Before science teachers can tackle topics such as global warming, they will have to demonstrate to the school board that the course is politically balanced.
A new environmental science course prompted the on Tuesday to rewrite its policy for teaching controversial subject matter. Concerned that "liberal" faculty members could skew lessons on global warming, the board of education voted 4-0 to make teachers give an annual presentation on how they're teaching the class.
“I believe my role in the board is to represent the conservative voice of the community and I’m not a big fan of global warming,” board member Jeffrey Barke, who led the effort but didn't attend Tuesday's meeting, said in a telephone interview. “The teachers wanted [the class], and we want a review of how they are teaching it.”
The high school will begin offering an advanced-placement environmental science course next fall. Based on demand elsewhere in California, district officials expect it to be popular—more than 15,000 public school students enrolled in the class in 2008-09.
Although there is a consensus among scientists, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, that global climate change exists, the board of education said the topic is controversial enough to require a change in the district's policy.
The new class will be the first for which district teachers must prove political balance to the school board.
“Most teachers are left to center, and if we leave it to teachers to impose their liberal views, then it would make for an unbalanced lesson,” Barke said. “Some people believe that global warming is a crock of crap, and others are zealots.”
READ ABOUT THE SCHOOL BOARD'S REACTION TO NATIONAL CRITICISM OF ITS GLOBAL WARMING CLASS POLICY
The course also covers topics such as population dynamics, evolution and biodiversity, pollution, ozone depletion and human health and toxicity.
“We define a topic to be controversial if it has more than one widely held view,” said Assistant Superintendent when Superintendent Gregory Franklin steps down at the end of the school year. “There are many issues regarding the environment that have become politicized these days and we want kids to be exposed to all sides.”
School officials said the class is a good alternative for students looking to add an alternative AP course to their schedules.
“Our goal is to have every high school student complete at least one AP course, and this is a good one to take because it is not heavily math-based,” said Kropp. “We are excited to offer it.”
The textbook that will be used, “Living in the Environment,” asks students to analyze why some issues are deemed controversial (such as wilderness protection) and explores how population growth and climate change can cause species extinctions.
“If the textbook talks about the evil adventures of humanity, we want teachers to describe an opposing view,” Barke said. “Teachers and textbooks are biased.”
Los Alamitos Unified isn't the first district to raise concerns regarding how environmental science courses are taught. The Texas board of education, for example, mandated that teachers present “all sides” of issues that include global warming. South Dakota public schools are also required to teach climate skepticism, according to a report from the New York Times.
Still, this might be the first time a California public school takes such a stand.
“I don’t have data to share on this, but every subject area has its own set of controversies,” said Thomas Adams, director of standards, curriculum frameworks and instructional resources for the California Department of Education.
Kropp said, “An unbalanced lesson would portray only one side. All we want is to have teachers teach the various scientific theories out there.”
More on the Global Warming Class:
More Good Reads on Los Alamitos-Seal Beach Patch:
Many of the academies and agencies that your listed have been found to have corrupted at least some of their "data" to arrive at a politically expedient solution. Cherry picked data points to serve an agenda in the advancing of "grant money" and "redistributive social justice" is what Global Warming is all about. Maybe you saw this. At the latest Climate Change Conference in Cancun, the "truth" about global warming was exposed. German Economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer stated; "climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, but is actually an economy summit during which the redistribution of the world's resources will be negotiated"
Please show your work, with regards to the fossil fuel vs alternative energy subsidies. Oil companies pay more in taxes than on profits that just about any other industry. What is the cost per BTU for Gas/Oil? Natural Gas? Coal? Nuclear? Windmills? Solar?
Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings. Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009. Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction. ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction. Facts be damned! Just say a lie long enough and just like the creation myth, it becomes your truth.
It is funny that you can't seem to debate "the facts" without hurling insults. How pathetic you are. Also, did you not learn (in 8th grade) to cite sources, and provide a link, when you reference a statistic. I'll "believe" my creation myth, you "believe" your big-bang/evolution myth. To date, neither has been proven, or disproven. Or, have you provided the; goo to man lineage?
Your "information" is just plain incorrect. None of those academies and agencies were found to be corrupted. Five independent investigations of the stolen E-mails showed that the research was sound. The vast majority of those entities listed were never accused of such behavior. Furthermore, oil companies DO NOT pay more in taxes than on profits that just about any other industry. Here is a short article with a link to the CBO report: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html I've also attached a report that lays out the various tax breaks/subsidies: http://www.elistore.org/Data/products/d19_07.pdf I frankly don't care whether you believe in creation or evolution, because that belief will not destroy our ecosystems. CO2 and other greenhouse gasses very likely will, and I want the world to be around for my children and grandchildren. Phytoplankton -- the 'fuel' on which marine ecosystems run -- are declining at a rate of about 1 per cent per year, which is about a 40 per cent drop in phytoplankton since 1950. This is just one example of many.
I provide facts that showed you were full of absolute 100% bull feces and then you whine and accuse me of "hurling insults". Please don't procreate. One of you IS enough.
I am happy to engage in adult conversation with you. No one wants to destroy the planet. Historically, we've had significantly higher rates of CO2 without man's participation. CO2 is measured in parts per million. While I accept that "man" has some negative effect on the planet, it is not as extreme as "social justice" activists are attempting to portray. Regarding Oil company taxes, from your article. "The American Petroleum Institute, an industry advocacy group, argues that even with subsidies, oil producers paid or incurred $280 billion in American income taxes from 2006 to 2008, and pay a higher percentage of their earnings in taxes than most other American corporations." The subsidies that you (the article) cites refers to small to medium sized oil companies, and to specific "capital investments to include; oil field leases and drilling equipment." Also, Oil Companies pay state and excise taxes, on top of their Federal Income taxes. Now, legitimately, we need to reform the tax code (lower corporate taxes) to keep companies from setting up overseas.
I'm happy to engage you in juvenile conversation as well. You referenced your facts, but provided no CITATION. You were asked to cite your statistics, and yet nothing. No worries. Maybe Jon Stewart will offer you some direction to your sources.
http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2011/02/25/taking-a-look-at-our-10-k/ "In 2010, our total taxes and duties to the U.S. government and its subdivisions exceeded $9.8 billion, including more than $1.6 billion in income tax expense. Over the past five years, we’ve incurred a total U.S. tax expense of almost $59 billion. To help put that in perspective, consider the fact that our five-year tax expense exceeded our U.S. operating earnings during that time by $18 billion. That means that for every $1 of earnings in the United States, we paid $1.45 in taxes to federal, state and local governments. Despite the fact that U.S. oil and gas companies shoulder a significantly higher tax burden than other industries, lawmakers have continued to target our industry for tax hikes."
"Yet before you thank Big Oil for financing Uncle Sam’s profligacy, get this: Exxon paid none of its 2009 income taxes in the U.S., while Chevron sent the U.S. Treasury just $200 million." Forbes. Go figure I would get that data from a liberal anti-business link, like Forbes. Ward, go back to the 1950's. http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/01/ge-exxon-walmart-business-washington-corporate-taxes.html "Though Exxon's financial statement's don't show any net income tax liability owed to Uncle Sam, a company spokesman insists that once its final tax bill is figured, Exxon will owe a "substantial 2009 tax liability." How substantial? "That's not something we're required to disclose, nor do we." " Don't look at the numbers, listen to what we say instead. Trust us... gochya.
Did you read the article. lol From YOUR citation. "Mind you, not all global megacorps enjoy such low tax rates. Try to muster some pity for Big Oil. ExxonMobil ( XOM - news - people ) in its 2009 annual report to the SEC, recorded a larger income tax expense than any other U.S. company last year, some $17.6 billion, or 47% of pretax earnings. Exxon's peers Chevron ( CVX - news - people ) and ConocoPhillips ( COP - news - people ) likewise recorded similarly high effective tax rates." "Larger income tax expense than any other U.S. company." Isn't that what I said. Thanks for playin. Let me know if you need SCHOOLED on any other topic. Out.
Effective Tax Rate - Actual income tax paid divided by net taxable income before taxes, expressed as a percentage. $17.6 Billion.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/28/business/la-fi-oil-refineries-20110429
You are correct that there is evidence for higher rates of CO2, however conditions were entirely different. An important factor to consider during that time is the sun. During the Ordovician, it would have been several percent dimmer according to established nuclear models of main sequence stars. Surprisingly, this raises the CO2 threshold for glaciation to a staggering 3000 ppmv or so. This also explains (along with the logarithmic forcing effect of CO2) why a runaway greenhouse didn't occur: with a dimmer sun, high CO2 is necessary to stop the Earth freezing over. Conditions are very different today. There isn't enough space here to go into all of the evidence for human-caused global climate change, but the evidence is very strong. Here's one resource: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/.
I SCHOOLED met00. He [inaccurately] stated that Oil Companies weren't paying taxes. No worries. The headline of your article "Oil companies are making more money and less fuel" You know that they don't control [the price] of oil, right? As for making less fuel, that is a function of our country's leaders. We should drill here at home. Texas just found another supply. South Dakota has a huge supply. Why do we allow Middle East mullah's determine our availability? Lastly, as was shown to met00, Government is the big winner, through the collection of taxes.
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/07/03/oil-companies-billions-subsidies-tax-breaks/ Drilling at home isn't the answer! Offshore we've seen major problems with the Deepwater Horizon spill, and on land can destroy habitats and animal migration, not to mention the public health impacts from fossil fuels. See full article from DailyFinance: http://srph.it/ib6MGl We need to reduce our energy use and put money into R & D on good alternatives. Currently the green alternatives aren't very green, but they have fewer impacts on public health than fossil fuels do. We cannot continue to use fossil fuels if we want humans and the species that we depend on to survive.
Will GM corn affect the beef? Big oil refiners and Government motors $6billion corporate welfare just supports more cars on the road.
NOTICE: 3 pm (pacific time) Wednesday July 27 2011 Radio Liberty hosted by Dr. Stan Monteith (831) 475-6651 Fax: (831) 464 8427 With guest Charlie Peters Clean Air Performance Professionals (An award winning coalition of motorists) Conversation about the use of Corn Fuel Ethanol in Gasoline Listen Online http://radiolibertyarchives.gsradio.net:8080/072711a.mp3
Do you have the answer of the "something from nothing" hypothosis? Or, the mapping of the "millions" of life forms that exist? As to working for the chinese, that could only come about if we continue to borrow, to serve the "looter class" of American society.
"Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data." Read it a weep! http://tjo.me/upjD0w
And when you say, "we don't know much about global warming yet", let me correct that. You really should say, "*I* don't know much about global warming yet".