From AAAS Policy Alert, March 3, 2010:
South Dakota Legislature Considering Resolution on “Balanced” Teaching of Climate Change. By an 18-17 vote, the South Dakota State Senate passed a concurrent resolution on the teaching of climate change in public schools, urging that the subject be taught in a “balanced and objective manner” and stating that the debate on global climate change is “subject to varying scientific interpretations.” The Senate amended an earlier resolution (HCR 1009) that passed the state’s House of Representatives 36-30, which had included a recommendation to include in classroom instruction discussion of “a variety of climatological, meteorological, astrological, thermological, cosmological, and ecological dynamics that can effect [sic] world weather phenomena and that the significance and interrelativity of these factors is largely speculative.” The bill now returns to the House.
Let’s see here. Besides the obvious nonsense in the content, they made a few word oopsies that make me question their ability to write laws.
They don’t know the difference between “affect” and “effect”.
They refer to “astrological” implications (should be “astronomical”, I assume, but that doesn’t make sense either). What is the effect on Virgos of climate change? Perhaps that’s more important than rising sea levels.
“Thermological” and “interrelativity” are not even words according to dictionary.com. Buy a clue. And a dictionary.
But, these fine folks resolve to tell teachers what to teach and how to teach it. The wording also includes the typical, “This is a theory not a fact” nonsense.