The South Dakota legislature tries to legislate reality, and fails big time. House Concurrent Resolution No. 1009 calls “for the balanced teaching of global warming in the public schools of South Dakota”, but then proceeds with a list the standard anti-climate-change talking points.
For example, did you know that “carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but rather a highly beneficial ingredient for all plant life on earth”? I don’t disagree, but manure is also a highly beneficial ingredient for plants, but that doesn’t mean that I want to be covered in it. And water is arguably the most important ingredient for all life, but if the ice caps keep melting it is going to cause floods of biblical proportions. Just because something is essential for life, doesn’t mean that more of it is always better. You can have too much of a good thing (for example, salt).
The biggest argument presented by the resolution is:
WHEREAS, more than 31,000 American scientists collectively signed a petition to President Obama stating: “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, or methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide will produce many beneficial effects on the natural plant and animal environments of the earth”
They fail to mention that said petition was circulated in 1998, ten years before Obama was elected president, and was debunked even back then (before the bulk of the research confirming global warming was done).
But my favorite part of the resolution is this line:
That there are a variety of climatological, meteorological, astrological, thermological, cosmological, and ecological dynamics that can effect world weather phenomena and that the significance and interrelativity of these factors is largely speculative;
Wow, the use of all those big words almost convinced me that they must know what they are talking about, until I noticed that they used the word “astrological” rather than “astronomical”. I guess this bill was just born under a bad sign.
And just to be picky, someone should learn the difference between the words “effect” and “affect”.
UPDATE: A reader points out that the use of the word “thermological” is a gaffe as well — thermology is the medical use of infrared imaging for diagnostic purposes (often used to detect breast cancer), and has nothing to do with global warming.
Oh, and they appear to have just made up the word “interrelativity”. Not in any dictionary I know of. Not sure what it would mean if it was a word!