Creationists Now Attacking Climate Science in Idaho

February 2, 2016


Seems like a rash of attacks on the teaching of biology, in tandem with atmospheric science.
No way the fossil fuel industry has anything to do with this.

It’s cyclical, that’s all. A natural process.


A pending rule covering new science and humanities standards is in limbo, after the House Education Committee complained about the public input process surrounding the creation of the standards.

DeMordaunt New

Committee Chairman Reed DeMordaunt, R-Eagle, led Tuesday morning’s effort to reject the rule.

The rule addresses numerous academic standards, including science standards pertaining to the age of the Earth, the creation of the universe and global warming.

The State Board of Education approved the rule containing the standards on Aug. 13. Written comments were accepted through Oct. 28, according to state documents.

DeMordaunt told fellow committee members that more public input was needed on the front end of the rulemaking process. He stopped short of saying that existing laws and rules were violated, and said it appears legal notice for public comment was provided.

“As I look at this rule and drill down with the parties involved, I feel we can do a better job than what we’ve done in terms of getting feedback from our citizens with regard to this,” he said during the meeting.

After the meeting, DeMordaunt told Idaho Education News that he and other committee members simply preferred a more robust comment process.

“It is my belief that this wasn’t done in the best way possible,” DeMordaunt said. “It doesn’t mean they weren’t good standards. But before we ever talk about content, we’ve got to be assured the process is open, transparent and invites the public participation.”

Neither DeMordaunt nor other committee members complained about the public input process regarding a suite of unrelated rules they addressed Tuesday.

Clow New

And committee members barely mentioned the content of the standards. However, Rep. Lance Clow, R-Twin Falls, said language that said human activities have “significantly” altered the biosphere was “troublesome to some people.”

“Significantly?” Clow said. “Compared to what? … I think you could write standards without using some of that terminology and still have appropriate science standards.”

Below, Eugenie Scott, former director of the National Center for Science Education talks about the parallels between climate deniers and evolution cranks.  “It’s really not about the science.” Video from the new “Scientists on Climate Change” video playlist.

Below, Katharine Hayhoe PhD, discusses climate change in an interview on the Christian Broadcasting service. (also from the “Scientists on Climate Change” list)


10 Responses to “Creationists Now Attacking Climate Science in Idaho”

  1. Reblogged this on A Green Road Daily News and commented:
    And the Earth is only 2,000 years old, honest.


    • And Adam and Eve’s Children (apart from Abel – Cain murdered him) were right into the family thing and more than likely including their kids as well. Helps explain some of those people, just doing what they deep down think is natural in God’s eyes.
      They ignore the giants that dwelt in the land and the City of Ur where the wives and husbands came from

  2. ” However, Rep. Lance Clow, R-Twin Falls, said language that said human activities have “significantly” altered the biosphere was “troublesome to some people.””

    If you can’t handle the guilt and the sin, change your ways stoopid and pray for forgiveness and do all you can to right the wrongs to Gods handiwork that you have contributed to

    • Tom Bates Says:

      Did you bother to read the actual article, the headline is a lie. All the guy wants is more public input, hopefully by more scientists on the use of the word significant which is in dispute as the science does not support it.
      take a look at the black line, no global increase in almost twenty years. what you have from the data is something that looks like a step increase back in 98 and if you look at other data, it may well be a partial part of a regular wave function. We are hotter than in 1625, which is a good thing or about 5 billion people would be dead from starvation.

  3. Reblogged this on Notes from the Overground and commented:

  4. pendantry Says:

    Good to see homo fatuus brutus leading the charge in your lead image… 🙂

  5. Gingerbaker Says:

    Can we just call a spade a spade? These are people who are either rather stupid, or simply do not know how to think.

    I believe they can’t think well because their force-fed religion broke their rational capacity. This is, I posit, perhaps the greatest flaw of Abrahamic religions – young children are forced to accept the incoherent and irrational as truth. Which breaks their confidence in their ability to recognize and rely on logic.

    I know there is at least one place in Europe which does not allow religious inculcation in children until they are of a certain age. We should adopt the same customs everywhere.

    • Tom Bates Says:

      This is not about religion, it is about the word significant and all the guy wants is more public input. Are you afraid to allow the other side of the science debate to speak?

  6. Tom Bates Says:

    So the headline if a lie and a gross distortion. The guy is objecting to the term significant and wants more public input. That is a valid point. The CO2 increase has been measured, the gain from that increase has been measured it is 0.00014705882 percent of solar gain in the ten years measured. That is pretty small about like a flock of birds flying by your house.

    The RSS shows no global warming in almost twenty years, everything but the arctic is cooling, STAR show cooling on all the data. The Antarctic is colder, more sea and land ice, Greenland is colder, more land ice, per the Danes, the arctic sea ice is not much different since 1958. NOAA has US temperatures dropping a bit since 1998, tornadoes and such are down, the insurance industry payout for storm related losses is at a six year low, per the IPCC Himalayan glaciers are stable and they say there is insufficient data to show any human caused increased storm activity, Alaska was warmer a thousand years ago as the trees under a glacier show, a study of Greenland ice cores shows several warm periods in the last 4000 years warmer than today, when it was much warmer the Sahara was not a desert, it had rivers and grasslands instead of today’s sand,

    the world has been warming out of the little ice age for the last 400 years, every century and decade for the most part was warmer than the preceding. In Barrow Alaska in October it was 7 degrees warmer, in 1911 than in 2015 so sometimes it has gotten colder instead of warmer.

    Giss the bedrock of the AGW folks, is 66 percent an estimate. They plug in estimates when they do not have an actual temperature or when the temperature of surrounding grids is higher than the actual temperature in a grid. They did that to Barrow Alaska, plugged in a higher temperature to fix the inconvenient data. You can agree to that procedure or not. When more than half the data is a plug I wonder exactly how realistic the claims are so we come to the word significant once again.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: