FPM: Senate Democrats Introduce Bill to Push Radical ‘Climate Change’ Agenda in K-12 Schools

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/273001/senate-democrats-introduce-bill-push-radical-sara-dogan

I believe that scientific research and development are legitimate functions of government because a) they are vital to national security and b) they are useful to the making of public policy. Curriculum development for use in the education industry, however, crosses the line into illegitimacy.

15 thoughts on “FPM: Senate Democrats Introduce Bill to Push Radical ‘Climate Change’ Agenda in K-12 Schools

  1. It is illegitimate because government officials have material interests which conflict with valid educational goals. For example, if the goal is to teach children how to think about climate change as a topic, then any materials which favor one ultimate opinion over another would be undesirable. Unfortunately, government officials control substantial cash flows related to this issue, and they are perfectly free to direct those cash flows in support of either rational or irrational purposes.

    Now, you might argue that educating children how to think about climate change rationally is an objective good, but you cannot reasonably argue that teaching children how to think about climate change irrationally is objectively good.

    For this reason, the education of children with respect to climate change must be done outside of government influence. The conflict of interest cannot be resolved without such a firewall.

    You can extend this line of reasoning further to include all of public education in all topic areas. And we should.

    Like

  2. Oh yes, having scientifically, historically and economically literate people is a problem – for Republicans.

    There is nothing “illegitimate” about the federal government promoting scientific literacy through funding of educational initiatives to promote it. It has been involved in such efforts since about November 3, 1957 when the world’s first artificial satellite was launched.

    And contrary to what you seem to believe, the facts established through science are not matters of opinion nor in any way political except to those who wish to ignore them in formulating policy.

    Like

    1. RE: “There is nothing ‘illegitimate’ about the federal government promoting scientific literacy through funding of educational initiatives to promote it.”

      I already dealt with that question. Scientific literacy may indeed be an objective good, but because of the inherent conflict of interest, actual literacy is far from certain as the result of government funding.

      _RE: “And contrary to what you seem to believe, the facts established through science are not matters of opinion nor in any way political…”

      Good. Then let’s have facts established through science. I don’t object to government spending for that. I object, for the reasons given, to government communicating so-called facts to children.

      Like

      1. What makes “facts” transform into “so-called facts” when the government tries to educate children? Answer – Nothing.

        This conspiracy theory based, constant right-wing impugning of just about everyone is getting a little old. Scientists are out to get you. The FBI is out to get you. The NSA is out to get you. The Courts are out to get you. The Deep State is out to get you. And now, apparently, Dan Coates is out to get you.

        Bottom line – There is zero reason to believe that government agencies would try to, or get away with, spreading scientific falsehoods. It is the spreading of scientific truth that is objectionable to “conservatives.” For obvious reasons – educated people tend not to support them.

        Like

        1. _RE: “What makes ‘facts’ transform into ‘so-called facts’ when the government tries to educate children? Answer – Nothing.”

          How many times do I have to repeat the same observation before you will actually address it? Any agency with a self-interest in promoting falsehoods will likely do so. Government is no exception, but it has a built-in conflict of interest where education is concerned.

          The transformation of “facts” into “so-called facts” is not the issue I raised. The delivery of false information is.

          As for the rest, you, yourself accuse government officials — particularly the president and his supporters — of spreading false information all the time; so, it is a bit rich for you criticize my reasoning as being conspiratorial. My reasoning avoids conspiracy theory by citing the obvious conflict of interest.

          Like

    2. “the facts established through science are not matters of opinion nor in any way political”

      Science does not establish facts. It advances theories which may, or may not, be supported by the evidence.

      Once scientific consensus becomes part of the debate, you have left the realm of science and entered the world of politics or religion.

      Today’s “scientific fact” may be disproved tomorrow. For 40 years, our doctors acted on dietary facts that have been proven useless. And there was a lot more support for those nutritional theories than for anything related to climate.

      Remember https://external-preview.redd.it/hUMsBE0Qfqwv4xQaTjlw9hknod0eQla9duqyqRzL84g.jpg?auto=webp&s=f538a81d21a855493d78f6697ad2c453c6fa3896

      Like

      1. So your argument is based on the proposition that science does not establish facts? Semantic quibbling. Maybe you are not aware of the definition of the word “fact.” Here, let me help . . .

        “fact : a thing that is known or proved to be true.”

        With the actual meaning of the word now clear it should also be clear that your statement that science does not establish facts is false and that your trying to capitalize on the inductive nature of the scientific method is sophistry.

        In the area of climate science there is a mix of facts, theories and models. For example, it is a fact that human activity contributes CO2 and methane to the atmosphere. It is a fact that CO2 and methane are greenhouse gases that will result in increased heat in the environment. It is a fact that warmer water expands. It is a fact that warmer air melts ice. It is a fact that there is enough ice above sea level to cause massive increases in sea levels should it melt. That you and others object to such facts being part of the curriculum is what is political. There is no rational basis for pretending that such facts are “just theories” in the same way that people pretend that evolution is “just a theory.”

        By the way, here is yet another possible doomsday tipping point scenario supported by the facts of physics that – at present rates of increase in CO2 – could be upon us in as little as a century.

        https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0310-1

        Of course, this is just based on a model and may not happen. But, there is a significant non-zero chance that it will.

        Like

        1. First, the Nature article is behind a paywall. so I can’t check the methodology. But considering it is based on 1200ppm CO2 and 8C temperature increase as a threshold, I won’t worry too much about it.

          “fact : a thing that is known or proved to be true.”

          You could reasonably claim that warm water expanding is a fact, as there has been plenty of time to find a contrary example. The same is true for a number of other simple observations.

          But you can’t just string those together in a complex context and call your interpretation a fact.

          For example, it is NOT a fact that all ice above sea level has a potential to raise sea levels. Floating ice cannot, only grounded ice can.

          Of those, all of the coastal and alpine glaciers combined could raise sea level by a bit under 3 feet. The Central Ice sheet in Greenland could raise levels by 20 feet, and the Central Ice Sheet of Antarctica could produce a 200 foot rise. However, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are GAINING mass. All of the loss reported is in floating ice and those alpine and coastal glaciers, and of those, only some are in danger.

          Last summer I got to watch the Hubbard Glacier calving small icebergs(small being only 400 feet across) which it does pretty much continuously. But it is fed by valleys that get A LOT of precipitation and it has a positive mass balance. Only glaciers which are in areas of reduced precipitation are retreating.

          Most of the sea level rise we can expect will come from warming water above the thermocline.

          So, yes, warm water expands. Yes, ice melts. But the leap from that to catastrophic flooding is not supported by evidence and certainly is not a fact.

          Like

          1. So, your first statement – “science does not establish facts” was – let’s say – quite a stretch.

            Here is a report on the article behind the paywall . . .

            https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/rising-carbon-dioxide-levels-could-reduce-cloud-cover-and-fry-planet-180971571/

            There is a link in that article that I followed that bypasses the paywall.

            You say you are not worried because we are not yet near the 1200 ppm tipping point, but, as the Smithsonian article points out, the current rate of increase could get us there within a century. And the real point is that this new analysis of the effect of clouds in rising CO2 will make models better and – as it happens – more alarming with critical points reached at lower concentrations than previously thought.

            Whether a particular glacier is still advancing or retreating does not refute the fact stated – “there is enough ice above sea level to cause massive increases in sea levels should it melt.” And, as a matter of fact the main reservoir of such ice – Greenland – is losing it at record rates.

            https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2018/12/greenland-ice-sheet-is-melting-faster-than-in-the-last-350-years/

            Like

          2. Correction : Greenland is the second largest reservoir of ice above sea level. Antarctica is of course, number one. And, though you pretended to be confused, I was clearly NOT referring to floating ice in that statement of fact.

            Finally, I made a clear distinction between fact, theories and models. I did not try to claim that looming catastrophic flooding was a fact. The fact that it is a prediction and not a fact changes nothing – it is an important prediction with possibly grave significance. A prediction that tornadoes will develop in a predicted storm is not a fact, but something to take seriously nonetheless.

            Like

      2. RE: “Science does not establish facts.”

        This is exactly right. Science works by falsifying “facts.” Thus, Einstein famously falsified the fact set known as Newtonian physics. Genetics by some accounts is falsifying the fact set known as evolution by natural selection. And so on.

        The processes of falsification do not produce an ever-expanding body of knowledge, but instead erode the body of human illusion. This may be desirable, but science also is not immune to the tendency of merely replacing one illusion with another.

        Like

        1. With all due respect, TOTAL RUBBISH. Every word. And your statement that science has not produced an ever-expanding body of knowledge is completely laughable. It has. Obviously.

          Newtonian physics has NOT been falsified by General Relativity. It has been refined. The equations Newton developed are used every day.

          More ridiculous, there has been absolutely NOTHING discovered by genetic science falsifying evolution by natural selection. Where do you even find such garbage? And how can you be so ignorant as to repeat it? Do you care nothing for having a bit of credibility?

          Like

          1. Newtonian physics was obviously falsified as a sufficient explanation for the phenomena it describes. Its refinement would be meaningless otherwise.

            As for evolution by natural selection, you obviously haven’t been keeping up with the news. Two reports received much publicity recently for disputing Darwin’s theory on technical grounds. One determined that the genetic diversity of the very finches Darwin studied cannot be accounted for by natural selection alone. Another determined that all mammal species living today are descendents of a single male/female pairing of their own kind that occured about 100,000 years ago, an insufficient period for natural selection as understood to have been the primary mechansim of evolution.

            I am afraid it is you who obviously doesn’t know what he is talking about.

            Like

          2. Again, with all due respect, your repeating these absurd genetic “reports” is absolutely idiotic. Anyone with any kind of understanding will instantly reject the laughable claims you seem to believe. Maybe you do not know this but Creation Science is not science. It is rubbish.

            As for Newton’s Laws being “falsified” Neil Armstrong – were he alive – might disagree. But, there is no point in quibbling further about what “falsified” means. It remains that science is about expanding our body of knowledge by meticulously developing and proving propositions – facts – not previously known.

            Like

          3. My comments on evolution are based on mainstream science reported in the press which you seem to be unaware of.

            But you’re right about one thing. There’s no point in responding to your comments because you are ignorant.

            Like

Leave a Reply to Chesapean Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s