Does weather or climate have "astrological" causes ?

[septimus]

A story in USA Today (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2010/03/what-should-schools-teach-about-global-warming/1) reports that
"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but rather a highly beneficial ingredient for all plant life," says the [South Dakota Legislature] resolution, which passed with mostly GOP votes. It also says global warming is "a scientific theory rather than a proven fact" and a variety of "astrological" and other "dynamics" affect weather.

Of course it's not fair to pick the dullest-witted among one's opponents for debate. Nevertheless, I thought even AGW skeptics would find this commentary sad (or amusing).

[Whack-a-Mole]

It is amusing.

Not sure what the debate is though. I seriously doubt any Doper, even those who utterly reject AGW, will try to argue AGW has an astrological component.

[Kimstu]

The field of meteorological astrology, or alleged planetary influences on climate and weather events, is a very ancient and interesting one and is well worthy of study as a historical phenomenon.

It is, however, complete horseshit as far as any actual scientific validation is concerned. There is no modern scientific physical theory that supports the idea of meteorological astrology, and no observational evidence confirming its predictions.

[SenorBeef]

I assume he meant to say "astronomical" or something, like a misunderstood reference to varying heat output of the sun or something. Not that he likely has any clue what he's talking about, not understanding how "scientific theory" relates to facts.

(GRAVITY IS JUST A THEORY!)

[Superfluous Parentheses]

The field of meteorological astrology, or alleged planetary influences on climate and weather events, is a very ancient and interesting one and is well worthy of study as a historical phenomenon.

It is, however, complete horseshit as far as any actual scientific validation is concerned. There is no modern scientific physical theory that supports the idea of meteorological astrology, and no observational evidence confirming its predictions.

Are you suggesting we should teach the controversy? :D

And before you think I'm just making a cheap joke:

In other states, critics of teaching evolution are gaining ground by linking the issue to global warming, arguing that dissenting views on both subjects should be taught in public schools, according to a story today in The New York Times.
[...]
The story says linking evolution and global warming is partly a legal strategy because courts have found that singling out evolution violates the separation of church and state.

[Whack-a-Mole]

I assume he meant to say "astronomical" or something, like a misunderstood reference to varying heat output of the sun or something. Not that he likely has any clue what he's talking about, not understanding how "scientific theory" relates to facts.


"He"?

This is not the mistake of the reporter. The actual text of the bill says it:

(2) 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;

SOURCE: http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2010/Bill.aspx?File=HCR1009P.htm


The bit about CO2 being good for plants is laughable as well.

Plants do in fact like it but that is not the point at all. Kinda like saying water is good for plants so don't worry if your city floods.

[GIGObuster]

It is amusing.

Not sure what the debate is though. I seriously doubt any Doper, even those who utterly reject AGW, will try to argue AGW has an astrological component.
You will be surprised. I will have to assume that that was a typo from the legislators. However, it is scary to consider they did not made a mistake. :)

In this case some claim that changes in radiation from space, the so-called galactic cosmic rays, can be one of the causes of global warming.

Sadly, the evidence has been contradictory or dismissive to the idea that global warming is affected by cosmic rays.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081217075138.htm

[Quartz]

You will be surprised. I will have to assume that that was a typo from the legislators. However, it is scary to consider they did not made a mistake. :)

Agreed. But it still made me laugh.


In this case some claim that changes in radiation from space, the so-called galactic cosmic rays, can be one of the causes of global warming.

Sadly, the evidence has been contradictory or dismissive to the idea that global warming is affected by cosmic rays.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081217075138.htm

Again, agreed. The theory did have the plus point of being falsifiable; unfortunately it got falsified.

[Whack-a-Mole]

You will be surprised. I will have to assume that that was a typo from the legislators. However, it is scary to consider they did not made a mistake. :)

In this case some claim that changes in radiation from space, the so-called galactic cosmic rays, can be one of the causes of global warming.

Sadly, the evidence has been contradictory or dismissive to the idea that global warming is affected by cosmic rays.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081217075138.htm

See, Cosmic Rays are a real thing.

However, when the moon is in the Seventh House and Jupiter aligns with Mars we are well out of science and into hocus-pocus.

[GIGObuster]

Agreed. But it still made me laugh.
Curses! Foiled by Gaudere's law again. :)

Again, agreed. The theory did have the plus point of being falsifiable; unfortunately it got falsified.
And you keep doing this point, as it was mentioned before, recently they checked the actual levels of the feedback that water vapor has with CO2. Had the levels been not what they expected it would had falsified a very important element of AGW, as it turned out, the experiments and data gathered showed that the models were doing a great job predicting the levels of the feedback and the data showed that the climate scientists are in the correct track.

[The Tooth]

I'd like to know about the thermological (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermology) causes of global warming myself.

[BrainGlutton]

Well, for my part I don't believe in astrology. We Leos are much to skeptical for all that nonsense.

[elucidator]

That's because Leo is the very best sign! You like that part, don't you? You'll swear you don't believe it, but you still like it.

[SenorBeef]

Leos are why we won't have icebergs in 50 years.

[salinqmind]

I'm surprised the stupid astrology place on AO Hell hasn't picked up on this "Your Weather according to your astrological sign - Leos, you like it hot and sunny! Libra, a brisk fall day full of colorful leaves is you! Pisces, you are happy in the rain! Scopio, a dark and stormy night is your ideal!" They've already assigned home decorating tips, clothing, food, and sex tips to every sign, why not weather?

[elucidator]

Aries: Its a beautiful day. Another deliberate insult! Pick a fight with Taurus.

Taurus: Its a beautiful day. Fishing. Puttering around the house. Whatever it is, it can wait. Avoid Aries.

Gemini: Its a beautiful day. Beautiful days make you nervous. But what doesn't?

Cancer: Its a beautiful day. That's not a reason to get all emotional about it.

Leo: Its a beautiful day. Thank you!

Virgo: Its a beautiful day. But untidy and disorganized. Get right on that.

Libra: Its a beautiful day. On the other hand....

Scorpio: Its a beautiful day. Its up to something, you can just feel it.

Sagittarius: Its a beautiful day. Go where it isn't. Then turn around and come back.

Capricorn: Its a beautiful day. Bah, humbug!

Aquarius: Its a beautiful day. They say that, but they can't prove it. You know better.

Pisces: Its a beautiful day, in a beautiful world. You know that, but can't prove it. You don't care.

Cthulu: Its a beautiful day. Some smug smartass is going to tell you that the constellations and the signs no longer correspond. Eat them.

[Dioptre]

I'm less interested in the "astrology" than in the idea that a resolution can make scientific conclusions. It would be just as silly to pass a resolution that the weight of evidence compelled a belief that the earth was closer to a sphere than a disk.

[Chronos]

I'm less interested in the "astrology" than in the idea that a resolution can make scientific conclusions. It would be just as silly to pass a resolution that the weight of evidence compelled a belief that the earth was closer to a sphere than a disk.Unfortunately, there's precedent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill).

[septimus]

"The actual text of the bill says it:

Thank you Whack-a-Mole for posting the actual text:

(2) That there are a variety of
climatological,
meteorological,
astrological,
thermological,
cosmological,
and ecological
dynamics that ...

Far from being idiots, the South Dakota GOP are accomplished poets and, like Shakespeare and Shelley etc., must be excused, on grounds of poetic license, for any minor language variations.

(More likely, I admit, is that a rationalist staffer inserted the language as a joke and was astonished to find that even Republicans didn't catch on. "thermological" is especially amusing, since it seems to be a term specific to medical imaging!)

[njtt]

The field of meteorological astrology, or alleged planetary influences on climate and weather events, is a very ancient and interesting one and is well worthy of study as a historical phenomenon.

It is, however, complete horseshit as far as any actual scientific validation is concerned. There is no modern scientific physical theory that supports the idea of meteorological astrology, and no observational evidence confirming its predictions.

Nonsense. For example, if the Sun is in Aries I can reliably predict that the climate in the northern hemisphere is going to get steadily warmer over the next few months. There is nothing unscientific in that. The position in the zodiac is an indicator of the seasons. The manifest fact that astrological meteorology works so well at this rather gross level, and, was thus of enormous practical value to early agricultural societies, is surely what led people to try to extend the technique beyond its proper remit, and seek to make much more specific predictions based on more detailed observations. Sure, when you push astrology to far, to try to make predictions about people's love lives or even whether it is likely to rain tomorrow, it is horseshit, but basic meteorological astrology - using the zodiac to keep track of the seasons - is entirely valid.

Of course, this in no way detracts from the idiocy and scientific illiteracy of the South Dakota legislature.

[Chronos]

Nonsense. For example, if the Sun is in Aries I can reliably predict that the climate in the northern hemisphere is going to get steadily warmer over the next few months. There is nothing unscientific in that. The position in the zodiac is an indicator of the seasons. The manifest fact that astrological meteorology works so well at this rather gross level, and, was thus of enormous practical value to early agricultural societies, is surely what led people to try to extend the technique beyond its proper remit, and seek to make much more specific predictions based on more detailed observations.Actually, it doesn't work well at all, when considered over sufficiently long timescales. I've seen speculation that this sort of reliance on sidereal calender indicators is one of the reasons the ancient Egyptian civilizations fell into decline: Over hundreds or thousands of years (depending on how much precision you need), the sidereal year falls out of synch with the tropical year, which is what's really relevant to the weather. And over spans of tens of thousands of years, there's no correlation at all between what sign the Sun is in and what the weather's like.

[elucidator]

The first degree of Aries is the equinox point, when the sun "crosses the equator". First day of Spring, in more common terms. njtt has it right.

[SteveG1]

See, Cosmic Rays are a real thing.

However, when the moon is in the Seventh House and Jupiter aligns with Mars we are well out of science and into hocus-pocus.

But on the plus side, peace will rule the planets and love will steer the stars :D

[Contrapuntal]

Nonsense. For example, if the Sun is in Aries I can reliably predict that the climate in the northern hemisphere is going to get steadily warmer over the next few months. There is nothing unscientific in that. The position in the zodiac is an indicator of the seasons. What does that have to do with weather having astrological causes?

[SteveG1]

What does that have to do with weather having astrological causes?

Heh heh he is describing summer?

[Chronos]

The first degree of Aries is the equinox point, when the sun "crosses the equator". First day of Spring, in more common terms. njtt has it right. Except that the vernal equinox point is currently in Pisces, and will shift into Aquarius sometime this century (this is what the "age of Aquarius" refers to). "First degree of Aries" is an antiquated term which no longer has any accuracy.

[Whack-a-Mole]

(2) 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;

Just occurred to me they used "effect" when they meant "affect".

Astrological, thermological and now can't even get grade school grammar sorted out. Wonder if "interrelativity" is even a real word (not seeing it in the dictionary).

With that they messed up 12.5% of all the words in that sentence and that is being generous and including "the" and "a" and "of" (and so on). Gets worse just counting the more meaty words.

What a mess...scary to see government in action.

[jshore]

With that they messed up 12.5% of all the words in that sentence and that is being generous and including "the" and "a" and "of" (and so on). Gets worse just counting the more meaty words.

What a mess...scary to see government in action.

And, that's just one sentence. The rest of them...particularly those that attempt to address the science...are perhaps even worse. For example, it says,


During the Little Climatic Optimum, Erik the Red settled Greenland where they farmed and raised dairy cattle. Today, ninety percent of Greenland is covered by massive ice sheets, in many places more than two miles thick

So, are they trying to imply that those 2 miles thick ice sheets are a new addition that just formed since the time of Erik the Red? That's one hell of a cold snap and might also be important news to those who have drilled into the ice sheets to investigate the climate going back more than 100,000 years.

Oh...and then there is the obligatory mention of the Oregon petition (http://www.oism.org/pproject/) (just in case someone was playing Climate Skeptic Bingo) which, interestingly, has morphed into "a petition to President Obama", for which the first signatures were gathered around 1997.

[jshore]

If it's any consolation, according to a reader commenting on the USAToday website, the original resolution containing all that stuff was passed by the S.D. State House only. It was a subsequently amended in the S.D. State Senate to say:


A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION, Calling for a balanced approach for instruction in the public schools relating to global climatic change.
WHEREAS, evidence relating to global climatic change is complex and subject to varying scientific interpretations; and
WHEREAS, there are a variety of climatological and meteorological dynamics that can affect world weather phenomena, and the significance and interrelativity of these factors remain unresolved; and
WHEREAS, the debate on global warming has subsumed political and philosophical viewpoints, which has complicated and prejudiced the scientific investigation of global climatic change phenomena:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the House of Representatives of the Eighty-fifth Legislature of the State of South Dakota, the Senate concurring therein, that the South Dakota Legislature urges that all instruction in the public schools relating to global climatic change be presented in a balanced and objective manner and be appropriate to the age and academic development of the student and to the prevailing classroom circumstances.

And, this was the version passed by the Senate and subsequently re-passed by the House.

[GIGObuster]

One of my favorite science bloggers calls it like it is:

South Duh-kota, hang your head in shame

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/south_duh-kota_hang_your_head.php
The South Dakota senate has been wrestling over an important resolution, HCR 1009. Here's the original text. It will look rather familiar to anyone who has seen creationist bills roll through a legislature.
I also noticed how close that resolution sounded like a creationist bill. I don't think it is a coincidence that there are creationists also involved with the climate change denier efforts.

Sadly for the OP title, the The South Dakota senate has amended the resolution to remove the astrology; however, the stupid remains.

(I like how the quotes from creationists, climate change deniers and other anti-science types are framed in that site by Monty Python's Gumbys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gumbys).)

I wish it had been preserved in all its naked inanity, but somebody must have noticed how bad it was, and the resolution that passed has been amended. It's still the same story, but the more obviously idiotic key words have been removed.

A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION, Calling for a balanced approach for instruction in the public schools relating to global climatic change.

WHEREAS, evidence relating to global climatic change is complex and subject to varying scientific interpretations; and

WHEREAS, there are a variety of climatological and meteorological dynamics that can affect world weather phenomena, and the significance and interrelativity of these factors remain unresolved; and

WHEREAS, the debate on global warming has subsumed political and philosophical viewpoints, which has complicated and prejudiced the scientific investigation of global climatic change phenomena:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the House of Representatives of the Eighty-fifth Legislature of the State of South Dakota, the Senate concurring therein, that the South Dakota Legislature urges that all instruction in the public schools relating to global climatic change be presented in a balanced and objective manner and be appropriate to the age and academic development of the student and to the prevailing classroom circumstances."

They missed the irony of passing a political resolution protesting the politicization of a scientific issue, however. It's still just a gang of conservative politicians trying to force equal consideration for discredited alternative nonsense in the public schools.

I'm still wondering if any South Dakota teachers will be presenting the astrological evidence against climate change in their classrooms, though.

On edit: I see that jshore already mentioned the amendment.