Bob Newland is on to something (no, not on something, you jokers—pay attention!). On the Decorum Forum, South Dakota’s best blogger on probation suggests Rep. Don Kopp (R-35/Rapid City) is making stuff up as he defends his HCR 1009, the newly amended and passed anti-science resolution on global warming that has won South Dakota widespread mockery and scientific correction.
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.
Tags: Don Kopp, environment, Science, South Dakota, state legislature
You are the denier, Cory. Even I learned in grade school that the Earth has gone throught heat and cool cycles through history. So yeah, global warming and cooling will happen. But I am not arrogant enough to believe that my driving to work, or even breathing, will speed it up. The lake you live on is a result of the glacier that used to reside there. You should be thankful for warming.
Cory, I believe you would watch your beloved Al Bore(ing) walk off a cliff and then follow him without question. That does not bother me. What does bother me is you would drag your wife and kids along.
You say yourself that you question the status quo. Global Warming is the status quo, question it!
As an educator, I absolutely believe we should teach students critical thinking skills. How can we possibly teach students to do this, if we simply provide them with one side of a debate? If global warming makes sense and is actually happening other than a cyclical occurrence, why would it be a problem to provide students the opportunity to view both sides of the evidence for themselves? As a teacher in California, I consistently provide my students with evidence from both sides of this subject and ask them to draw the conclusions on their own. I too show Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth video and give equal time to resources from the other side of the debate. A few tenants of good science are to ask good questions, acknowledge your bias and draw conclusions based on the evidence. How does one do this adequately on global warming without addressing the opposing evidence?
I also encourage my students to dialogue and debate issues using factual evidence to support their claim. Why is this problem? Are you suggesting students should be taught what to think rather than how to think? Discussion on both sides of a debate does not threaten education or science; it is the lack thereof which causes the decline in one’s ability to think and hinders student’s education as a whole.
Opening a dialogue is never a bad idea. I have found the person who is offended at the suggestion that opposing views be discussed tends to be fearful of the strength of their own position.
Funny: I don’t recall saying I adore Al Gore. See how Bill engages in standard fallacy: instead of dealing with what’s actually said, Bill objectifies people, turns a few key names into labels, and essentially just cries, “You like Al Gore! You’re evil!” Utterly illogical.
Bill also demonstrates he doesn’t know my wife. To suggest that I could drag her anywhere against her will is an insult to her and me. To make up a position, ascribe it to me, and then say I’m hurting my child is also fallacious and insulting. Bill, I’ll stick with the issues and leave your family out of my arguments. I take Bill’s previous comments as evidence he lacks the class to do the same. Get off the false personal bull and stick with issues you know about, Bill.