CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
May 26, 2010 06:31 PM UTC
35 Comments
Loading ...
In Virginia the newly elected attorney general has been on a different path to eliminate science – put the scientists in jail. The first step is to bring the ower of the state to discredit research and the researchers. The second is to bring fraud charges against researchers and the state power to imprison is threatening.
Cuccinelli subpoena
But it’s gonna take work. Calls and letters to school board members, because that’s what they’ll be getting from the other side.
Which theories of science does Pugliese believe are proven? Evolution? Black holes? Relativity? Big bang? Have any of those been “proven” or is there just overwhelming evidence supporting of the theories and accepted by a vast majority of scientists?
I mean, a real estate attorney? Next she’ll be informing us that tobacco is good for our throats.
That she could probably be convinced that Adam and Eve rode around on dinosaurs.
… and I actually bought my kids a coloring book showing Adam and Eve riding on dinosaurs. Sadly, I’m not kidding. One of my kids them brought it to school, though, which probably made the teacher think “her daddy must be ONE OF THOSE”
I wish I were making it up, but I’m not.
South Dakota Jumps Anti-Science Shark
It indicated that the auspicious man would avoid stepping on the tiger’s tail, proof positive that global warming is a fraud.
I read this legislation. Very interesting that these legislators seem to want to show off their ignorance in so many ways – they do not seem to know that the term “astological” refers to astrology and not astronomy. They also have a grammatical error in the bill – using “effect” instead of “affect.” Yep, they should certainly dictate the specifics of what is taught in schools.
why my wife and I were so depressed after watching Idiocracy. Would have been a funny movie if it didn’t feel so real at times.
were going through family boxes in the basement. we came across the History books our mom bought for us in the 80’s. Some for children and some written for HS/College.
At first the mission was to throw away as much as possible.
then coming across those books we (half jokingly) agreed to save them somehow. like donating to a museum or a High school.
As with the crazed right wants to rewrite History to such an extent Those books are now a treasure to future generations as to what actually happened in US history!
even if they are 30 years old.
Teaching children to ignore facts they are uncomfortable with leaves them ill prepared to handle the real world.
“Scientists who have long careers built upon rationally evaluating evidence”
As a scientist myself, who works on the type of mathematical models used to model the climate, I can tell you that this is often not the case. Scientists have a predisposition to favor results that will result in more government grants. As the models are not sufficiently accurate yet to yield conclusive evidence either way, they can easily be spun in the direction which will increase the flow of money. Thus it is the people in government controlling the grant money that have the most influence, rather than scientists “rationally evaluating evidence”. Climategate is a good example of this process.
Has nothing to do with establishing curriculum by mob rule.
HOWEVER, all scientists are constantly competing for grants and attention, so one would hope that in this genuine “free market place of ideas” that the closest thing to truth would out.
But, bjwilson, I do not understand why someone should discount (or ignore) the research supporting climate change because of perceived undue influence of the government grant money decision makers, but accept, or at least give equal weight to, the minority research, funding by the energy lobby, that denies climate change. There is no doubt in my mind that the energy industry is going to require certain results from the research/opinions it funds. On the other hand, I do not understand why “the people in government controlling the grant money” would have anywhere near the same incentive to demand a specific result.
School should teach critical thinking. I would have no problem with a teacher including your perspective on a lesson plan on climate change. But what is being proposed, if I understand correctly, is a black out on this issue because it is not “junk science.” That is too easy a brush to tar any idea that you disagree with.
… if you didn’t blow it out of the water by mentioning the so-called “Climategate”, which in the final analysis was ruled by three separate panels to be 99.9% hot air by global warming deniers.
Scientists have agendas, just like anyone else. Most spend some amount of time trying to ensure that their agenda doesn’t infect their data; thus, when they get to the peer-reviewed journals, other scientists can evaluate the data and the math and decide whether the research is valid or not.
Many scientists are driven to some extent by their paycheck – be it from a government grant, private salary, or contract payment. When the man with the money asks for research on a specific topic, the scientist is pretty much bound to follow the request. That’s how we wound up with so much junk science on tobacco.
To accuse government of being the major (and biased) driver of science is horse hockey.
Come on, bjw, do you really believe in global conspiracies?
One thing that has been clear for quite some time is that climate models that EXCLUDE anthropogenic forcings completely fail to track recent climate. Only when anthropogenic forcings are included does modeled climate resemble observed climate.
Here’s an older image you may recall (from NCAR by way of UCAR):
You might also recall that following two investigations, the scientists with CRU have been absolved. Whatever-gate has been great for the Investigative Panel industry, but the actual science has come out clean.
From the first investigation:
From the second investigation:
So, tell me again, what is Whatever-gate a good example of? How a band of know-nothings with funding from the likes of Exxon-Mobil &/or Koch Industries can attempt to ruin the reputations of scientists?
(Look, I’m not denying that scientists are human, and thus irrational decisions are made. However, given the competitiveness for grants, if Scientist A draws irrational conclusions, Scientist B will be sure to point it out.
And, given that the route to scientific fame is by publishing solid research that demonstrates that your peers have been wrong, there are untold numbers of graduate students working to show the failings of climate change projections. Where is that published research?)
How ya’ gonna’ die? AGW or Armageddon?
Christian Groups: Biblical Armageddon Must Be Taught Alongside Global Warming
or because of our pollution? Let the kids decide.
Man caused Global Warming is more political science then actual science.
We banned CFCs and the ozone hole is shrinking. It was a big success story, maybe you heard about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O…
http://www.theozonehole.com/
That wouldn’t be you, would it, Mr. Fake MD?
while we may laugh at these crazies, if we don’t find a way to stop them in their tracks right now, our future is to be the world’s bumpkins, entirely dependent on foreign trained scientists and engineers for pretty much everything moving into the 21st century. It’s not just global warming. It’s a seething hostility to the whole idea of scientific inquiry as opposed to Christian faith, to real history vs Jingoism.
How is the world’s supposedly unrivaled super power going to keep it all together with a population educated to function in a world from some time before the age of enlightenment, one that no longer exists for the rest of the world’s modern industrialized societies?
These people have a lot more in common with illiterate Afghan and Pakistani villagers and the folks who burned scientists as heretics than they do with contemporary Europeans, Chinese, Japanese or people in any other culture that has joined the 21st (or even the 20th ) century world. And they are well on their way to subverting all public education for their regressive ends.
Just look at Texas. If text book publishers go along with their standards, as they usually do since it’s a huge state that sets standards at state level, most public school text books are going to be marching our children back to the dark ages. They’ll learn that scientific inquiry and people who look for evidence via the scientific method instead of just trusting absolutely in the literal truth of ancient religious writings are the enemy. They won’t learn anything that will help us keep up, much less lead.
We have to stop them in each and every school board election in each district. The only way to do that is to find and support good candidates in school board elections.
School board elections are historically very low turnout. Nearly anyone can steal one. In District 51, its not common for candidates to run unopposed.
They were not stupid. They were wary of the unintended consequences of new technology, as should we all be. However, in a subsistence culture, one only survives by being observant and empirical. FYI
Was referring to their lack of a particular sort of education, literacy being rare in Afghanistan and much of Pakistan, and subsequent unquestioning acceptance of their religious leaders’ interpretations of the myths and legends of ancient religious texts. It’s a very limiting sort of education, one that encourages blind faith and discourages the kind of questioning that is the glory of the human capacity to think creatively. It leaves them at a great disadvantage in taking part in and exercising any control over the scientific and technological advances that would allow them to compete on the world stage.
We could probably learn much of value from those South American villagers of yours but they are not in a position to wield power in the larger world and will be at the mercy of those who can.
It certainly isn’t a matter of intelligence. When it comes to the skills needed to survive without all the conveniences provided by science and technology that a person like me is used to, I’m sure I’d prove dumb as a post.
The trouble we so often get ourselves into in the management of the application of science and technology (just look at the destruction of an entire region, ecology and way of life in our Gulf) is proof that knowledge and technology without wisdom can be a very dangerous thing and wisdom is, as always, illusive and rare.
On the other hand, things like modern sanitation and dentistry, are very nice compared to the alternatives and those with advanced technology have always had the advantage, especially in terms of raw military power, while those without are at their mercy. Our children must be educated to function and compete in the advancing world, not to retreat to the dark ages. The world will not belong to them if they do. They will belong to someone else.
IEDs are a “primitive” weapon compared to our advanced technology….and yet, we are getting our asses kicked by those “primitive” afghas…..as did Russia before us. Just an observation.
but we are in no serious danger of a foreign invasion from them. I mean a real invasion not attempts at acts of terror. We aren’t living in a war torn country right now with foreigners dropping bombs on us and invading our houses in the middle of the night because of our superior position of power in the world. There is no comparison between our circumstances in the world and theirs.
You may put “primitive” in quotes, not that I ever used it, but would you want your children to be living in such a society? Do you think either being entirely uneducated or being taught only the Koran is a good thing? I don’t and I don’t want American children to be taught based only on some fundamentalist’s interpretation of what the bible allows.
Do you think the lot of women in Afghanistan is a good one? Would you like to see your daughter living that life? Please. And I simply meant the villagers with whom you were familiar in South America.
We may get ourselves into all kinds of trouble with advances in science and technology mixed with greed and stupidity but chidren don’t survive cancers that used to kill them because some strict Christian fundamentalist who doesn’t believe in evolution or some kid who was only allowed to learn the Koran came up with a solution.
I am sorry if I implied otherwise. It is complicated. But it is also a side issue and I did not mean to sidetrack the main discussion.
Knowledge is power. So, if politicians cannot understand science, they are at a disadvantage; destroying that science makes them powerful, again.
Of major concern to me, is the elevation of the Confederacy as a legitimate, honorable endeavor in the Texas textbooks.
FYI. Rand Paul is way ahead in the polls in Kentucky.
You know, one of the principles of physics is that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. I hope to hell that we are not seeing that demonstrated in the political area with the election of the first black president being the initial reaction.
This group has nothing to do with balancing education. They’re against teaching global warming. That’s it!
I wonder if we’ll ever run out of smarmy organization names that have little to do with the purpose of the organization.