Wyoming doesn't like climate change, decides it's economically bad to teach to kids

Teelie

Fish Food
Joined
Jun 21, 2011
Messages
24,305
Reaction score
7,874
Points
118
In other words they would rather not accept the implications of their environmental harm (fossil fuel production) to the planet and keep trucking along so their economy will be unaffected and let someone else (their kids, who won't be educated about climate change) deal with the results.:doh:

Over the past several years, a number of states have worked with organizations including the National Research Council, National Science Teachers Association, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science to develop new standards for teaching science in public schools. The result, termed the Next Generation Science Standards, provides states with a chance to update their science education goals to focus more on the scientific process. So far, nine states and the District of Columbia have adopted the standards.

But the process hasn't always been smooth. In Kentucky, the Governor adopted them over the objections of state legislators. In Kansas, the adoption resulted in a lawsuit that sought to block their adoption. Now, in the latest wrinkle, the Wyoming legislature has preemptively blocked their use in that state.

The problem isn't with the educational approach taken by the standards; rather, it's with their content. The Next-Gen Standards include the modern understanding of evolution and climate science. The lawsuit mentioned above claims that the standards violate religious freedom by compelling students to study evolution.

Wyoming doesn't appear to have issues with evolution. Instead, climate science appears to be the problem. That's not because any of the legislators have actually studied the science involved and found it lacking. The issue appears to be solely with the implications of the science.

The Casper Star Tribune is reporting that Wyoming became the first state to block the use of the Next Generation Science Standards through the use of a last-minute budget provision authored in part by State Representative Matt Teeters. It quotes him as saying "[The standards] handle global warming as settled science. There's all kind of social implications involved in that that I don't think would be good for Wyoming." Specifically, Teeters seems to think that having citizens of the state accept climate science would "wreck Wyoming's economy," which relies heavily on fossil fuel production.

The article also quotes the Chair of the State Board of Education as saying the board voted to "revise the standards to present climate change as a theory, instead of a fact, and to present the benefits mineral extraction has brought Wyoming."

Meanwhile, nobody seems quite sure what the implications of the legislature's budget provision are. The intent appears to be to compel the State Board to adopt the standards piecemeal, but it's not clear whether it has the power to do so, or if the language was clear enough to produce this result.
Ars Technica
 
Well, you know. When people learn more, they might demand reform and changes necessary for the planet to survive. Ain't nobody got time for that.:o
 
*sigh* This is why I hate humanity sometimes.
 
*sigh* This is why I hate humanity sometimes.

Read through the Climate Change Thread in the political forum. You will never recover from the despair.
 
Read through the Climate Change Thread in the political forum. You will never recover from the despair.
I pretend that forum doesn't exist to save my sanity.
 
Sounds like the entirety of australia
 
I love the mentality humans have to just go on with issues even though they are glaring, and just figure "eh in 60 years I'll be dead, the Earth won't explode by then! Let the next generation figure it out!"
 
I love the mentality humans have to just go on with issues even though they are glaring, and just figure "eh in 60 years I'll be dead, the Earth won't explode by then! Let the next generation figure it out!"

Yeah, sadly we humans need to be struck by disasters before we change things. I suppose it's about money. Politicians and others with power are reluctant to spend money to avoid worst case scenario when there are just warnings that something can happen, but no evidence that it will happen.
 
It's more than just money. It's ingrained in us. We all do the same thing in our personal lives when we put unpleasant tasks off. And when we do that, psychologically and physiologically, or minds and our brains aren't thinking of our future selves as "me." Literally. When you think of a task you decide to put off for the future, the parts of the brain that light up indicate we aren't thinking of "me," but of another person entirely.

I can't remember where I read that(probably a Cracked list) , but I know it's a thing.
 
Sounds like something I'd read on Cracked.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,591
Messages
21,768,301
Members
45,606
Latest member
ohkeelay
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"