to that effect from lurkers.
FWIW there is quite a large crowd of pro-science types on FreeRepublic. A Freeper called PatrickHenry runs an anti-ignorance pinglist with almost 400 names on it, all of whom have to show a history of opposing the neo-luddites with reason and evidence before he'll let them onto the list. We have to keep this thing in perspective too. What I note is that the creatIDiots keep losing, again and again, whenever these things are tested in the courts. What goes around comes around, half of the Bible Bashers would have been Democrats a couple of generations ago. The idea that religious fundamentalism is conflated with political conservatism is a new one, and appears to be largely confined to the USA from what I can see.
Bruce Thompson GQ · 7 July 2006
Lets see:
Piss off a bunch of people by diluting science standards and introducing religious based beliefs. That didn't work, so broaden the attack to include other areas and piss off even more people. Yea that's the ticket. If we can piss off enough people we will surely win and change the way science is practiced.
So get out your divining rods and start looking for fresh water. Aliquot, freeze and start selling your water. Under the new paradigm it's all very scientific, pretty to look at, reinforces family values, a low overhead, a high profit margin, and is good for the economy.
Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)
Bill Gascoyne · 7 July 2006
Tony · 7 July 2006
Mike · 7 July 2006
"What goes around comes around, half of the Bible Bashers would have been Democrats a couple of generations ago. The idea that religious fundamentalism is conflated with political conservatism is a new one, and appears to be largely confined to the USA from what I can see."
You can't simply identify Democrat => liberal and Republican => conservative. The Bible Bashers in the Democratic Party weren't liberals just because, for historical reasons, they were loyal to the Democratic Party. Their Democratic Party was the party of Jeff Davis, not of FDR. They started to leave the Democrats over the civil rights movement and the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s and moved to the Republicans, which by then was their natural home.
Mephisto · 7 July 2006
As I am a British conservative there is little I can do about it other than what I am already doing on FreeRepublic,"
I'm British myself. Fortunately, despite the differences between the left and the right on this side of the pond, we still share a consensus on these sorts of issues. I don't know if you're a Dave Cameron supporter or not, but I think he demonstrates that consensus with his activism on the environment, the apparently genuine desire to increase the wellbeing of all British subjects, and most importantly a complete antipathy to accusations of being anti-British or treasonous like are so often bandied about in American politics. We aren't any where near as fragmented, and thankfully science is far from being a partisan issue. Even people on the 'right' of the party like David Davis aren't ideologues. I think the same is true of the rest of the parties, too.
I'm a Labour supporter myself, but I still feel that I can have conservatives as friends without feeling there's an unbridgeable gap between our two positions - and thus always feeling a bit uncomfortable around them. I don't think I could feel the same in the US, though.
steve s · 7 July 2006
caerbannog · 7 July 2006
Because 1) Democrat Al Gore made it a political football recently with his movie....
If Al Gore isn't the right person to engage the public, then who is? Let's not dismiss Al Gore as a "political football" player. He has been trying to raise public awareness of the challenges of global warming for decades. And his movie has the solid backing of the scientific community -- and here is an example of that support:
(from http://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/article_detail.cfm?article_num=734)
Experts at UCSD's Scripps Oceanography Available to Discuss Global Warming and "An Inconvenient Truth"
Film by former vice president thrusts issues related to climate change into spotlight
In the coming weeks, former Vice President Al Gore's film, "An Inconvenient Truth," (www.climatecrisis.net), will be released nationally and in the San Diego region beginning June 9. The movie focuses on problems associated with global warming-driven changes and draws attention to climate change issues.
Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, has been at the forefront of climate change research for more than 50 years, beginning with the early studies of Charles David Keeling on carbon dioxide concentrations and the vision of former Scripps Director Roger Revelle of the future of the planet and the impact of greenhouse gases.
In an effort to engage the public and help them understand the issues featured in "An Inconvenient Truth," Scripps has compiled a list of qualified graduate students and faculty who have volunteered to be contacted regarding questions related to the film. Their expert insights can help raise awareness of the importance of the film and also exemplify scientists' willingness to contribute to public understanding of these critical issues.
If global-warming has been made into a political football, don't blame Al Gore. Blame the religious right, right-wing talk-radio, and the industry-funded global-warming denier echo-chamber.
luna_the_cat · 7 July 2006
Salvador T. Cordova · 7 July 2006
steve s · 7 July 2006
RBH · 7 July 2006
Deltoid has more on the religious basis of global warming denial.
RBH
Heinz Kiosk · 7 July 2006
Tara · 7 July 2006
RBH, could you break the school board down between pro- and anti-ID, for those of us who are out of state but want to write in anyway? Who would you recommend we contact?
Ike Solem · 7 July 2006
I'm always surprised at scientists who don't understand how the larger economic-political world operates, particularly when the academic environment is so politically cutthroat in matters of funding and prestige. This is political maneuvering disguised as religiousity, with an economic end in mind.
The American Enterprise Institute is funded by the established vested interests, and the world's biggest vested interest is the Empire of Coal and Oil, which obviously doesn't want to abandon its business, and has been doing everything it can to stop meaningful action on CO2 emmissions.
Tying global warming to "evilution" and passing it all over as a package to the religious right is a deliberate political strategy. You're looking at a clash between scientific facts and political-economic interests; not the first time this has happened, is it? I mean, we can all accept that the atmospheric gas composition of Mars and Venus affects the surface temperature of the planet - but not here on Earth? What?
Of course, if you talk too much about economics and science you run into something called Bayh-Dole, and then you end up with very uncomfortable realizations about the current state of US academic institutions - read Jennifer Washburns "University, Inc." (and weep).
Michael Suttkus, II · 7 July 2006
Raguel · 7 July 2006
It occurs to me, ever since I encountered the word "apologetics", that apologetics is what creationists love and engage in, not science.
Richard Simons · 7 July 2006
Perhaps school boards that want to include 'teach the controversy' would be discouraged if they were presented with a sample of how this would appear in a textbook.
"Recently the theory of evolution has been faced with vociferous criticism from non-biologists . . . Intelligent Design makes no predictions, therefore it is untestable and as you will recall from the definition of a scientific theory, it has no claim to be called a theory . . . The arguments of ID consist solely of endlessly recycled, long-refuted criticisms of the theory of evolution and the implication that the first chapters of Genesis should be taken literally, a minority view even amongst Christians."
Richard Simons · 7 July 2006
Perhaps school boards that want to include 'teach the controversy' would be discouraged if they were presented with a sample of how this would appear in a textbook.
"Recently the theory of evolution has been faced with vociferous criticism from non-biologists . . . Intelligent Design makes no predictions, therefore it is untestable and as you will recall from the definition of a scientific theory, it has no claim to be called a theory . . . The arguments of ID consist solely of endlessly recycled, long-refuted criticisms of the theory of evolution and the implication that the first chapters of Genesis should be taken literally, a minority view even amongst Christians."
Patricia Princehouse · 7 July 2006
Tara asked for more specifics:
Those both in & out of state, please call or write to Ohio's Board of Education TODAY to urge them to devote their energy to closing the achievement gap, solving the school funding crisis, and other genuine issues. Encourage them to resist religious extremists pressuring them to corrupt science education in order to co-opt the science classroom for religious conversion.
Politely insist they stand up for freedom of religion, and good science in Ohio's schools! Remember that the strong majority of the Board voted out creationism in Feb. Only Fink, Cochran, Grady & Westendorf voted pro-creationist (note: Baker, Sheets, & Brown were absent). Nevertheless, most Board members are politicians not scientists. They need to hear from you!
+++What to do:
Action 1: Call a board representative (if you get a machine, leave a brief, polite message urging them to leave the standards as is). If you live in the Cleveland area, your rep would be the pro-science but possibly wavering CWRU alum Virgil Brown. 216-851-3304
Action 2: Also call a 2nd person, eg fence-sitters Jim Craig, (330) 492-5533, Carl Wick (937) 433-1352, or Steve Millett (614) 424-5335. If you know anyone in the Canton area, please urge them to call elected rep/committee co-chair Jim Craig, (330) 492-5533
Action 3: Please also write to Board of Ed members to encourage them to resist the proposed creationist standard, especially Taft appointees Millett and Okerson, and elected members Virgil Brown and Jim Craig. List of emails to cut & paste:
Virgil.Brown@ode.state.oh.us , Jim.Craig@ode.state.oh.us , Eross@Buckeye-express.com , Jennifer.Sheets@ode.state.oh.us , Colleen.Grady@ode.state.oh.us , Sam.Schloemer@ode.state.oh.us , Jane.Sonenshein@ode.state.oh.us , Jennifer.Stewart@ode.state.oh.us , sue.westendorf@ode.state.oh.us , Carl.Wick@ode.state.oh.us , Martha.Wise@ode.state.oh.us , Milletts@Battelle.org , eokerson@graydon.com , robhovis@earthlink.net , LouAnn.Harrold@ode.state.oh.us
The only ones I would suggest you NOT waste your breath calling are:
State Board District 6:
Rev. Michael Cochran
(614) 864-2338 (voice)
(614) 863-9751 (fax)
Email: ota@ohiotownships.org
State Board District 7:
Deborah Owens Fink
(330) 972-8079 (voice)
(330) 972-5798 (fax)
E-mail: deb@uakron.edu
-----
Balance of Board members:
President (Member At-Large):
Sue Westendorf
(419) 352-2908 (voice)
(309) 412-9790 (fax)
Email: Sue.Westendorf@ode.state.oh.us
Vice-President (State Board District 9):
Jennifer H. Stewart
(740) 452-4558 (voice)
(740) 452-7754 (fax)
Email: Jennifer.Stewart@ode.state.oh.us
State Board District 1:
Lou Ann Harrold
(419) 675-1743
LouAnn.Harrold@ode.state.oh.us
State Board District 2:
Martha W. Wise
(440) 934-4935 (voice)
(440) 934-6089 (fax)
Email: Martha.Wise@ode.state.oh.us
State Board District 4:
G. R. "Sam" Schloemer
(513) 821-4145 (voice)
(513) 821-2829 (fax)
State Board District 5:
Colleen D. Grady
(440) 572-0239 (voice)
(440) 238-0874 (fax)
Email: Colleen.Grady@ode.state.oh.us
State Board District 8:
Jim Craig
(330) 492-5533 (voice)
(330) 493-1804 (fax)
Email: Jim.Craig@ode.state.oh.us
State Board District 9:
Jennifer H. Stewart --- See previous entry
State Board District 10:
Jane Sonenshein
(513) 831-1870 (voice)
(440) 238-0874 (fax)
Email: Jane.Sonenshein@ode.state.oh.us
State Board District 11:
Virgil E. Brown, Jr.
(216) 851-3304 (voice)
(216) 851-2900 (fax)
Email: Virgil.Brown@ode.state.oh.us
At Large Board Members:
Robin C. Hovis
(330) 674-5000 (voice)
(330) 674-5002 (fax)
robhovis@earthlink.net
Stephen M. Millett
(614) 424-5335 (voice)
(614) 424-3534 (fax)
milletts@battelle.org
Eric C. Okerson
(513) 629-2814
eokerson@graydon.com
Emerson J. Ross, Jr.
(419) 537-1562 (voice)
(419) 531-1509 (fax)
Eross@Buckeye-express.com;
Jennifer L. Sheets
(740) 992-2151
E-mail: Jennifer.Sheets@ode.state.oh.us
Carl Wick
(937) 433-1352 (voice)
(937) 438-0678 (fax)
Email: Carl.Wick@ode.state.oh.us
Richard E. Baker
(937) 997-2101 (voice)
(937) 997-2140 (fax)
-----
FYI- the strongest voices for good science education in Ohio have consistently been traditional Republicans, Christians Martha Wise, Rob Hovis, & Sam Schloemer.
More contact info on www.ohioscience.org
Tara · 7 July 2006
Thank you, Patricia!
normdoering · 7 July 2006
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 7 July 2006
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 7 July 2006
Wayward · 7 July 2006
The things that has always struck me about the global warming debate is one thing - look at the oil company positions on it.
Shell - includes greenhouse gas emissions (and calls them that) in annual reports.
BP - maybe even clearer - "Action is now required to reduce further increases in carbon emmissions as global energy demand rises"
ExxonMobil - a little weaker and typically been a "skeptic" of warming
My point is not that Shell / BP are soft and fuzzy and champions of all things good and wonderful.
But they don't dispute global warming caused by human activity.
Maybe it's just PR; but they're not calling for more "studies" or "critical anaylsis." They're realists - it's happening and denying it just blows their credibility.
steve s · 7 July 2006
Steviepinhead · 7 July 2006
I swear (or affirm) that every time Sal gets tweaked, I hear a sqeak.
A palpable squeak.
Wasn't there a reggae group called Eek-A-Mouse?
The Sal-squeaks sound just like that...
Caledonian · 7 July 2006
Bruce Thompson GQ · 7 July 2006
Anton Mates · 7 July 2006
sparc · 7 July 2006
per · 7 July 2006
Bob O'H · 8 July 2006
Heinz Kiosk · 8 July 2006
Conservatism to me is about maintaining the rights of the individual, not about insisting that some Holy Book, be it the Koran or the Communist Party Manifesto contains all the answers as to how our lives should be lived. Keeping state interference in every facet of peoples lives as small as is consistent with civic order. Allowing the free market to operate wherever possible. Enlightened self interest.
The Middle-Eastern theocrats are totalitarians, and as such unrecognisable to me as conservatives, no matter how often the BBC calls them conservatives. Likewise unreconstructed communists in the old Soviet Union aren't "conservatives" as I understand the word, however often the BBC refers to them that way.
Tim Lambert · 8 July 2006
per misrepresents what Mann Bradley and Hughes wrote in 1998 as well as the findings of the NRC report. See here for a summary of reactions.
Mephisto · 8 July 2006
Conservatism to me is about maintaining the rights of the individual,
You're British, and should know better than this. The individual-rights/neo-liberal type of conservatism came about just prior to and especially with Reagan-Thatcher. Prior to that, conservatives in the West could more easily be characterised as 'paternalist authoritarians.' For example, in Britain, during the rise of the bourgeoise during the Industrial Revolution, demands for laissez-faire economic governance and individual rights were represented by the Liberals, not the Conservatives. It was only after the Conservatives started taking that middle-class ground and the Liberals collapsed that the British Conservatives mutated into a philosophy that's closer to classical liberalism than traditional conservatism representing the landed gentry.
'Conservatism' is an umbrella term, like 'socialism' (from the social democrats of the Labour Party to revolutionary Maoists). While in the West the pro-market, individual-rights grouping is currently dominant, they aren't the only ones. There's still plenty of the old populist authoritarian-types hanging around though: Americans call them paleoconservatives, and here in Britain it's the traditionalist public school Tories. In other places of the world, the authoritarian conservatives are still dominant, particularly in Middle Eastern countries.
The BBC calls them conservatives because they are conservatives in the old sense - resistant to change, promotion of 'traditional values': cultural/religious rather than economic conservatism.
Conservatism is more than just a basic statement of philosophy - it has often changed from positions that you might consider leftist (i.e., economic populism, like that of Pat Buchanan) to Thatcherite-type positions. It has represented different class interests - from the landed gentry to the business middle-class. That's why it's perfectly right to call Middle Eastern authoritarians conservatives, even if the difference between your political opinions and theirs is as great as the difference between mine and yours.
The Wikipedia article on conservatism explains these differences very well.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 8 July 2006
Odd, isn't it, that both the ID and the anti-global-warming nutters have the same basic strategy as the cancer-denying tobacco companies did: deny all the science, and get 'em while they're young.
per · 8 July 2006
Bob Pease · 8 July 2006
I think that the matter is rather simple to address. If the forces of religion wish to share equal time with the forces of Democritus, then it must be worked both ways. The forces of Democritus must have equal time at the pulpit on Sundays to express an alternative view to religion.
We should further extend upon this because it is quite clear that, in both cases, that more views of both creation and evolution must be allowed in both arenas, destroying both institutions. Classroom and pulpit lectures would become so long that the churches would be unable to conduct any weddings or funerals and the school hours would have to extend around the clock and through the week as well.
We separated the church and state for a reason, to save them both from each other.
Laser · 8 July 2006
stevaroni · 8 July 2006
Thought Provoker · 8 July 2006
While I have been reading Panda's Thumb since the Dover trial, this is
the first time I have posted here. I attempted to post this on Uncommon
Descent. It didn't show up. Since it appears they read this blog as
much as their own. I am posting it here.
>If you will allow a new opinion from someone who happens to live in Ohio...
>
>While high level techno-political discussions are important, that isn't the
>specific issue at hand. The question is what to teach our children and
>where do we put our efforts in improving their education.
>
>For those not familiar with what has been going on with education in
>Ohio, we have been distracted with many issues long before the
>evolution controversy. The Ohio Supreme court and the legislature have
>been posturing over funding to the point that nothing is getting their needed
>resources. This on top of new testing requirements, on top of corruption
>scandals, on top of...(you get the idea) The last thing Ohio's education
>system needs is to get caught up in another political controversy.
>
>And for what?
>
>So our children can discuss and argue about topics for which they
>have no fundamental tools to understand?
>
>Let them discuss and argue about whether carbon dioxide has ionic
>or covalent chemical bonds before they render an opinion on whether
>or not it causes global warming.
>
>I would hope and expect those earnestly interested in giving our
>children scientific freedom to also give them the tools to do so intelligently.
Thank You and Regards,
Thought Provoker
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 8 July 2006
stevaroni · 8 July 2006
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 8 July 2006
Well heck, I'm all in FAVOR of global warming. It would allow my beloved cold scalies to once again take their place as the rightful rulers of the world. The warm fuzzies have had a free ride for far too long. Back to the Jurassic!!!, I say.
;)
Seriously, though, the planet has, for most of its history, been warmer than it is now. So if Florida once again becomes sea bottom, life will go on just as it always has. Without, us, though. And, of course, if we as a species do manage to arrogantly push our own selves out of existence by pooping in our own nest, I'd realize that Gaia does indeed have a sense of humor.
Mark Shapiro · 8 July 2006
I often wonder how best to address AGW skepticism, especially in the public at large. I would love some social scientists to research this. This case of co-branding with ID is an interesting clue. It clearly does strike a chord with fundamentalists. It also plays on our fears (and greed). Plus, no one likes to be told, however politely, that that his lifestyle is immoral.
If we want to promote action to reduce the risks of AGW, we could point out that decarbonizing properly, with conservation, efficiency, and renewables, will make us healthier, wealthier, safer, and more secure. And it will make us better stewards of the land.
To our friend per -
Tim Lambert is correct. You did misrepresent MBH 98, but only by about 400 years. You wrote "mlillenium", and then you quote MBH 98's finding extending only to 1400. And the NRC did conclude that the case for AGW was still strong, as Richard's accurate quote of the NRC press release states. You may feel that they exceeded their commission, but I think we all agree that understanding past climate would help us see the future more clearly. After gloating that Mann et al don't understand past climate as well as they thought, you might consider how much riskier that makes the future.
Andrew McClure · 8 July 2006
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 8 July 2006
per · 8 July 2006
sparc · 8 July 2006
Mark Shapiro · 9 July 2006
per -
Sorry - I relied too heavily on your reference to MBH 98, which only covered 600 years and thus didn't match your complaint about MBH's millenium claim. It was indeed MBH 99 that looked back 1,000 years, and the NRC report confirms that we can't rely on that data or the MBH analysis. It was a technicality only. I also apologize for not using KwickXML, which you and others use to make dialogues more clear.
More important, I neglected to explain why the NRC report makes our climate outlook riskier. If we don't understand climate history as well as we thought, it means that we are conducting this uncontrolled experiment on our climate with even less understanding than we thought we had. NRC has "less confidence" in the climate history picture. Your phrase is that the thermometer is bust. Either way it means more variability, or higher error bars, which is how the finance folks think of risk.
What adds to our confusion, of course, is the question of how important MBH 98 and 99 are to AGW, if at all. You ask relevant questions:
"Didn't the NRC also make the clear argument that temperature reconstructions are not the principal evidence for AGW ? Wouldn't it logically follow that this means that the truth or falsity of the reconstructions would then have no effect on the arguments for AGW ?"
The answer to your first question is simply "yes" (which is why Mr. Hoppe quoted the NRC report in his post). If your answer to the second question is also "yes" then Mr. Hoppe's point about AGW is also unaffected. Perhaps this is minor, but I agree with the NRC that we have "less confidence" in our knowledge of past climate, and infer that the uncertainties, or risks, of poking it are thus greater.
fFreddy · 9 July 2006
People, if you want to think of yourselves as defenders of science, then you really need to take a scientific approach to evaluating global warming. Just because the religious twits have started being anti-AGW, it doesn't automatically mean that AGW is right.
The pro-AGW crowd have been guilty of sloppy statistical practise, rampant cherry-picking of data, refusal to disclose data and methods, and other utterly unscientific behaviour. If a pro-science readership like this site is on the AGW side, I can only assume that you have been relying on what you read in the press and on advocacy sites like RealClimate.
Please note that all these arguments about the hockey stick, and whether individual observations of warming are significant, are arguments about statistics. If you don't have the maths skills to engage in such arguments, then you are left with choosing which set of academic credentials to believe.
If you do have the maths skills - and there must be some regulars here who do - then I really recommend you go read up some of the more sensible sites, particularly www.climateaudit.org .
And for the record, I have been rabidly atheist since I was in short trousers, and I have no connection with the oil industry.
fFreddy · 9 July 2006
Re #110600, Wayward
My point is not that Shell / BP are soft and fuzzy and champions of all things good and wonderful.
But they don't dispute global warming caused by human activity.
Maybe it's just PR; but they're not calling for more "studies" or "critical anaylsis." They're realists - it's happening and denying it just blows their credibility.
I went to a talk at the Royal Society last year where the chairman of Shell was cheerfully going on about AGW. His interest in the subject was CO2 sequestration, and he was going on about their plans for capturing CO2 from power plants and pumping it back into their North Sea fields (which are approaching the end of their useful life).
Of course, this would mean that they can defer for a couple of decades the abandonment and clean-up costs for all those North Sea rigs and pipeline infrastructure, and take Government payments - i.e., my bloody taxes - for pumping CO2.
Companies are in business to make money for their shareholders. If the Government is stupid enough to pay them for doing something easy and nonsensical, they will happily take the money.
Which makes it all the more ridiculous when the pro-AGW haters try to dismiss all sceptics as being oil industry shills.
Karen · 9 July 2006
rstage · 9 July 2006
Hiya, all!
I have been lurking on your wonderful site for quite a while, and have constantly been amazed at the depths of your perceptions of the evolution "debate". Some quick background, before I get into the meat of my post. I am an athiest, although I don't feel that my religious beliefs should come into matters of science. I also agree with the overwhelming amount of information that bears the Theory of Evolution out to be more than a passing curiosity. I was, for the greater part of my life, a firm, bible believing, fire-and-brimstone, "born-again" christian. That was, of course, before I realized I could think for myself.
Why does this matter to you?
Because I live in Ohio, and I have a school aged daughter. She will be starting kindergarten in August, and we are all looking for to her starting (sometimes I think I am looking forward to it more than her...). My wife and I have decided to put her into public schools, because there is a great one in our neighborhood, and having friends nearby to play with after school is something I sorely missed as a child. I have, now, a more than passing interest in what the OBE decides to what my child will and will not learn.
This, to me, is extremely worrisome. It's not just the evolution "debate" anymore, either. As an aspiring educator myself (physics, if anyone is curious), it is almost scary what the DI, as well as the other groups, will do to get their BELIEFS into the classroom. Science is, or should be, rigidly controlled. The process of theorising, testing, peer-reviewing, more testing, etc. has served us in fairly good stead for quite a while. Why change it? Because some groups don't like the answers?
To fend off some criticism, I know that my daughter is too young to be affected by the changes, if they were to be made. That is unimportant. If you let them change part of the standard, then what is going to stop them from changing the rest of it?
Also, I happen to live in District 6, Columbus. The domain of Rev. Michael Cochran. I personally believe that anyone with the title "Rev." is unfit for any position on any school board, let alone the State one. I have, however, sent an email to the ACLU of Ohio to see what recourse would be available to me if they do make these changes.
I would call that my 2 cents but, looking back over my post, it seems more like a couple bucks worth.
Patricia Princehouse · 9 July 2006
Dear rstage ,
It doesn't matter how young your child is. If you intend her to attend 10th grade in Ohio's public schools, then you potentially have legal standing to become a plaintiff in an action against both/either the state or your local district if they are violating the Constitution.
Several of the Dover, PA plaintiffs' children were not yet in high school.
What local High School would your daughter be attending if she were entering 10th grade this fall?
Policies adopted for 10th grade science drive the rest of the curriculum in many ways. For one, the Ohio Graduation Test (OGT) is based on what students should learn by the end of 10th grade. Much of the curriculum is arranged to guide students to do well on this test. Thus, what a student learns in 1st grade is influenced by what s/he will be expected to know/be prepared to learn in 9th & 10th grade.
So, your concern is by no means premature. If we all take action now, I hope that by the time your daughter is in 10th grade, we will have a truly exemplary science curriculum here in Ohio (and all thought of legal standing will be but a hazy memory).
Here's hoping!
-Patricia
evolution@case.edu
Patricia Princehouse · 9 July 2006
PS
FWIW I do disagree with your opinion that:
>anyone with the title "Rev." is unfit for any position on any school >board, let alone the State one.
>
I have met many, many members of the clergy who would make ideal school board members. Clergy or not is immaterial; what matters is their own personal integrity and devotion to their responsibility to uphold our constitutional democracy.
In my experience, personal integrity is quite independent of religious belief (or disbelief).
rstage · 9 July 2006
Patricia,
Thanks for your response. It really helps my confidence. I'm not really a person who gets personally involved with political matters (apart from voting in every election. Yup, all of 'em), but with my daughter's future at stake, I'll go into this fight swinging.
She would, I believe, be going to Whetstone HS this year, were she in high school. We have her enrolled in Clinton Elementary, by far the best non-lottery school we looked at.
BTW, I got the forwarded message from the Science Education listserve...thanks for the heads up.
And you're right about my comment. It was an off the cuff comment that I should have considered more carefully before posting. I guess that's more evidence for what happens when we let our emotions overcome our reasoning.
--Rich
RBH · 9 July 2006
Mephisto · 9 July 2006
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 9 July 2006
Tricia from Ohio · 9 July 2006
rstage, clinton is the BEST in columbus!!! that's where my boys went when we lived in columbus...
fnxtr · 9 July 2006
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 10 July 2006
"Wherever you go, there you are."
;)
RBH · 10 July 2006
IDists Getting Their Story Straight: Not!
Tara has some remarks on the conflicting stories coming out of the ID camp, including one glaring contradiction where The Columbus Dispatch reported an ID-supporting Board member as saying one thing, while the Board member emailed Tara saying something quite different. I know the reporter (I talked with her this morning at the Board meeting, in fact) and she stands by her story. Hmmmm. Is there a Ninth Commandment Brigade out there somewhere?
RBH