5 ms·

The science is pretty clear on co2 causing global warming. The economics of the urgency and advisability of any particular intervention are less clear. The mo

The science is pretty clear on co2 causing global warming. The economics of the urgency and advisability of any particular intervention are less clear. The moral assumptions underlying "climate justice" are pretty unclear to me and don't seem to be an appropriate area for a government agency to be legislating what they deem the truth to be. Be careful you don't get too happy when the government compels a point of view you happen to agree with, because once you hand over decisions about truth to a political body, it's hard to claw it back.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
caseysoftware 10y ago
As long as it's only [action, that I agree with] applied to [current understanding, that I agree with] of [current issue, that I agree with], it's not a big deal! It's not like a [government entity] would apply this to something like [other issue]! People forget that when the [other side] is elected, they'll do the same thing but in the opposite direction.
wrsh07 10y ago
This isn't the government compelling a viewpoint. Imagine if there were people who insisted the moon were made of cheese. You wouldn't frown upon their views not being "heard" in public schools because it's bullshit. No, schools don't need to teach every hypothesis. The scientific community should consider them and arrive at a consensus. It has. Many years ago. Schools should teach about that process and the end result. There is very little ambiguity on this issue.
- Turing_Machine 10y ago
  Anthropogenic global warming isn't anywhere nearly as well established as the moon not being made of cheese. In fact, the the only thing we really know right now is that the existing models are all wrong. All of them. Wrong. Not one matches the observed data for the last 20 years. So, no, the science isn't "settled".
- iofj 10y ago
  > This isn't the government compelling a viewpoint. Care to elaborate on that ? Administrators, who are very much part of the government (and thus, in the end, ordered around by the executive) are forcing teachers, textbooks and ... to comply with a specific view they're defending politically ... I might understand that they do this up to the point where they present the facts (ie. historical temperature changes) and present a few different ways to extrapolate into the future. Since statistical models are what climate science uses, because first principles don't work for a system as complex as earth, I would very much like to see them teach a very simple climate model, and have them tweak the parameters to get whatever outcome they like, to show that this can be done. Then get some standard parameters in and show the IPCC position. This would show both the strengths and the weaknesses of climate change theory, and teach kids very useful data science skills in the process. It may also teach kids the valuable lesson that standards of proof in different sciences are very, very different, and ideally have them think a bit about what that means for the amount of confidence we should have in various sciences.
- kevinpet 10y ago
  Ambiguity about co2 -> warming, or ambiguity about morality of transfer payments from rich to poor nations related to climate change? By analogy, evolution is an established scientific fact. But a public school curriculum that promote eugenics on the grounds that it is supported by evolution would be inappropriate.
eevilspock 10y ago
Your position sounds right, but let's dig a little. What if 20% of the teachers in public schools want to teach Creationism? In your statements above are you making moral assumptions about the primacy of science, and if so, are you ok with the government legislating that? When does something become "clear"? When a majority of the people see things that way? If so, isn't that's what's happening here? A school board is not a "government agency" made up of appointed officials and their hires; it's effectively a legislative body that represents the will of the voters. They are elected into office and presumably can be recalled. Does popularity == truth? If not, who decides?

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

caseysoftware 10y ago

As long as it's only [action, that I agree with] applied to [current understanding, that I agree with] of [current issue, that I agree with], it's not a big deal! It's not like a [government entity] would apply this to something like [other issue]! People forget that when the [other side] is elected, they'll do the same thing but in the opposite direction.

wrsh07 10y ago

This isn't the government compelling a viewpoint. Imagine if there were people who insisted the moon were made of cheese. You wouldn't frown upon their views not being "heard" in public schools because it's bullshit. No, schools don't need to teach every hypothesis. The scientific community should consider them and arrive at a consensus. It has. Many years ago. Schools should teach about that process and the end result. There is very little ambiguity on this issue.

Turing_Machine 10y ago
Anthropogenic global warming isn't anywhere nearly as well established as the moon not being made of cheese. In fact, the the only thing we really know right now is that the existing models are all wrong. All of them. Wrong. Not one matches the observed data for the last 20 years. So, no, the science isn't "settled".
iofj 10y ago
> This isn't the government compelling a viewpoint. Care to elaborate on that ? Administrators, who are very much part of the government (and thus, in the end, ordered around by the executive) are forcing teachers, textbooks and ... to comply with a specific view they're defending politically ... I might understand that they do this up to the point where they present the facts (ie. historical temperature changes) and present a few different ways to extrapolate into the future. Since statistical models are what climate science uses, because first principles don't work for a system as complex as earth, I would very much like to see them teach a very simple climate model, and have them tweak the parameters to get whatever outcome they like, to show that this can be done. Then get some standard parameters in and show the IPCC position. This would show both the strengths and the weaknesses of climate change theory, and teach kids very useful data science skills in the process. It may also teach kids the valuable lesson that standards of proof in different sciences are very, very different, and ideally have them think a bit about what that means for the amount of confidence we should have in various sciences.
kevinpet 10y ago
Ambiguity about co2 -> warming, or ambiguity about morality of transfer payments from rich to poor nations related to climate change? By analogy, evolution is an established scientific fact. But a public school curriculum that promote eugenics on the grounds that it is supported by evolution would be inappropriate.

eevilspock 10y ago

Your position sounds right, but let's dig a little. What if 20% of the teachers in public schools want to teach Creationism? In your statements above are you making moral assumptions about the primacy of science, and if so, are you ok with the government legislating that? When does something become "clear"? When a majority of the people see things that way? If so, isn't that's what's happening here? A school board is not a "government agency" made up of appointed officials and their hires; it's effectively a legislative body that represents the will of the voters. They are elected into office and presumably can be recalled. Does popularity == truth? If not, who decides?