Teaching Global Warming in a Deep Red State

One of the best apparent ways to nudge societies toward long-term survival, sustainability and a reasonable level of well-being seems to be via public education. As time passes, the value of teaching important topics and critical thinking skills is increasingly important. The problem is that public education is politicized for some topics and that makes it difficult or impossible to teach in some places. Global warming is one of those topics.

The Washington Post reports on the care needed to teach global warming to public school children in Oklahoma:

The students didn’t know it yet, but they were about to engage in some myth-busting about perhaps the biggest menace to their futures: climate change.

[Melissa] Lau, 42, has taught science for seven years at Piedmont Intermediate School, which is housed in an airy, modern building overlooking a wheat field and serves predominantly middle-class families, many of whom work in the oil and gas industry. For much of that time, she has sought to acquaint students with the basics of the planet’s warming.

On this next-to-last week of the school year, Lau was squeezing in a lesson exploring the link between increased carbon emissions and extreme weather events such as floods and hurricanes. A goal was to give students the knowledge to debunk the argument often made by climate change deniers that a few frigid days disprove climate change; even in a warming climate, there will still be many cold days.

The science behind climate change is complicated and evolving, and most teachers aren’t prepared to teach it well. Many textbooks don’t touch the topic, according to science educators.

Then there are the politics, especially in ruby-red Oklahoma. Educators here say they occasionally receive questions and pushback from parents when classes cover climate change. A state agency funded by the oil and gas industry pumps money into teacher training and classroom materials, including books featuring a cartoon character called Petro Pete, with the goal of promoting fossil fuels. State lawmakers also routinely introduce bills that critics say would encourage teachers to spread misinformation on evolution and climate change.

“Every year, we have to fight one or two bills,” Lau said. But she added that even here in Oklahoma, there's a growing hunger for accurate information on climate change, saying: “I don't get the resistance I got at the beginning of my career because it's getting harder and harder to deny.”

Teaching about climate change got a boost six years ago with the release of the Next Generation Science Standards, which instruct teachers to introduce students to climate change and its human causes beginning in middle school. To date, 20 states plus the District have adopted the standards, and many other states have embraced a modified version. All told, 37 states and the District recognize human-caused climate change in their science standards, says the National Center for Science Education.

Oklahoma’s standards are based on the Next Generation Science Standards, but while they discuss human effects on the environment, they do not directly attribute climate change to human activities. Even so, some state legislators called the language on climate science “one-sided.”

Jewel, the sixth-grader, said the second day of the lesson left her more worried about the Earth’s warming. “Now that I know more about the facts of climate change, it’s a little bit easier to believe,” she said. “It feels like more of a threat.”

Her classmate Dan Nguyen had a darker outlook. “Now, I’m thinking that we’re in a crisis.” It made him a little angry, he said, and he felt people “should be more careful of what they are doing, what they are using.”

Dan’s fears aside, there’s something of a disconnect between the urgency of the scientific view of climate crisis and the relatively dispassionate manner in which Lau must talk about it. Globally, children have been among those raising the alarm on climate change and calling for action, through a lawsuit and school walkouts. But Lau’s students are still young, far from voting age, and she says she has to tread carefully, to find a way to teach the subject “compassionately but head-on.”

The good news is that it has become significantly harder for climate science deniers to deny the climate situation. Petro Pete and the “other side” appears to be increasingly less plausible and influential.

B&B orig: 7/8/19

Socialism vs. Capitalism

This applies to tyrants on the political left, right and everywhere else

If you Google "capitalism definition" and "socialism definition", these are the definitions one gets: Capitalism: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state

Socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole

My limited knowledge of history and political theory tells me that, with few exceptions, what is taken to be real capitalism and socialism seem to look more alike than different from the point of view of the individual citizen. Even the elites and the wealthy have lives that look very similar, e.g., they control power and wealth and have more freedom and privilege than the masses.

I am aware that the horseshoe theory asserts that the far-left and the far-right, are not at opposite and opposing ends of a linear political continuum, but instead closely resemble one another, like the ends of a horseshoe. Can one argue that capitalism and socialism as defined above fit the horseshoe theory, if not a circle or near-circle theory, at least for average people, if not for everyone? Is that perception of reality an illusion?

Western European countries seem to be hybrid capitalist-socialist and their governments seem to generally work pretty well for most average people. For those countries, it isn't clear to me what proportion of overall individual well-being and freedom comes from capitalism and what from socialism. It probably varies among the different countries.

Capitalist, socialist and hybrid capitalist-socialist countries can be so corrupt as to be fairly considered kleptocracies and/or tyrannies. The Google definitions of capitalism and socialism do not specify that a country has to be (1) mostly honest or corrupt, or (2) mostly democratic or authoritarian. History seems to show that some capitalist and socialist countries have been highly corrupt and/or authoritarian, or even totalitarian.

Can a person logically argue that capitalism and socialism are really beside the point, and essentially they are about the same, at least for average people? If one assumes that rich and other elites nearly always have great power, wealth and freedom, what's left is to look at how the different governments affect average people and their well-being.

A key pro-capitalist argument holds that capitalism is better at generating wealth and the historical record seems to support that. But if wealth inequality is high, regardless of a capitalist or socialist source, most average people apparently will live in poverty and misery.

Is the fundamental political and social disagreement not one of socialism vs capitalism, but instead a disagreement over other things, including distribution of wealth, how much regulation should there be, amount of personal freedom, individual and social well-being, e.g., happiness, and truth vs lies?

This is true

B&B orig: 7/8/19

More Trump Lies: The Environment

The President gave a long speech yesterday touting his wonderful, amazing track record on protecting and improving the environment. The speech was full of misleading information that one can reasonably call lies. So many lies. One can only wonder how many people will believe them. It won't be none.

Three examples from the speech illustrate claimed reality and real reality.

Truth #1: “Of the six “criteria” air pollutants tracked by the Environmental Protection Agency, four actually increased in 2017, Mr. Trump’s first year in office: carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and two measures of particulate matter pollution. . . . . Independent analyses have also found that air quality has declined under Mr. Trump’s watch. The Associated Press reported that there were 15 percent more days with unhealthy air in the United States both in 2017 and 2018 than on average from 2013 to 2016.”

Lie #1: “One of the main messages of air pollution, particulate matter is six times lower here than the global average.”

Truth #1 again: Independent analyses found that air quality declined under Mr. Trump’s watch. People who are concerned about the environment and believe the lie and vote for the President in 2020 will have been deceived and betrayed by him.

Truth #2: “But the United States is also the second-largest emitter in the world and one of the largest per capita emitters. By more meaningful metrics, the United States lags behind many other countries.

In that time period — before Mr. Trump took office — the United States reduced total emissions 15.7 percent, according to the International Energy Agency. That rate was below that of more than 20 signatories to the Paris agreement, including advanced economies like the United Kingdom (28.7 percent), Sweden (26.9 percent) and Italy (22.5 percent).

In emissions per capita, the United States reduced emissions by about 26.3 percent, behind more than a dozen signatories including Denmark (38.7 percent), Britain (36.1 percent) and Sweden (34.6 percent).

It’s also worth noting that the United States’ emissions increased in 2018, according to the Energy Information Administration and an independent research firm.”

Lie #2: “Every single one of the signatories to the Paris climate accord lags behind America in overall emissions reductions.”

Truth #2 again: The US reduction rate was rate was below that of more than 20 signatories to the Paris agreement, including advanced economies. People who are concerned about the environment and believe the lie and vote for the President in 2020 will have been deceived and betrayed by him.

Truth #3: “Mr. Trump is referring to the E.P.A.’s plan to reduce childhood lead exposure, released in December 2018. The plan includes four goals with few concrete deadlines. The Environmental Defense Fund called it a “a repackaged and updated version” of programs that began during the Obama administration.

The E.P.A. is expected to release an update to a rule on lead and copper in drinking water in July, after delaying the revision several times. The agency also announced stricter standards for lead in paint dust in late June — after a federal court ordered it to do so in 2017. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit gave the E.P.A. 90 days to update the rule and a year to finalize it, rejecting the agency’s argument that it had met its obligations.”

Lie #3: “For the first time in nearly 30 years, we are in the process of strengthening national drinking water standards to protect vulnerable children from lead and copper exposure.”

Truth #3 again: The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit gave the E.P.A. 90 days to update the rule and a year to finalize it, rejecting the agency’s argument that it had met its obligations. People who are concerned about the environment and believe the lie and vote for the President in 2020 will have been deceived and betrayed by him.

Are the statements at issue merely misleading or are they outright lies? Or, are they just bullshit if one assumes the speaker doesn't care about truth and doesn't know the facts, which is plausible?

B&B orig: 7/9/19

Psychiatrists Comment on Trump's Lack of Fitness for Office

Salon reports on a detailed analysis of the Mueller report by a panel of psychiatrists. The analysis was to assess President trump's mental fitness for office. The Mueller report includes detailed data that bears on Trump's state of mind and the basis on which he makes decisions in office. Salon writes:

Dr. Bandy Lee, who is a professor of psychiatry at the Yale School of Medicine and editor of the bestselling book "The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump" convened a panel comprised of leading mental health experts to evaluate Donald Trump based upon his behavior as detailed in the Mueller report.

Their definitive conclusion: Trump is mentally unfit, a threat to the United States and the world, and as such should have his powers severely restricted. At the invitation of several Democratic members of Congress, Lee and other mental health professionals will present their findings about Donald Trump's mental health at what they hope will be a bipartisan congressional meeting in Washington next month.

In a YouTube video, Dr. Lee, a forensic psychiatrist comments further, alleging that the president "failed every criterion for rational and reality-based decision-making capacity. Our assessment is definitive. Our recommendations were, first and foremost, to remove Mr. Trump from access to nuclear weapons and war-making powers. We could offer many more, but given the urgency, we decided to focus on the two most important." The psychiatrists concluded that Trump "can no longer see reality. His actions are exactly what we would predict from an individual who lacks mental capacity."



Dr. Lee goes on to assert that the situation could have been avoided if the president and vice president were subject to fitness-for-duty tests before taking office. Military personnel who deal with nuclear weapons are subject to such mandatory psychological testing annually. She pointed out that the panel's assessment looked for impaired decision making as evidenced by low levels of impulsivity, recklessness, paranoia, and false beliefs. The psychiatrists found Tump is highly impaired in his decision-making function, but they made no clinical diagnosis.

It is important to note that the psychiatrists considered the evidence in the Mueller report, much of it sworn testimony, to be of higher quality and quantity than they usually worked with. That led to confidence in their function analysis: "The wealth and quality of the report’s content made this possible. In fact, we had more and better data, under sworn testimony, than we have ever had in our usual practice."

The panel invited the President to come in for an in-person exam if he believed their assessment was incorrect. Obviously, the President will never do that.

This is more evidence of the president's unfitness for office, something that arguably should have been obvious to most open-minded people by now.

B&B orig: 7/10/19

President Attacks Climate Science, Again

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that a State Department intelligence analyst resigned in protest because the White House blocked his discussion of climate science in Congressional testimony. The White House refused to approve Dr. Rod Schoonover’s written testimony for entry into the permanent Congressional record because it contradicted the president's false opinions about climate science. The WSJ writes:

A policy expert familiar with his case confirmed that his resignation came as a direct result of the episode. His last day is expected to be Friday.

“Intelligence analysts, as a rule, are very committed to objective truth,” said Francesco Femia, the head of the Center for Climate and Security, a research organization in Washington. “And when something extraordinary happens to try to politicize their or suppress their analysis, as happened in this case, that flies in the face of their professional integrity. It’s a matter of someone standing up for principle.”

The State Department agency where Dr. Schoonover worked, the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, has long been regarded as one of the most scrupulous and accurate in the federal government. In the prelude to the 2003 United States invasion of Iraq, the agency stood almost alone in asserting — correctly, but contrary to the positions of the White House and the Central Intelligence Agency — that Iraq was not reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.

As usual, the White House refused to comment. For context, a few days ago, the president gave a speech touting his great and wonderful record on leading the world in protecting the environment. That speech was loaded with lies, as discussed here previously.

Once again, republican attacks on science they dislike is on full display and undeniable to all except their supporters. For the GOP and its supporters, ideology talks and all contrary reality, science and logic walks.

B&B orig: 7/10/19

What Hypocrisy Looks and Sounds Like

This 6-minute video is self explanatory.



B&B orig: 7/11/19