Climate Change Preps for Its Scopes Trial
State Legislatures Take Up the Assault on Science
SOURCE: flickr.com/jstephenconn
The Scopes trial historical marker in front of the Rhea County Courthouse, Dayton, Tennessee.
Print
Legislators in South Dakota seem bent on becoming anti-science pioneers. After a century of anti-evolution policies and legislation across the United States, the South Dakota legislature is set to become the only one in the nation to micromanage what teachers should say about global warming.
This attack on global warming was prefigured in the announcement last August by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that it planned to gin up “the Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century.” Senior vice president for the environment William Kovacs exulted: “It would be evolution versus creationism. It would be the science of climate change on trial.”
Kovacs later apologized, explaining, “My ‘Scopes monkey’ analogy was inappropriate,” as it undermined his insistence that the Chamber “is not denying or otherwise challenging the science behind global climate change.” However embarrassing and erroneous Kovacs’ description of the chamber’s campaign might have been, they foreshadowed the South Dakota legislature’s move toward its own version of a global warming Scopes trial.
The Scopes trial of 1925 grew out of the first great anti-science movement of the 20th century: creationism. John Scopes was convicted of violating a Tennessee law forbidding teachers “to teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible.” Similar bills remained on the books until the 1960s, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled them unconstitutional. Creationists soon adopted a new strategy, with laws in Louisiana and Arkansas requiring “balanced treatment” of evolution and creationism. Both bills were declared unconstitutional in the 1980s.
Creationists have not given up. Some have recently partnered with global warming deniers to demand “academic freedom” for public school science teachers to depart from generally accepted science when discussing supposedly controversial scientific topics. In the last two years, a dozen states have considered such bills, some (including Louisiana’s—the only one to pass into law) naming global warming and evolution along with human cloning or stem cell research as especially controversial. These topics are notable for being subject to intense political dispute without any question in the scientific community about the underlying science.
South Dakota’s HCR 1009 is the first bill to attack global warming only, and is especially notable for its attempt to resurrect the creationist “balanced treatment” strategy of the 1980s. As it passed the South Dakota House on February 17, the resolution calls “for balanced teaching of global warming in the public schools of South Dakota.”
To make clear what that balance would entail, the 33 sponsors of HCR 1009 cited widely debunked claims of climate change deniers. They presented vineyards in Greenland as evidence that our modern warming is unremarkable; in fact, the Medieval Warm Period they point to appears to have been a local phenomenon and unlike the current warming, was not driven by atmospheric carbon dioxide produced by human activities. They offer “shifting warm water currents” as an alternative explanation for the dramatic decline in Arctic sea ice; actually, such shifts are predicted consequences of global warming. They repeat the widely mocked claim that carbon dioxide is “the gas of life,” and therefore not a dangerous pollutant; this despite more than a century’s documentation that the gas traps heat in the air. They cite a deeply flawed petition organized by climate change deniers as if science were determined by plebiscite; instead they should have looked to published research, where researcher Naomi Oreskes has found near unanimity that global warming is happening and largely results from human activities.
The resolution invokes these fallacious claims in the service of four points: “That global warming is a scientific theory rather than a proven fact”; “That there are a variety of climatological, meteorological, astrological, thermological, cosmological, and ecological dynamics that can effect [sic] world weather phenomena and that the significance and interrelativity [sic] of these factors is largely speculative”; “That the debate on global warming has subsumed political and philosophical viewpoints which have complicated and prejudiced the scientific investigation of global warming phenomena”; and that instruction about global warming should be “appropriate to the age and academic development of the student and to the prevailing classroom circumstances.”
When the bill reached the Senate floor on February 24, it was amended to strike most of the scientifically erroneous justifications. South Dakota’s teachers and even a few of its legislators know better than to repeat the creationist canard of equating a theory with uncertainty. As the state’s science standards explain, a theory is “an explanation for some phenomenon that is based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning”—a way to explain facts, which are merely “statement[s] or assertion[s] of verifiable information.” The stars were not aligned for the puzzling references to “astrological” and “thermological” explanations for global warming, and some legislator must have seen the irony of decrying politically biased science while seeking to legislate a scientific result. But the Senate strengthened the final line, insisting now that teachers offer a “balanced and objective” presentation of global warming. However reasonable such advice may be in the abstract, the effect of the law will be chilling to teachers on the ground. Science is not and should not be resolved through the legislative process, and the details of what teachers present as science should not be dictated by legislators with no experience as scientists or teachers.
If the revised bill passes the House, it will put the hardworking teachers of South Dakota in a bind. Will they bow to political pressure and misinform their students about global warming? Or will they soldier on, preparing their students to understand the climatic forces driving the breadbasket from Kansas to the Dakotas and expanding the market for South Dakota’s abundant wind power? If that is the case, it may take a latter-day John Scopes to shoulder the burden of public ignominy, defend the integrity of science education, and show the South Dakota legislature the error of its ways.
Joshua Rosenau is the Public Information Project Director at the National Center for Science Education.
Comments on this article
What is the wording of the proposed ordnance or statute ? What does it actually say? What penalty
adjoins for violation? Is it intended as an instrument of law or meant to intimidate?
I would like to see this quoted in form that can be sent to the major newspapers and outlets so that the folks can take pride in foolishness.
February 26th, 2010 at 5:14 pmThe bill is linked to in the text. “HCR 1009″ is a link to the actual bill.
It doesn’t read like an actual law, more like a recommendation. it “urges” schools to teach a set of bogus statements about climate change. No penaltys are mentioned if they aren’t taught.
February 26th, 2010 at 11:11 pmIt is a resolution not a bill, thus there are no penalties. It’s the legislatures way of telling its citizens what they should do when the actual authority to do so may be lacking.
February 26th, 2010 at 11:57 pmWhile the resolution does not have legal penalties attached to it, local school districts and parents will surely use it as a way to harass teachers who want to teach the science accurately. It also creates a conflict between state science standards and the legislature. A local school board could take that conflict and decide to order teachers to present denialist claims; violating district orders would be a firing offense for the teacher. As in most states, the South Dakota science standards are essentially advisory for teachers (no penalties for deviating from them, just like this bill), but because they are the basis for standardized testing, the standards do have a lot of power over local school boards.
February 27th, 2010 at 2:31 pmI haven’t thought about this long and hard – but objecting to a bill that encourages open challenge seems the wrong tactic for Science.
February 27th, 2010 at 4:26 pmI understand that this is an attempt to allow pet theories of creationists and others to be discussed in science class – but it seems like it is THAT that should be challenged, not the text that allows them to discuss controversy.
If there is no scientific basis for their theories (creationism, ID, global warming denial-ism) then why can’t they be challenged on the merits if they introduce these topics into the curriculum. There is no scientific controversy, so creating one in a science class should be actionable.
Phaedrus: How many scientific challenges begin in secondary school and then take over the scientific community? This is what creationists and global warming deniers want to do.
Existing state laws in every state already give broad leeway for teachers to explore all sides of genuine scientific controversies. Bills like this one (even if nonbinding!) draw a big red circle around a specific topic, which suggests to teachers and students that it is a topic that has two sides, and that even if there is only one scientifically legitimate side, they ought to prop up a non-scientific alternative out of “fairness.”
February 28th, 2010 at 12:44 amWhen DNA was first discovered scientists felt the sequences contained all of the secrets to life. i.e. DNA was the blueprint that determined a person’s biological destiny.
Science has progressed a lot since then and scientists understand that DNA is not necessarily destiny and that a host of environmental factors affect what genes get turned on.
Climate science is at the stage that DNA science was 50 years ago. They understand one part of the puzzle but they are largely clueless on how that part fits into the big picture.
When DNA was first discovered the simplistic determinism of it led to the things like eugenics. This lead to some scientists like Shockley advocating some pretty odious policies based on the “science”.
The same battle is repeating with climate and CO2. In 50 years people will laugh at the naivity of today’s scientists who thought they could explain everything with CO2.
February 28th, 2010 at 11:14 pmEnough with the global warming scam — we the people have enough of the bogus claims. God is in charge.
March 1st, 2010 at 12:06 amKovacs later apologized, explaining, “My ‘Scopes monkey’ analogy was inappropriate,” as it undermined his insistence that the Chamber “is not denying or otherwise challenging the science behind global climate change.”
That’s a pity, because there is so much to challenge. Maybe South Dakota should find some politicians with a firmer resolve, willing to end this abhorent practice of compelling the indoctrination of children.
March 1st, 2010 at 1:56 amA previous commenter is correct: this is a resolution, not a bill. In fact, the state Senate version of the resolution was fairly neutral: it called on public school teachers to teach a “balanced and objective” approach to climate change, in the context of climate science’s complexity and of the political noise that the science generates (as seen in James Mayeau’s comment). As a parent of three South Dakota schoolchildren, I certainly hope their science teachers take advantage of a complex topic like climate change to teach about scientific process–i.e. evaluating claims based on logic and empirical evidence–as well as content. The problem, of course, is that the data will eventually come out to support one side, so providing “balance” will eventually mean presenting a foil to demonstrate the give-and-take of scientific argumentation, not to provide a legitimate alternative theory. I suspect that this is *not* what the legislators meant. The original House version was more clearly “bipartisan” (again, not a good thing in science).
March 1st, 2010 at 5:55 pmWell Martin, I certainly hope that the data will eventually come out. Unfortunately the climate scientists don’t practice the scientific process, as witnessed by Prof P Jones of the CRU today in an UK Parliamentary enquiry by the Science and Technology committee.
Jones testified that it is “standard procedure” for climate scientists to keep their data hidden from critics.
You don’t want science teachers teaching your children to hide their homework, right? Maybe they can use climate science as an example of the negative- what not to do when following the scientific method.
March 2nd, 2010 at 4:40 amJames,
The best way to shut these climate change believers up is not by bashing one scientist’s methods, that’s easy to refute, and hiding the data doesn’t prove the data is false. We need to give them a dose of their own medicine- the peer reviewed evidence that the climate is not changing and if it is, it’s not our fault, or evidence that it’s Mars that’s the culprit. The writer linked to the article in Science from 5 years ago that showed the scientific literature overwhelmingly came down on the climate change is real side. I’m sure there must be lots of good research since then that demonstrates just the opposite. Just enlighten these people by pointing them to it, that will shut them up. (but my advice is don’t use the stuff from the weatherman in San Diego, it doesn’t stand much scrutiny.)
March 12th, 2010 at 12:33 pmThere is evidence for climate change, and there is evidence for it not being a reality. Why not present these two sides and let kids learn from it as they will?
March 19th, 2010 at 1:25 pm