They did not pass a bill mandating the teaching of astrology, and you know it. They, as you pointed out in your great superiority, used the word astrology instead of astronomy in their bill, but the bill did not mandate the teaching of either.

Admit it, you and good ol' Rachel are just making fun of those simpleton hayseeds over in South Dakota. You're using the old technique of associating ill repute with the opposing argument instead of straight-up discussing the issue.

Is that really the tack you want to take? Those hayseeds, in at least one regard, have shown more sense than a lot of people in the mainstream. As I've pointed out before, some very bright people are opposed to Global Warming hysteria. When many well-published scientists, who formerly supported it, have turned into skeptics that ought to make you think rather than ridicule.

Read the bill and get back to me. They passed a law, by mistake, mandating the teaching of astrology in schools. My point all along - and this is the third time now that I've said it - has not been about climate change.

Maybe it will help if you know something about me that many others here already know: I am a science educator. That's my job and vocation. I taught high school science and maths for years, and now I teach teachers and conduct research in science education.

My point was that we have a long way to go and a lot of work to do in science education, when our legislators are making this kind of completely elementary mistake. The tone was not one of ridicule, and has not been at any stage, but of sorrow. It's sad and scary when the world faces a wide variety of challenges, most of which have some science component - leave aside climate change and there's still energy, pollution, pandemics, food and water, population and several more - and those who are supposed to be leading the response do not know the absolute basics.

I suppose it's too much to expect an apology for your consistent misunderstanding of my point and ascription of malicious motives to me, but I hope at least now you understand a little better.

Not simpleton hayseeds... lawmakers. Who should hopefully know the difference between astronomy and astrology. But apparently not.

what is your problem?

Excellent post Bravus.

pk

Here it is. Below is what was written on the link you provided, verbatim. Can you tell me where the teaching of astrology is mandated? You're insisting on this non-existent legislation in defense of your motives, so just highlight it for dummies like me who consistently can't see it (and still don't.) The lawmakers urged that South Dakota teachers approach the teaching of the subject of climate change considering a wide range of factors, but there is no mandate. Really, it seems rather reasonable except, as you pointed out, the word "astrology" should be "astronomy."

Get back to me, pard. No apology required. Just get your facts straight. Educators were urged, not mandated, to include a wide variety of factors concerning the subject of Global Warming. The Senate first concurred and then amended the bill to remove the objectionable material.

So tell me, now. What is the problem?

There hasn't yet been a vote on the amended bill, so I guess we'll see. I concede that the word 'mandated' may be too strong, and 'encouraged' would have been a better choice. That's kind of off topic though.

The point is simply that I was lamenting the scientific ignorance on display. I was *not* making any argument pro or con about climate change. You grabbed the wrong end of the stick from the start and just kept on running with it.

Where is MY judgmentalism??? All I said was that this thread became quiet...And that seemed to have challenged you all... and you came, howling like a pack of wounded animals...

As for "Maddow's caviling", she make more points in her show over this subject than you ever did in any of your discussions.

And since you are so judgmental in your posts, and jumping to conclusions, this time why not contribute something worthwhile to support your side of the debate...you started this little escapade, why don't you man up and REALLY debate the issue..with some facts!

Are you, or are you not, an educator, Bravus?

Do you do this to your students? Just throw something up on the board with your only comment being the broad stroke condemnation, "Dear America: Do you plan to get it together any time soon?" and then come down on your students when they start discussing the conclusion of the author in the article that YOU posted?

Here is the concluding paragraph:


Note that the objection in the concluding paragraph of the author is not what the legislators took out, but what they left in - about the global warming debate. And I, and all those scientists I posted early in this thread, agree with what the legislators left in the Bill.

So, please acknowledge that I was addressing the conclusion of the author in the article at the link YOU provided to start the thread and, subsequently, the open derision on TRMS link provided by Neil. In my opinion, if you weren't trying to ridicule those who are opposed to the unproven theory that man's miniscule contribution to greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is causing warming of the planet, you did an extremely poor job of distancing yourself from those who were.

And, incidentally, the substitution of the word "astrology" for "astronomy" is a linguistic error which does not mandate your conclusion that it is accompanied by "scientific ignorance."

QR frame:

Several things: first, the brief should lie nowhere except with the pusullus

Re: Dear America: Do you plan to get it together any time soon?

I find the above to indicate, similarly, a contribution by, seemingly, the sorts of 'progressive liberals' who have insinuated themselves into our traditional form of Gov't. Sad.

America has made, makes, and will continue making mistakes. It is a natural continuum... However,

the bolded above is such a tell – as to reflect rather badly, imho, upon its composer.

Second, astrology is correct – when meaning astronomy – should one prefer the conceit of an obsolete. In similar fashion I prefer to spell supercede in its alternate form (OED).

Thirdly, Gorebal Warming is just that – Gorebal – when conflated with ‘man-made’. Global warming goes hand-in-hand with the ‘warming’ evidenced throughout our entire solar system. The generally frozen ‘oceans’ of Mars are melting; witness the images taken by our satellites showing icebergs floating in ‘newly melted oceans’. The only contribution man has made to Mars-warming has been entirely ‘Green’ – specifically, the green rover, which emits no CO2.

Even the giant Jupiter shows signs of massive disturbances.

(For a number of decades the earth’s magnetic density field has been weakening; we don’t know why. A weakened or lessened magnetic field contributes to a more fluid magma underlying earth’s tectonic plates. By that fact itself, we may infer friction with friction implying heat, as in warming.)

Not to fear, y’all – we’ll soon have such climatic changes, as to cause mass starvations followed by mass deaths – from Gov’ts and from debilitated immune systems, as well – chemical and genetically-modified bio weapons.

Enjoy today, for assuredly, tomorrow’s goin’ tah be a bummer!