I Might Have To Consider Home Schooling

Filed in Delaware, National by on January 18, 2010

Especially since I’m already doing it, since my 7th grader just told me her Social Studies teacher told her that Climate Change was nonsense – which is scary, but becoming oh so predictable.  Seriously, can we just pay these people more so we can get rid of the imbeciles?  When my 7th grader questioned her about the polar ice caps and the fact that temperatures globally were rising, there was no answer other than “Look how cold it is outside.”  Simply brilliant, and how sad is it when a twelve year old totally owns a “professional” educator whose only chance of winning an argument with a child is to tell them to sit down and shut up?

Texas in charge of textbooks. I suggest you read this.


About the Author ()

A stay-at-home mom with an obsession for National politics.

Comments (90)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

Sites That Link to this Post

  1. Taco Bell Founder | AXI | January 18, 2010
  1. Tea Please says:

    Who cares?

    Bring on the apocalypse! I predict liberals will fare worse than conservatives.

  2. Truth Teller says:

    Let’s look at it this way TEA PLEASE if you are wrong we all choke and Die. If i am wrong we end up with clean water and air and a green earth. On second thought if things go you way at least we won’t have to put up with the likes of BECK and Rush

  3. Brooke says:

    Welcome to my world, pandora. 😉

  4. anon says:

    It’s liberals who protect the imbeciles. If you agree to dismantle the teacher’s union, and start paying good teachers more, and bad teachers not at all, then maybe we can have a conversation about what teachers should or should not be spouting in the classroom.

  5. Kilroy says:

    Just think when that Social Studies teacher is rating “ineffective” under Delaware’s RTTT plan re: teacher evaluation he/she will stay on the job but receive a teacher mentor.

  6. Tea Please says:

    I can’t wait for the Mad Max days! You will be easy pickings.

  7. Delaware Dem says:

    What is with these tea baggers and threats of violence and hopes for judgment day? And what makes them think they will not be in Hell when that day comes?

  8. Delaware Dem says:

    They can’t win a debate, so they threaten violence or hope for the end of the world.

  9. A. price says:

    they cant lose either, because you cant win arguments with insane people. tea please…. i cant wait for your backwards view of the world to come crashing down when all your politicians start to lose and all your fears about equality come true.

  10. pandora says:

    They wallow in their stupidity, DD. It is their badge of honor. And since they can’t keep up intellectually, they’ve decided to try and pull everyone else down.

  11. Cell You Light Us says:

    Bring on the Thunderdome!

  12. Jason330 says:


    Being good at “Modern Warfare 2” does not mean you will be a post apocalyse bad ass.

  13. Yum E says:

    How nice. I shall eat you last.

  14. Delaware Dem says:

    Impossible, since I will kill you first. See, mindless comments are not beneath me.

  15. Bob White says:

    The reality is that we are seeing more and more evidence that AGW is nonsense, and that the data supporting it has been manipulated to bring about a predetermined conclusion.

    Setting aside the current weather issues, there is the fact that temperatures have been dropping for a decade, current projections show a 30-50 year mini-ice age in the offing, and the overall increase in temperature (to the degree it exists) looks more related to ongoing ebb and flow of temperature than it does to anything human beings have done.

    As for the “sit down and shut up” approach used by the teacher, she clearly missed the lesson from the learned professors of education that such tactics are only permitted when directed against a conservative child asking inconvenient questions or suggesting that America is a great country, not a reliably progressive child who has accepted his/her parental indoctrination in the home.

    Oh, and Truth Teller (sic), two can play your game. If I am wrong, then America remains a free and prosperous nation with its sovereignty intact with the technological and scientific ability to meet the challenge of global warming. If you are wrong, America loses its sovereignty, Americans lose their freedom, and we needlessly enter a dark age of technological stagnation and declining standard of living. I’ll take the consequences of my side being wrong any day.

  16. Suzanne says:

    I hope you had a talk with the principal and will go to the next school board meeting to stop this crap. I am glad that my son, so far, has not had teachers that force their view on him.

  17. Bob White says:

    Now Suzanne, do you hold the same feeling about liberal teachers who seek to force LIBERAL views on kids? Or only about conservative teachers who disagree with you, since you are right and they are obviously wrong?

    Remember, academic freedom does is supposed to cut both ways.

  18. jason330 says:

    I think we can all agree that there is are “liberal” or “conservative” views of global warming. There is the fact that green house gasses are causing the planet to heat up on one side, and a bunch off paid of shills and dupes on the other side of the issue. That much has been settled.

  19. Temperatures have been dropping for a decade?

    The 2000s are the warmest decade on record. The warmest years ever recorded are the following: 2005, 2007/2009 (tie), 1998.

  20. nemski says:

    The article from the Daily Mail that Bob White did not link to has been roundly debunked.

  21. Yeah, that Daily Mail article was fairly instantly notorious for completely misrepresenting the data and conclusion of the scientists.

  22. Bob White says:

    Sorry, given the choice between a discredited hack like Hansen and NOAA, I’ll take NOAA.

    And with today’s report that the glaciers in the Himalayas are not melting, we have one more nail in the coffin of the junk science that is AGW.

  23. pandora says:

    Bob, please provide links to your statements.

  24. Polyshius says:

    UI….how many temperature monitoring stations “fell off the map” in the 1990s. Where were they? Why did they stop monitoring? Which political philosophy caused that government’s funding to dry up? Who won the Cold War? I know, I know….you demand a recount, right?

  25. Shorter Polyshius: I don’t like that data, so I will ignore it.

  26. Polyshius says:

    Good. That will keep you consistent with the rest of the liberazis.

  27. John Galt says:

    Here is the link to the story about how the study showing that the
    Himalayas are melting was based on “speculation”


  28. liberalgeek says:

    There is a huge difference between what John Galt is saying and what Bob White said.

    Also, keep in mind that the people challenging the findings were India. India has some pretty vested interests in growing their economy.

    Finally, issue at hand in the article wasn’t really about “if” the glaciers were melting, it was about pinning a date on it 25 years out.

  29. Bob White says:

    And you think those pushing the AGW scam don’t have a vested economic interest in it being the truth? Look at Gore’s carbon credit business.

  30. nemski says:

    Bob White and those that push deny climate warming don’t have a vested economic interest?

    Yeah, environmentalists run the world — not energy companies, manufacturing companies and capitalists on Wall Street.

  31. nemski says:

    Also another item taken into consideration, there will be parts of the world the cool, but we are looking at an overall increase, not just pockets.

  32. Geezer says:

    As I have noted before, energy companies have reserves in the ground worth literally tens of trillions of dollars. If there is a financial interest here, it clearly rests on the side of the deniers.

    And Mr. White, unless you are a slumming climate scientist, you really don’t know anything about global warming except what you prefer to believe. Take that weak shit somewhere else.

  33. anon says:

    So does this mean when the coastal cities are flooded and the midwest grain fields dry up, we can all go live in the Himalayas?

  34. missundaztood says:

    i guess if the teacher had said that she agrees with the warmists that would be ok right

  35. I would have a problem with teachers going against the conclusions of the majority of scientists based on political calculation.

  36. Interesting thing I’ve noted about deniers, they’re put in a group together but they don’t say the same things. The groups I’ve noticed are the “earth is cooling” people who spend a lot of time disputing temperature readings. They have a big case of the yes…but (a sure sign of arguing from a position of weakness). Then there’s the “earth is warming but it’s natural” folks. There’s also the “earth is warming but not as much as you think” folks. There’s also the “earth is warming, so what?” folks.

  37. missundaztood says:

    why is it believed that the earths climate is static ? we are always going into or coming out of an ice age. I studied climatology at the university of delaware in the mid eighties under dr.mather who was the delaware state climatologist and a leader in his field of study.Back then there was a split in beliefs between fears of a coming ice age and the new concept of global warming. dr. mather sressed that both claims where unfounded on the grounds that people havent been collecting accurate data long enough to make any meaningful conclusion. This is why the computer models on climate change are bunk. its all politics and no science.

  38. A lot has changed since the mid-80s. If you want to inform yourself, I recommend reading the IPCC report. There’s also good blogs by experts like Real Climate, Deltoid, Climate Progress among them.

  39. nemski says:

    Beat me to it UI.

  40. Here’s a nice link on common contrarian arguments. You might want to think about putting it in your favorites.

  41. missundaztood says:

    politics+science=junk science

  42. a. price says:

    seriously. you are basing you opinion of the climate from a class you had in the 80s? sure SO MUCH we knew in the 80s is still true today! AIDS is only an illness gay men can get, leg warmers are cool, Michael Jackson is black, cars can only run on gas, Iran is a threat… wait…
    point is, you can call something junk science if you dont like the politicians who support it but you damn well if sarah palin or whatever Teagbag you likely support was worried about thawing Alaska, you”d be behind it all the way.

  43. pandora says:

    Wrong. Science is science. How it’s used may at times be political, but that doesn’t change the science.

  44. Jason Z says:

    The Himalayan issue supports the claim that the IPCC is much more concerned with reaching specific conclusions than science or process. They published a claim that the Himalayan glaciers would perish hundreds of years earlier than even the scariest AGW predictions. It appears that this date came from an interview with an Indian scientist in a non-peer-reviewed journal.

    Combined with the email scandal and the UN’s stellar record on corruption, isn’t the more sensible position to doubt their findings rather than preach them?

    Oh yeah, could we stop acting like science is a poll? Last time I checked with my mom, you don’t jump off a bridge just because every one else is doing it (even if they are really, really smart).

  45. a. price says:

    What i cant get over is there is no scientific base for opposition to the climate change theory. It is all based in the belief that sky-dad controls the environment so we cant POSSIBLY have any effect. Lets look at this in the micro.. the Hoover Dam. an engineering MARVEL. But it has irrefutable altered the climate of the Colorado river. MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE on a small scale. Now let us examine how it is warmer in cities than outside of cities. all concrete and cars and heaters. CLIMATE CHANGE on a small scale.
    We have also proven that man was destroying the OZONE layer, and through new laws and education and awareness, we have been able to at least slow down the destruction of our earth’s SPF 1,000,000.
    But opposition to belief in climate change runs perfectly with the conservative movement’s pride in ignorance and ridicule of intellect. Put all our belief in God and if someone on the left says something, oppose it no matter what. It is a mind numbingly stupid way to conduct one’s self… but maybe mind numbing is what they want.

  46. missundaztood says:

    i,m not just quoting something from a class i took in the 80’s this was the belief of one of the premiere climatologists of his day(sorry we didn’t have “climate scientists” way back then) . is tea bagging were someone puts there testicles in someones mouth ?

  47. Geezer says:

    “politics+science=junk science”

    I agree. Your problem here is that the politics was originally inserted by the energy companies, which don’t want to acknowledge that we MIGHT be causing global warming. The mountain you deniers never get close to scaling is why a bunch of American scientists want to destroy the American economy. For fun? Because they hate America? Do you really believe that sort of horseshit, and if so, why?

  48. missundaztood says:

    the amount of co2 in the atmosphere is around .04% we add a small percentage to that. water vapor dust other gasses etc makes up the rest. who the hell is sky dad?

  49. Glow Ball Cons Piracy says:

    “They have a big case of the yes…but (a sure sign of arguing from a position of weakness).”

    SO……tell us then about healthcare reform….financial reform….ending the wars. Pick anything.



  50. missundaztood says:

    geezer i never mentioned my position on climate change. why do you assume i have one ?

  51. missundaztood says:

    i will say that i am more afraid of some kook coming up with some hair brained scheme to remove co2 from the atmosphere ie. dumping iron particles in the galapagos region to incease algae growth .these people are out there .

  52. a.price says:

    ‘is tea bagging were someone puts there testicles in someones mouth”
    “political movement where people preen and posture whith no real message or goal other than to oppose a single politician or movement born out of hate for people who aren’t like them” .. effectively putting their balls in the mouths of their fellow citizens

  53. Brooke says:

    So, missundaztood, your issue is that some points of view are okay to suppress in schools, and some are not, right? And I think that is a valid thing to be concerned about, because one of the components of a good education is that it promotes the ability to think critically and evaluate sources.

    The problem here, however, is two-part. One is that the social studies teacher is discussing science she clearly doesn’t understand. Not understanding it isn’t a problem, per se, because she isn’t trained to understand it. She’s probably trained as a teacher, which is not a science track. But if your house painter was full of advice about medicine I trust you’d get another opinion. Another example would be a geometry teacher who believed Bacon wrote Shakespeare’s plays. Yes, people believe that, and in a geometry teacher it’s a minor fault. However, if the English department hired someone that taught that, they’d be handicapping the forward progress of the students, because the body of scholarship in the field has rejected that theory.

    That brings us to the second issue. In most schools, students have no choice of teachers. They’re assigned, like bosses, and for a year. The child has to answer to the quirks, as well as the substance of a given teacher. This gives any reasonable parent concern about the fit of that teacher with their child. Situations that expose a poor fit, whether that has to do with volume of homework, a brusque personal style, or a disregard for science, are quite properly a parent’s issue.

  54. missundaztood says:

    Burke,i don.t know how you gathered that i think some points of view should be suppressed in school. i think teachers should keep their political views to themselves while teaching. therefore i believe the teacher was in the wrong. if you are referring to my first comment

  55. Brooke says:

    Sorry, my statement was meant to be that you believe some points of view are “here given a pass’ for suppression, while others aren’t. That the folks at DL welcome suppression of some speech, depending on the content. And my point was that suppressing inaccurate content was appropriate.

  56. missundaztood says:

    the funny thing about pandoras story is that both the teacher and the little girl are just spouting their political beliefs.

  57. anononthisone says:

    I can be that – I teach at a school where our Life Science teacher doesn’t believe in evolution, but fundamentalist creationism. I think she just avoids the topic altogether, but it’s still scary.

  58. Brooke says:

    See, that’s where you and I differ, I think. I think the case for human influence on climate change has been made. That moves it from ‘belief” to “fact” and therefore misstatements from an authority figure on it are wrong.

    If you still believe “the jury is out” on it, it’s no wonder you see it as a POV issue.

  59. M. McKain says:

    As a social studies teacher, there is an opportunity to “teach the controversy” no matter your personal views. That is what social studies is all about. I try to do this with every issue. If a kid asks my personal opinion on it, I’ll tell them, but I try to make the case for both sides so that they can THINK for THEMSELVES. Apparently that is a radical idea in the days of standardized testing.

  60. Brooke says:

    See, this is where liberal arts just FAIL. You don’t “teach the controversy” on matters of fact. You don’t waste half a physics class teaching the “Maxwell’s Demons Point of View’ or half a class on the Civil War developing alternate universes where Robert E Lee honored his commitment to his country. You don’t give equal time to “Principles of Phlogiston” during a chemistry class. Because to do so is to DENY that human thought produces a PROGRESS in understanding, which, particularly in science, uses agreed upon methods and standards to arrive, by consensus of informed people, at new and more accurate conclusions.

  61. anon says:

    Understanding global warming requires some basic and some advanced science and math.

    Understanding the deniers requires knowledge of psychology.

    So yes, it is a teachable moment. But what teacher is qualified to teach both sides?

  62. missundaztood says:

    I agree with M.McKain .The thing is that thinking for yourself doesn’t fit into the robot mentality of todays modern liberal

  63. missundaztood says:

    understanding global warming requires advanced science and math. ha ha ha of course it does hey look over there ha ha

  64. missundaztood says:

    does anybody believe half of delaware will be underwater in twenty years if nothing is done to combat global warming? just curious to see how those of you with “anons” understanding of advanced science and math think.

  65. fightingbluehen says:

    i agree with missundaztood

  66. Brooke says:

    What, specifically, do you agree with, FBH? Because I’m still not sure what the point is.

  67. M. McKain says:

    I am not a chemistry teacher or a science teacher. I am a social studies teacher, and there is CLEARLY a division over this issue…a controversy. I would never dare to teach the science behind it, as that is not my job. I would teach the political divisions over this matter and the relevant policy implications.

    Also, I wouldn’t teach about “what if Robert E. Lee remained loyal,” but I WOULD teach how history should remember Lee and those who fought for the South. That is teaching the controversy. I’m not sure why you are so hostile to a notion that encourage independent thought.

  68. M. McKain says:

    “Comment by missundaztood on 19 January 2010 at 12:49 pm:

    I agree with M.McKain .The thing is that thinking for yourself doesn’t fit into the robot mentality of todays modern liberal”

    I didn’t say all that – I know MANY “modern liberals” who think for themselves just fine and have made positive contibutions to this nation.

  69. liberalgeek says:

    The sea level rise predictions seem to indicate that we are talking about 2 meters by 2100. that would hardly inundate half of Delaware. More likely we are talking about 3 or 4 percent. However, we will have to keep replenishing the beaches until we just give up on coastal properties.

  70. fightingbluehen says:

    i agree that the person posting under the name “missundastood ” is a stand up guy even though he was posting under someone elses name that wasn,t his but in fact his domestic partners

  71. Brooke says:

    How should history remember Lee and those who fought for the south? Since you would teach that.

  72. liberalgeek says:

    FBH – did your wife just beat you and make you stop using her name?

  73. liberalgeek says:

    I suspect that MM would teach it in a way that indicated what each side believed and what they used as their basis for that belief. The same would be a proper way to teach the controversy on climate change. “Here is what the IPCC says, and here’s what the deniers say” Here’s the evidence on both sides. That presentation can show that while there is much that is not yet known, there is a definite arc to the research.

  74. Brooke says:

    LG, you should know better. “what the deniers say” can’t be made equivalent to “what the IPCC says’ because it’s created on a different platform.

    The basis of “the controversy” is not scientific. The basis of the controversy is precisely in WHETHER we make policy based on science or “something else that isn’t science but lots of people like.”

  75. fightingbluehen says:

    liberal geek the reason for beach replenishing is not due to water level but the natural movement of sand and also erosion . By the way sen.Carper said at coast day in lewes eight years ago that if nothing is done to stop global warming coast day will have to be held in dover in twenty years. The interesting part about his statement is that just this year he made the same claim on a local radio show. so does he want to subtract eight years from his most recent comment or add eight years to the original comment.

  76. a.price says:

    carper is just a bad politician. it doesn’t mean we shouldnt be concerned with what is happening to our planet…. unless you plan on being raptured in 2012 when Palin wins the presidency because baby-liberals turn their backs on Obama. (like how i jumped threads?)

  77. M. McKain says:

    Yes, liberalgeek, you’re getting the idea. We don’t do a lot of facts and figures in my history class (nor does the DSTP on social studies).

    I believe Brooke was asking (correct me if I’m wrong) what my personal opinion is on the issue. A bit off topic for this post, but I’ll offer my input. My line for my students is “I don’t want to bias you by giving you my opinion.” But, seeing as you are not one of my students, I can tell you that I find it a difficult issue. I think that the South was wrongheaded in much of what it did prior to the war and in the end am a Yankee through and through, but by all evidence Lee and most of the soliders as individuals were honorable people who believed that they were fighting to defend their homes. I have direct ancestors who fought on both sides, and think that the bravery and heroism of all involved should be honored.

    Sorry to be overly diplomatic, but I this is why it is fun to teach! I also do a lesson on the Confederate flag and its legacy – always an interesting debate. Sometimes students suprise you with insightfullness on issues like that.

  78. liberalgeek says:

    Brooke – we are on the same side. The question is what is the platform that they are using for their side of the debate. If you simply say that all of the evidence is in and this is all settled and those deniers got no game, you make the child vulnerable to the first denier that says, “ya know, Mars is warmer too.”

  79. liberalgeek says:

    FBH – I didn’t say that thus far they have been related, although climate change does seem to up the volatility of the weather. The point is that if high tide is 2 meters higher in the year 2099, we will have to cede some land to the sea. In the meantime, we will likely mask the issue by putting more sand on the beach.

  80. M. McKain says:

    Personally, I think global warming will be great – I hate the cold and if the beach is closer, my property value might go up.

    Ok, just wanted to say something silly before I dissapear for a while. Actually have to go and teach now!!

  81. Brooke says:

    But people do NOT say, “This is science and this is a non-science belief system.” they say, ‘some people believe x, some people believe y’. Middle school students are not, on average, already equipped with a knowledge base that permits them to deduce the different platforms. Therefore, most attempts to ‘present the controversy’ on issues give the impression that there is no system other than ‘he said, she said’ and we pick the one we like better.

    I’m not asking your personal opinion, MM. I don’t have any reason to suppose that it has an authority I would recognize (not meaning disrespect). I’m asking how you would teach what we agree is a difficult subject.

    Lee’s ‘bravery and heroism’ almost certainly prolonged the war by years, and contributed to hundreds of thousands of deaths. Is that entirely irrelevant?

  82. fightingbluehen says:

    geek i say if you build a house on the beach you shouldnt expect it to be there forever.

  83. rhubard says:

    Let’s teach the controversy on oxygen vs. phlogiston. That one should be volatile.

  84. liberalgeek says:

    But do you expect the beach to be there forever?

  85. fightingbluehen says:

    Not in the same spot.

  86. John Galt says:

    Wow, Is this the longest post ever??

  87. M. McKain says:

    Middle school kids, particularly 8th graders, are much more functional than you might believe. They have misconceptions, as we all do, about all kinds of things and it is my job to correct them as best I can while giving them the tools to evaluate opinions critically later in life. Do all kids leave with the right idea? No. I know that. We in education have to do the best we can. However, if we don’t teach all sides 1. parents are unhappy – witness the original post. There are as many or more angry conservative parents as angry liberal parents and 2. kids will get bored because they don’t give a damn about old, dead white guys unless you bring it to life.

    As far as R.E. Lee, that is not a lesson that I do in particular, but I would present them with different historians’ opinions (DE Hist standard 3, if you care), different primary sources (DE history standard 2), and different pictures of monuments, etc. to consider during their discussion.

    As far as Lee himself, he did the nation a favor by encouraging a peaceful surrender once he was done. He didn’t allow his soldiers to fight to the bitter end or encourage a guerilla war. That said, I don’t personally count him among my heroes. And as far as my expertise, I’m no professor, but I can hold my own in any Civil War discussion you throw at me! 🙂

  88. Brooke says:

    And I in any teaching. 😉

  89. Sunonmo says:

    For a little perspective –

    1. look up “latent heat”
    2. Experiment:
    2a. fill a pot with ice and put it on the stove
    2b. Put a thermometer in it
    2c. Record the temperature (it should be 32-F or 0-C)
    2d. turn the burner on medium
    2e. stir the pot an record temperatures at regular intervals
    2f. observe the contents of the pot at each temperature reading
    3. Think…..

    If you stir the pot sufficiently, the temperature will read 32-F (or 0-C) until *all* the ice melts.

    Why? Because the melting ice obsorbs the heat from the burner and uses that energy to change state.

    What happens when *all* the ice melts? wheeeeelllll, (as Ronny-Raygun used to say) the water gets *real* hot and boils away.

    I know it’s a stretch, but does anyone see any parallels with the polar ice caps???