There is just too much discussion going on worthy of reply about this to let it go without additional comment.
The starting reference point is HC1009, labeled: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION, Calling for balanced teaching of global warming in the public schools of South Dakota.
The Chief has taught HS sciences for a quarter century…and the prevailing orthodoxy on AGW (anthropogenic global warming: you know, man made!) is junk science at best, and at worst is totally bogus intellectual fraud. After formally studying a number of relevant scientific disciplines, IMHO AlGore and the glowbull warming advocates are claiming far, far more than is supported by the VALID evidence…which looks better and better with every successive debunking of junk “evidence” that has been used by the IPCC, and other agencies like the UK Meteorological Office, East Anglia University Climate Unit, etc.
The US science teaching establishment to a large extent has drunk the AlGore Kool Aid…and has little bashfulness about promoting what IMHO is a grossly distorted pseudoscientific dogma in the classroom.
This is the backstory on HC1009…which is well intentioned, but is in need of some important correction to be credible. Some of these corrections have been noted several places in the blogosphere. Badlands Blue and Madville Times both have erupted on this to some degree at least…CAH seems to be a bit more sensible in his comments, but admittedly both have properly noted some real problems, which were also noted with a bit more specificity in a posting from SD Politics.
Overall, the Chief concurs with the latter of these, not so much with the former commenters. The references in the bill to “astrology(!)”, “thermography”, and “interrelativity” (which suggests some sort of warp drive travel or something) obviously (at least to me!) need to be cleaned up.
There is one additional wording change that I would heartily suggest. The passage in the bill that states “That global warming is a scientific theory rather than a proven fact;” is also incorrect in this context.
The Chief continually stressed to his students that a “scientific theory” is NOT a guess about something…it is rather a unified explanation that is able to account for a large body of related proven scientific phenomena. The idea a man-made glowbull warming is IMHO a LONG way from reaching the level of established theory. A more appropriate statement in the bill at that point would be “That global warming is a scientific hypothesis rather than a proven fact”.
In science, a hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a scientific question. The validity or non-validity of the explanation may be established by the process of experimentation. To be supported, a hypothesis must be demonstrated REPEATEDLY by experiments (or data) that are clearly and concisely defined, and are available to anyone else interested in the topic, who then is able to also demonstrate the same conclusion. If the conclusion can not be logically and unambiguously supported from a number of independent sources then if cannot be considered as being scientifically valid.
That is the current state of the hypothesis of AGW today, and as more and more cases of shoddy research, flawed and/or missing critical data, and evident “rigging” of the scientific review process comes to light, it becomes less and less likely that AlGore and others of his enviromental ilk are correct in their assertions of “established science”.
So, what’s to get exercised about concerning the scientific Waterloo being defended by the orthodox “warmists”? It is neatly summarized in Ken’s concluding paragraph in his above- noted and linked post at SD Politics:
Climate change alarmism is in a crisis right now, for good reason. Cap and Trade legislation, a very costly proposal based on very dubious quazi-scientific ideas, is something the State of South Dakota ought to be concerned about. It is easy to make mistakes when putting a resolution together, but if we are going to weigh in on this we need to be rather more careful in our choice of words.