Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know several people in Texas and they have to home school. The schools started teaching creationism and the teachers were not really very progressive. I think Montgomery County is one of the most progressive districts in the country so it is very hard to compare it to Texas.

That said, I am really scared for the rest of the country if Montgomery County is supposed to be that good. Last year, my son had a great teacher. This year, his teacher doesn't seem all that organized and he doesn't seem to be learning as much. It's always going to depend on the teacher but Texas schools seem super scary. It might not have been as bad a while ago.

Where in Texas? It's a big state and opinions/practices differ dramatically between the progressive cities and the rural areas. By the sound of this, I highly doubt it was Austin, Dallas, Ft. Worth, Houston, or even San Antonio. I suspect it was a smaller district somewhere.

El Paso? But isn't MoCo looking like El Paso these days anyway??

Anonymous wrote:I am not the PP you're addressing.

But the PP was not (as I understand it) saying either that Texas schools are bad because there are religious people who vote Republican in Texas, or that only a secular education is a good education.

The PP was (as I understand it) saying that

1. the founding fathers instituted the separation of church and state in US government
2. climate change is real

and that people who deny these facts have no business being on a Board of Education.

I am afraid that you are starting a brand new direction. I do respect you and hence, here is what I think.

Policy makers are leaders. The most important qualities for leaders shall be vision and leadership. Vision means that they shall have a systematic view of overall situation and sense the right directions. Leadership is dare to stand up when he/she believes it is right and can inspire people to follow.

Well, leaders do have their weaknesses and do make mistakes. President Clinton had an affair. Hillary Clinton had misspoken about her Bosnia journey. However, they are still leaders respected by many.

Anonymous wrote:"The people against global warming/climate change"? I am against global warming/climate change. But it's happening anyway, despite my opposition.

And no, the true propeller of global warming/climate change is not the clean energy industries. It's our use of fossil fuels.

Typed in a hurry and missed important words.

In reality, the true propeller of global warming/climate change study/policy is...

I am not against global warming/climate change. However, still want to see more from research.

"The people against global warming/climate change"? I am against global warming/climate change. But it's happening anyway, despite my opposition.

And no, the true propeller of global warming/climate change is not the clean energy industries. It's our use of fossil fuels.

Anonymous wrote:Yes, PP. That is my point.

I am afraid that people against global warming/climate change may not use your logic. Then, the failed logic can not help you to prove that those folks are wrong.

My 2c. It will take years and even decades for scientists to prove or disprove something as significant like global warming/climate change.

In reality, the true propeller of global warming/climate change is the clean energy industries. While we enjoy solar energy or electric car, we should be aware that there are non-negligible environmental impact during production and disposal process of solar panels and li-ion batteries. EPA recently started to look into li-ion battery issues. Here is a reference.
http://www.epa.gov/dfe/pubs/projects/lbnp/final-li-ion-battery-lca-report.pdf

On my end, I've test-drived Honda Fit. It is quite cool in many aspects. The inconvenience is that it must be charged every night.

I am not the PP you're addressing.

But the PP was not (as I understand it) saying either that Texas schools are bad because there are religious people who vote Republican in Texas, or that only a secular education is a good education.

The PP was (as I understand it) saying that

1. the founding fathers instituted the separation of church and state in US government
2. climate change is real

and that people who deny these facts have no business being on a Board of Education.

Anonymous wrote:

Our founding fathers did not get their education under separation of church and states. Let me be straight.
Climate change is still a scientific hypothesis instead of a fact.

The person who wrote this is incredible misinformed. Did you read that in some newsletter from Michelle Bachmann? The Founding Fathers may not have been educated in a system that separated church and state but that's what they wanted for the US government. The Constitution doesn't mention God or Jesus. Religion was not supposed to part of any government. I guess they didn't specify the Montgomery County School system or any school district in Texas, but they didn't want radical religious fanatics taking over the schools I'm sure.

Climate change is a hypothesis only for the uninformed. Just because you decide not to read the proof doesn't mean it isn't there.
I hope you don't work for the school system. (Probably not as it seems you are not well educated.)

Your failed logic and irrespective manner in your post clearly demonstrated that your education failed you.

I feel sorry for you since
1) you failed in reading/understanding the context of conversations. Let me help you a little bit on the context,
- someone implied that TX schools were bad since TX was a red state or there was religious influences in their school system.
- my point was that the above mentioned argument was flawed since there were great people coming out of school systems with even stronger religious influences.

2) you failed in reasoning. Your argument about founding fathers was totally irrelevant to the argument that I've made.
- Have MCPS in the last 50 years educated someone as eminent as any one as our founding fathers? Or Newton? Or Mozart?
- Founding father wanted the separation of church and state in governing this country. Is this the same as saying that the schools under a particular government is bad or good?
- Why do you even want to bring it up?

3) you failed in understanding the conversations on global warming/climax change within this thread. Please do yourself a favor and read again.

Finally, your way of articulating points is very radical and political centered. Such a behavior renders the whole post pointless and unproductive.

Yes, PP. That is my point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You got wrong logic! Please let me help you,

1. Scientists predicted A based on their model/hypothesis B
2. A is not true.
3. 1+2 => B is not right.

The statement 3 should be something like that the theory/hypothesis/model behind global warming/climate change is not right. Scientists need to go back and work on their model/hypothesis more instead of jump on any of conclusions quickly.

It is too big a stretch to say that 3 is the same as "no human-caused climate change".

OK, I'll try again. Here is the PP's argument, as I understand it.

1. Scientists predict that a whole bunch of things will happen as a result of human-caused climate change.
2. One of them (shrinking of the Antarctic sea ice) doesn't happen (or, at least, hasn't happened yet)
2a. Scientists propose explanations for why it isn't happening.
2a(i). The explanations do not include "human-caused climate change isn't real".
3. Therefore, human-caused climate change isn't real!

I respect your effort. However, 3 will not be the right outcome of 1,2 (2a + 2a(i)). Sorry.

Anonymous wrote:I know several people in Texas and they have to home school. The schools started teaching creationism and the teachers were not really very progressive. I think Montgomery County is one of the most progressive districts in the country so it is very hard to compare it to Texas.

That said, I am really scared for the rest of the country if Montgomery County is supposed to be that good. Last year, my son had a great teacher. This year, his teacher doesn't seem all that organized and he doesn't seem to be learning as much. It's always going to depend on the teacher but Texas schools seem super scary. It might not have been as bad a while ago.

Where in Texas? It's a big state and opinions/practices differ dramatically between the progressive cities and the rural areas. By the sound of this, I highly doubt it was Austin, Dallas, Ft. Worth, Houston, or even San Antonio. I suspect it was a smaller district somewhere.

Our founding fathers did not get their education under separation of church and states. Let me be straight.
Climate change is still a scientific hypothesis instead of a fact.

The person who wrote this is incredible misinformed. Did you read that in some newsletter from Michelle Bachmann? The Founding Fathers may not have been educated in a system that separated church and state but that's what they wanted for the US government. The Constitution doesn't mention God or Jesus. Religion was not supposed to part of any government. I guess they didn't specify the Montgomery County School system or any school district in Texas, but they didn't want radical religious fanatics taking over the schools I'm sure.

Climate change is a hypothesis only for the uninformed. Just because you decide not to read the proof doesn't mean it isn't there.
I hope you don't work for the school system. (Probably not as it seems you are not well educated.)

I know several people in Texas and they have to home school. The schools started teaching creationism and the teachers were not really very progressive. I think Montgomery County is one of the most progressive districts in the country so it is very hard to compare it to Texas.

That said, I am really scared for the rest of the country if Montgomery County is supposed to be that good. Last year, my son had a great teacher. This year, his teacher doesn't seem all that organized and he doesn't seem to be learning as much. It's always going to depend on the teacher but Texas schools seem super scary. It might not have been as bad a while ago.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks science freaks. The OP has already put her house on the market.

Love this.

+1 run as fast as you can!

Anonymous wrote:Thanks science freaks. The OP has already put her house on the market.

Love this.

Anonymous wrote:You got wrong logic! Please let me help you,

1. Scientists predicted A based on their model/hypothesis B
2. A is not true.
3. 1+2 => B is not right.

The statement 3 should be something like that the theory/hypothesis/model behind global warming/climate change is not right. Scientists need to go back and work on their model/hypothesis more instead of jump on any of conclusions quickly.

It is too big a stretch to say that 3 is the same as "no human-caused climate change".

OK, I'll try again. Here is the PP's argument, as I understand it.

1. Scientists predict that a whole bunch of things will happen as a result of human-caused climate change.
2. One of them (shrinking of the Antarctic sea ice) doesn't happen (or, at least, hasn't happened yet)
2a. Scientists propose explanations for why it isn't happening.
2a(i). The explanations do not include "human-caused climate change isn't real".
3. Therefore, human-caused climate change isn't real!