Some rational thought left – "climate change as curriculum" vetoed

There was a lot of lobbying going on with this one, I sent a letter myself, listing myself as a former school board member familiar with school curriculum. The real issue is: we currently don’t have a curriculum to teach “managing” other potential disasters, such as an asteroid hit, nuclear war, epidemic, or a worldwide synchronized terrorist strike, so why do we need a specific exception for “global warming”?

This proposal was pure social agenda, nothing else. Thank goodness Ahnold had the good sense to listen and veto this attempt to co-opt our children into an agenda. – Anthony

Stock photo: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signing unrelated papers

Governor vetoes climate change curriculum

By John Boudreau

from the Mercury News

Article Launched: 07/26/2008 09:57:45 PM PDT

California public students will stick to reading, writing and arithmetic, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger decided as he vetoed a bill late Friday that would have required climate change be added to schools’ curriculum.The measure, sponsored by state Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, also would have required future science textbooks to include climate change as a subject.In January, the state Senate approved the bill, SB 908, by a 26-13 vote.

Only two Republicans supported the proposal.In his veto statement, Schwarzenegger said he supported education that spotlights the dangers of climate change. However, the Republican governor said he was opposed to educational mandates from Sacramento.”I continue to believe that the state should refrain from being overly prescriptive in specific school curriculum, beyond establishing rigorous academic standards,” he said.

Schwarzenegger added that the state’s Integrated Waste Management Board’s Office of Education and Environment, along with California’s Environmental Protection Agency, are creating an environmental curriculum for K-12 students that includes climate change issues.Simitian had said his bill wouldn’t dictate what to teach; rather, it would require the state Board of Education and state Department of Education to decide how the topic would be covered and which grades would study it.

While global warming is included in high school classes as it pertains to weather, the subject is not required to be covered in all textbooks, according to the California Science Teachers Association.

17 thoughts on “Some rational thought left – "climate change as curriculum" vetoed

  1. Speaking of curriculum, how about economics being added as a required subject? So that the economic damage done by unnecessary carbon abatement might be understood? Except that as taught by the government schools, this would likely not do any good.
    Why is competition good in every other area except education? The government school system need to be abolished as this is clearly a conflict of interest on behalf of government.
    Oh, hi Pam!

  2. Pingback: Hey kids! Be a “Climate Cop” - rat on your family, friends, and classmates « Watts Up With That?

  3. THE book on Economics is
    Basic Economics: A Citizen’s Guide to the Economy
    by Thomas Sowell
    We’d be graduating a brighter bunch of kids if it were in the curiculum.

  4. It’s only a matter of time. Welcome in the United Socialist States of America. The vetoed bill is a tip of the iceberg of American Socialists agenda. USA turning RED and Russia turning WHITE! Now I have understood why some Americans still see in Russia an enemy. Once Uncle Sam was against communism, now Red Uncle Sam is against capitalistic Russia. Splendid! 🙂 🙂 🙂

  5. As a diehard Capitalist, I cannot agree that Russia is going anywhere near that direction. A dictatorship of the friends of Vladimir, perhaps.
    Capitalism is this country is not in great shape. It has too many uncertainties. Far easier to promise security. A giant operations manual, with a Procedure for Everything. The governator had the sense to take a small step back from that.
    What did Franklin say about security and freedom?

  6. Why not have “Global Warming” on the curriculum?
    Week 1: “What causes it to be hotter during the day than during the night?”
    Week 2: “What causes it to be hotter in summer than in winter?”
    Week 3: “What causes it to be hotter at the equator than at the poles?”
    Week 4: “What causes it to be hotter in cities than in suburbs?”
    Week 5: “What causes it to be hotter at ground level than at 30,000 feet?”
    Week 6: “What causes clouds to form?”
    There, that’s the first half-term covered. The pupils go home, play football, irritate their mothers and return for the second half:
    Week 7: “Earth surface temperatures from 1million BC to 1000 AD”
    Week 8: “Earth surface temperatures from 1000AD to 1500.”
    Week 9: “Earth surface temperatures from 1500 to 1750.”
    Week 10: “Earth surface temperatures from 1750 to 1850.”
    Week 11: “Earth surface temperatures from 1850 to 1979.”
    Week 12: “Comparison of earth surface temperatures measured by satellite and at ground stations 1979-date.”
    End of term.
    That should give them a good grounding and take them up to Christmas. When they return they can learn both side of the argument about how those various figures can be interpreted, that’s half a term. Then they can learn about sunspots and oceanic oscillations, end of term 2.
    In the final term they can be told that some people think a gas comprising 4 parts in every 10,000 of the atmosphere determines how the climate will behave. That is one week; the second week they are sent home because they are still laughing. Fill the rest of the term how you will, I suggest cricket lessons.

  7. “Mutually exclusive?” Chris
    Actually, many would say that freedom ENHANCES security. If I were a terrorist, would I rather deal with a one-size-fits-all security system or hundreds or even thousands of different security systems designed by ingenious Americans? A truly free country would bewilder and frustrate its enemies. In any case it would quickly and effectively respond. Needless to say, truly free citizens would be armed too.
    I read a science fiction short story based on this premise. It is counter intuitive but true, IMO.

  8. It’s a pity that Arnold didn’t sign it into law. It would be the break we have been waiting for on the legal front. Can you imagine the damage a California Supreme court ruling against climate change curriculum in public schools would have?

  9. And he smiled when he did it.
    REPLY: Thats not the photo of that event, its a stock photo. I’m adding a disclaimer – Anthony

  10. Are you people nuts? Some kids coming out of public school can’t read or do math and you want to force feed them this trash on global warming?
    Look up in the sky. There is only one force that causes global warming; the sun. You could have living thing on this earth fart at the same time and it won’t make a difference.
    Controlling people is the real truth behind global warming .

  11. papertiger: can you imagine the CA Supreme Court ruling against any government expansion? Or the Ninth Circus Court?
    statepoet1775 has it right. Freedom gives us security. Some of the alarmists want to shut off debate because they cannot win. Truth is our best defense.
    “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” B. Franklin c. 1755

  12. Pingback: Gore “Terminated” | Jack’s Newswatch

  13. Growing up in California, I went to a private school (and I am very thankful). I tried one year of public high school and realized those kids were pretty dumb. CA public schools are the worst in the nation. They need to cover the basics before trying to teach anything else. Although, I guess it is nice to teach 5th grader in California to recycle, because he will probably end up collecting cans for the rest of his life.

  14. Are you people nuts? Some kids coming out of public school can’t read or do math and you want to force feed them this trash on global warming?
    I dunno. Makes sense to me (It only works if you can’t think.)
    Look up in the sky. There is only one force that causes global warming; the sun. You could have living thing on this earth fart at the same time and it won’t make a difference.
    Vile sun worshiper! The Sea Witches rule. Water defeats fire; so sayeth ye olde Feng Shue. Feh! Feh!
    Controlling people is the real truth behind global warming .
    “You are getting warmer. You are getting warmer. Warmer . . . Waaaarmer . . .”

  15. Yet another attempt to push the claim that the science on the reasons climate change is “settled” and thus there need be no debate. Much how like Darwinistic evolution cannot be touched in the classroom, yet if you follow the Huxleyan formulation of ‘survival of the fittest’ this would mean that Nature has doomed homosexual men and women to oblivion because they will not sexually reproduce even though they can. Try pushing THAT in California schools. Anyway, as I said, another slow motion attempt to quash debate by indoctrinating the next generation with the “facts” that “prove” no debate is needed. Ridiculous.
    PS – Anthony, I hope you’ll see my point on gays and lesbians as a comment on logic and the insidious nature of that indoctrination attempt rather than as condemnation on people of that sexual persuasion – also it is not meant to stir any evolution/intelligent design debates. This is not the forum for that.

Comments are closed.