Comments for Student Busts Biased Textbook »
Posted By Neophile 1 year, 8 months ago in Arts & EntertainmentTalk about a civics lesson: A high-school senior has raised questions about political bias in a popular textbook on U.S. government, and legal scholars and top scientists say the teen's criticism is well-founded.
Read Full Story at ap.google.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 140
-
Neutral
sumptuousdigs1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Good post neophile. Matt certainly has a gift for BS detection. Many might feel because he points out bias and errors in the text, that he is not a spiritual being. I would disagree. For a lie is a murderer. It murders the truth.
Those with neo (sorry) con agendas are sneaky weasels, who's ends, they think, justify the means. The means by which they reach their ends point up the fact that the ends can't stand on their own merits!
Reply-
Neutral
Muleskinner1 year, 8 months ago
-
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 8 months ago
-
Neutral
JackofallChems1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Redefining what reality is doesn't change reality. When conservatives disagree with liberals on the definition of 'extremism' on the liberal side, it's usually because the liberal side is trying to pretend that they aren't quite endorsing 'socialism', 'communism', or (if you prefer the cynical and power-hungry version of taxation to bribe support out of the poor while leaving them starve with a warm, fuzzy, and slightly confused feeling) 'fascism'/'Nazism'. Let's not sugar-coat things. The ultimate objective of liberals is some form of doomed-to-fail socialism, and the ultimate objective of conservatives is either to be an affluent, stickinthemud hermit or a feudal lord with a bunch of serfs slaving away for their benefit under a lame pretense that they are operating in a capitalist society (depending on which half of the self-identified 'conservatives' you're talking about). Note that there's other (mostly crazy, like the ELF) groups out there, but not well-known ones. ;-)
Reply-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm a liberal, so there are aspects of socialism that make perfect sense to me, yet I would never espouse adopting full-blown communism. I similarly understand the Wilsonian brand of conservatism that drives most people on the right.
You seem entrenched in the sort of black-or-white stereotyping that serves no purpose except increasing and accentuating divisiveness.
Reply-
Neutral
JackofallChems1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Wrong on all counts. I'm entrenched in ideas that actually work, and you're living in a fantasy world based on flawed analysis. It just so happens that some ideas are simply wrong no matter how plausible they seem to the inexperienced. One is marrying a close relative - and the Romans had to find that one out the hard way. Another is invading Russia in late summer - and Napolean (hardly a dumb guy) managed to screw that one up, and be followed by Hitler after the name changed to the USSR. The reasons why they don't work are obvious in hindsight, but it took hard experience to get it through to the general public that those ideas were just bad no matter how people felt or thought. You can join their ranks, or get it through your head that socialism = starvation for the enemies of those in power, and no amount of 'niceness' can make food appear on the tables of the 'poor' without them working to earn it or stealing it from the non-poor and starving everyone. Get a grip on reality!
Reply-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The 'rich' already pay for the 'poor'. Or havenn't you noticed that health care coverage continues to rise both because hospitals have to bake in the costs of covering the uninsured to the prices charged to the insured AND because health insurance companies are expected to show 'growth', usually by the denial of coverage to their paid customers.
I'm of the camp that socialism where it comes to medicine makes perfect sense. We used to employ socialism by saying a corporation shouldn't make profit from war, but no more (now we give them no-bid contracts). You may disagree, but I find war profiteering disgusting. I also find medical profiteering disgusting. Again, you may disagree. Elective procedures are an entirely different matter, and I don't mind doctors making a decent living off of their years and years of training. But an artificially inserted middle-man like an insurance company? The ONLY way they make money is by denying coverage.
Reply-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
LOL
In England they have a problem that health care costs too much. They have Socialized medicine. Part of cutting down on the costs is having people with heart problems and arthritis self medicate and not take up a doctors time. Sounds like a good thing, right?
Think about the fact that the government is only efficient in the armed forces. Everywhere else bureaucracy is very inefficient with lots of people enforcing a bunch of rules the way they see fit.
Reply-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In regards to your first point: Since you didn't provide any links to source material I can't really comment on the validity of your claim. I would say that a 'heart condition' is pretty vague and may indeed be best managed by medication. Certainly better than having no access to any medical advice whatsoever, yes?
Related point: Are you actually suggesting that the Grand, Great America can't do better than the country we fought to gain our freedom from? Come on! Where's your patriotism?
FYI, a single-payer system doesn't put the government in charge of medical care, it just makes them pay for it.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
ETproductions1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
JackofallChems wrote: "Wrong on all counts. I'm entrenched in ideas that actually work, and you're living in a fantasy world"
Your agenda has moved us from the most admired nation on earth to the most hated.
We are fast approaching $10 trillion in debt trying to maintain a worldwide empire of control even thought every empire since the dawn of time has collapsed under the cost of maintaining it.
Our precious freedoms are being wholesale flushed down the toilet of fear and smear used to control your top-heavy new fascism.
Your neoCon efforts to secure cheap oil have pushed the price per barrel from $24 5 years ago to nearing $120 today.
The uninsured have been mushrooming. Soon, only the truly wealthy will be able to afford medical care.
The richest 1% of Americans have doubled their hold on the nation's assets in just 50 years of Republican rule. We are on track to become a banana republic.
How much more of this success can we take?
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually, when conservatives disagree with liberals it's usually because you're in deep denial of your breathtaking hypocrisy. You hurl labels like "socialist" and then fein cluelessness over all the welfare, cronyism, and "affirmative action" hiring that occurs at the other end of the economic spectrum. Cons don't say a DAMNED thing when 150 white kids from one of the lowest ranked law schools in the US get handed plum Bush administration jobs and you're just as deadly silent on defense contractors getting jobs *they* don't have to compete for and when oil companies get "subsidies" they don't earn, don't need and didn't ask for, either. You're hypocrites. Period. No one is intimidated when you wingjobs squeeze out your conveniently narrow definitions of terms like "socialism" and "fascism" and then scurry off like rats into your corners. Neocon hypocrisy knows no bound and we see right through you.
Reply
-
-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned7 Replies
-
-
lovermanComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
Neutral
silvera1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This Orwellian, revisionist, dishonest book should be placed in the Lies and Deception Wing of the G.W. Bush library. Get 'em while they're young, eh Georgie?
Congratulations to Matt for doing what the rest of adult America is apparently incapable of.
Reply -
-
Neutral
Gransater1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I agree. Bully for Matt.
I'm almost amazed that it took a young adult to bring this error to light.
Unfortunately this is nothing new, or particular to the U.S. I do wish however that the adults charged with verifying the content of text books given out to students would have the integrity to make sure the text in the various subject books is acurate, and not politicaly slanted. We can and should do better than what we are.
Reply -
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Keep in mind that the majority of textbooks in this country are published in Texas. Lies and revisionist history have always been a part of public education. One has only to look at the majority of textbooks treatments of Native Americans to see that.
Reply-
Neutral
MonkeyBiz1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Texas Board of Education selects the recommended texts for Texas schools. Since Texas is the largest text book market in the country, the publishers write their textbooks to please the Texas BOE. If anyone is not aware of it, the Texas BOE is full of right wing religious extremists that want evolution taught as an "unproven theory," and equal time given to teaching "intelligent design."
Bottom line? If the BOEs in other states aren't watching carefully, textbooks that have been vetted and tweaked by the right wing religiosos in Texas will be issued to students in their schools.
The Texas BOE would love this book. It may be that it is a standard Texas high school text.
Reply-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Great. That is better than the left wing revisionists that turn the books into almost junk.
"full of right wing religious extremists that want evolution taught as an "unproven theory," "
Evolution has never been proven. They NEVER found what Darwin said they had to find to prove his theory. Fossil record showing a slow transition from one species to another. They now give out excuses. They use tautologies for dating fossils. A fossil is of a certain age because it is in that strata. That strata is that age because those fossils are in it. The more we learn about microbiology the more impossible the concept of gradual change becomes. Also life beginning in a primordial goo also becomes more impossible.
Reply-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No science is EVER 'proven', there is merely weight of evidence. Some may use the term 'proof', but they're being epistemologically sloppy. I prefer 'factual' when referring to evolution, in that the vast majority of valid evidence is consistent with Darwinian evolution.
There is no tautology regarding fossils in strata. Strata is dated using radiometric data (I'm talking deep-time isochrons, not carbon dating, mind you), NOT the fossils found within it. On occasion, deposits MAY be dated based on the fossils it contains, but only if confirmed by corroborating neighboring strata and known confirmed radiometric dating based on strata sequence.
Regarding 'primordial goo', if you want to discuss abiogenesis, I'm happy to engage you, as there are indications that deep frozen ice may have played a huge part, but it is a wholly separate subject from Darwinian evolution.
Reply-
Neutral
crespi1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Endoscopy-
I wouldn't be mentioning revisionism...
Remember how many ultra-cons are self-admitted liars?
FoxNews winning the right to "legally" lie, Rush Limbaugh admitted he lied saying "I didn't believe half the stuff that I said."
The Fundamentalist Christian at NASA that blocked vital global warming by scientists from the public.
Exxon spending billions on crackpots fake "scientists" to say there is no global temperature change.
Reply-
Neutral
crespi1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Please refrain from blaming the Democrats for the lies of the Republicans.
It's starting to p*ss me off.
I mean digging through the hundreds of pages of lies and posting them, from 1980 to the present, by the "New Right" and the "Moral Majority" the "Pure Americans" the Neocons and the racist or gay hating Christian fanatics again would be tiring and make you look stupid.
So don't make me do it again please.
Thanks.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
MonkeyBiz1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"...they're being epistemologically sloppy."
Guilty as charged.
The problem that cons seem to have is that they use the term "theory" as evidence that there is no factual basis, only speculation. In science, a theory is an organized body of knowledge supported by evidence that seeks to explain a particular phenomena or behavior. A theory doesn't rise to the level of a natural law, like "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction," for instance, but it won't survive if there is not a lot of vetted evidence to support it.
Of course explaining this to an obviously uneducated, but highly indoctrinated, right wing zealot is generally a waste of time.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
crespi1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In communism, to believe in God is "counter-revolutionary" against the supremacy of the leader of the state and is illegal and punishable.
In fascism, NOT believing in God (or the leader's direct connection to God) is "treason" or "heresy" against the supremacy of the leader of the state and is illegal and punishable.
It is still consistent with the definitions of "Left" and "Right."
Reply -
-
-
-
-
Neutral
crespi1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Dilulio served as Director of the White House Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives and became notorious propagating the inner city boy "super-predator" theory which led to his legislating racist criminalization and long sentences specifically for ghetto-ized black offenders. NOW he says he doesn't want to put boys in prison but in churches...
Wilson served on Bush's "Council of Bioethics" (don't laugh) and has argued repeatedly AGAINST hate-crime laws, and written, concerning abused, horribly disadvantaged children that become involved in criminal acts that "abuse is not an excuse."
They are both Neocon assh*les of the highest caliber that need to be outed.
Go Matt!
Reply -
-
Neutral
bluenote15221 year, 8 months ago
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 8 months ago
-
-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually, academia is demonstrably Left-leaning, both in the politics of the professors and in curriculum, particularly in higher education. This is not due to any sort of conspiracy or censorship, however. Right-leaning graduates are simply less likely to find careers in either research or teaching attractive.
Academia does lean to the Right in Business and Economics departments.
Reply-
Neutral
jordan111 year, 8 months ago
-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I agree. Recent studies have shown a statistically significant correlation between scientific thinkers and liberal political views. The relationship is still unclear, but there seems to be a genetic aspect--in that certain brains are particularly 'wired' for curiosity while others favor a more dogmatic paradigm. Interestingly, the former tend towards the political left, while the latter favor the right.
I feel it important to point out there is no value judgment here, merely different modes of thought.
Reply-
Neutral
JackofallChems1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In other words, I'm a scientist that's surrounded by idiots who can be swindled into any garbage theory that float down life's river like a dead fish. Unless, of course, research engineers are excluded from the 'curiosity' end of the statistical 'correlation' that academia has managed to swindle you into believing. Note that engineers get paid to apply theory to reality, and have to make things work in reality no matter what the professors in college thought was true. Curiosity is one thing, openmindedness is another, but leave it to an engineer to scream loudly that the so-called 'experts' are wrong because reality disagrees! You all did notice that there's no such thing as the USSR anymore, because communism is a bust as a result of socialism being a fundamentally stupid idea concocted by a late 1800s crackpot, right?? LOL!
(the next question is how long it's going to take for everyone to figure out that multiculturalism is another stupid idea because neighbors aren't family)
Reply-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The USSR wasn't socialist, it was communist. The difference is that most any government can incorporate concepts from socialism, but communism requires a whole-hog commitment (which is admittedly doomed to fail). If you as a scientist find the theoretical findings of researchers unsound in practical application, then by all means make a huge noise about it. The fortunate thing about science is that eventually it HAS to listen.
I'd enjoy exploring your objection to multiculturalism, as I agree with your assessment. I think multiculturalism amounts to little more than a 'zoo' mentality that allows us to pat ourselves on the back for maintaining, say, the Amish for the sake of 'cultural preservation', while turning a blind eye to their abuses.
Reply-
Neutral
JackofallChems1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Communism is socialism with someone to kick in the front door and put a gun to anyone's head that objects to it. Fascism and Nazism are socialism with someone to sneak in the back door (through property rights infringements, mostly - letting people own stuff but telling them what they can and can't do with it) and put a gun to anyone's head that objects to the results. Socialism is a scheme to take money from the 'rich', give it to the supportive 'poor' after skimming off most of the money as a processing fee, and in the process destroying both the economy and the 'rich' that made the scheme possible in the first place - with the unsupportive 'poor' starved out of existence one way (submission) or another (death or perpetual imprisonment). Do try to get the definitions right. Anything that's labeled communism or fascism or Nazism is socialism with a violent streak that will ultimately fail - but it fails because of the socialism, not the violence.
Reply-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Communism is socialism with someone to kick in the front door and put a gun to anyone's head that objects to it."
Correct!
Socialism is not a method of taking fro the 'rich' to give to the 'poor', it is a manner of taking from the 'all' to give to the 'commons'. That's what we do now, except for frequent instances where we take from the 'poor' to bail out the 'rich'. Most of what we call 'civilized' countries have some measure of socialism, usually around matters of health care. Some are more successful than others, but NONE have gone from socialistic tendencies to pure fascist communism.
Communism is socialism taken to a fascist extreme, just as the Inquisition and Jihad is faith taken to a fascist extreme. Fascism is the enemy. Fascism will fail, always has.
Reply -
-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Anything that's labeled communism or fascism or Nazism is socialism with a violent streak that will ultimately fail - but it fails because of the socialism, not the violence."
Help me understand your point. Nazism and Communism were failed paradigms that combined socialism with violence. If it were because of the socialism rather than the violence, then there should be NO countries with socialistic policies, yes? Yet there are. I wonder by what standard do you decide that it was the socialistic ideology rather than the fascist implementation that was at fault. Currently, "...it fails because of the socialism, not the violence..." seems by mere assertion.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Tangent001
The relationship is that liberal people don't like structured jobs. They want jobs where they can do more what they want.
Conservatives prefer structured jobs. If they do a, b and c then they will get rewarded by pay raises and promotions.
Reply-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You make a great point. The way you phrased you response seem to make a value judgment between the two. I hope that is not the case. Indeed, at times I enjoy following the structure inherent in my job, but yes, I prefer doing things I really enjoy. Fortunately, the things I enjoy doing mesh well with the services my employer demands of me, which earns me promotions and pay raises.
I don't think there is an inherent 'value' of one approach over another.
Reply -
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The relationship is that liberal people don't like structured jobs. They want jobs where they can do more what they want.
Conservatives prefer structured jobs. If they do a, b and c then they will get rewarded by pay raises and promotions."
Here's the perfect summary of that by Alan Watts as animated by Trey Parker and Matt Stone (Southpark Zen):
http://souljerky.com/articles/south_park_zen_al...
Click on Prickles and Goo.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I guess it depends the criteria used to classify something as "left leaning." Just because liberals may gravitate towards careers in public service and cons towards those in business or economics doesn't make those respective fields de facto left or rignt leaning.
In my experience, right wingers are quick to label something they find objectionable as "liberal" or an "attack" against christianity. Corporate America wants to make a few extra bucks by calling something a "holiday" sale and they freak. Inform school kids that families other than those comprised of a mother, father and two kids exist (and fail to also warn that all gays are evil horrible people who don't deserve to live) and you're part of a "gay agenda". Hell, just a couple of weeks ago cons (none of whom experienced anything like slavery or know what it's like to be black) shrieked in horror as if they were on the verge of being sent to concentration camps. OMG
Reply-
Neutral
JackofallChems1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
warn them that gays don't make babies without outside assistance, and that fewer babies puts the country at risk of destruction in an upcoming war, and you'll have to talk to them about sex...and that's why 'conservatives' are so bad at arguing that gays are evil...it's all about sex and babies...
(has anyone noticed that death or non-life is always more profitable than life, when you start to add up food and clothing costs? that's why abortion and gay sex always seem to have lobbying money available no matter how stupid they are in concept and related excuses)
Reply -
-
-
-
-
Global_WarmerComment removed: Abusive
-
-
-
Neutral
walden31 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Funny, Republicans are such a bunch of crying babies. They scream about bias for years all the while taking over talk radio, cable news, the print press and now even textbooks.
Just like magicians - watch this hand while the other hand does it's magic.
Reply-
-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 8 months ago
-
-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Are they? Do tell! There've been rumors of them 'going under' since they came on the scene, mainly from the conservative radio market, who theoretically should enthusiastically welcome all manner of free speech. If Air America goes under, Ed Schultz won't, he's under a different corporation. Denver's AM 760 will likely keep their progressive format, since they have a strong listenership and advertising base.
If Air America goes under, it will be because of mismanagement, not content. Indeed, the content has actually saved them from early mismanagement.
Have you listened to Thom Hartman? If not, I suggest you swallow your pride and see what he's about. He's unashamedly liberal, but he is remarkably intelligent and level-headed. Um, like Richard Dawkins. I must admit I'm not a fan of Randi Rhodes. I find her as self-aggrandizing as Rush. Denver is lucky with Mario Solis-Marich and Jay Marvin. Ed Schultz is hit-and-miss for me.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
puh-leeze...the only reason right wing radio gained its audience is because that weasel Ronald Reagan torpedoed the Fairness Doctrine. Right wingers swarm to any crap that mirrors their assbackwards, one-sided (and often bigoted) point of view. If you don't believe me look just look at the conjob radio audiences prior to the Reagan reign of terror.
Reply -
-
Neutral
walden31 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
PC-
Well the day started with Morning Joe(Scarborough). The other day Joe and co-host were lamenting what would happen should Hillary or Obama get elected. Then you have VanSustern, that dickless Glenn Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, The Beltway Boys, The Journal Report and Dobbs.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Pubishing companies do little more than a cursory review, relying on the authors themselves to self-check. Admittedly, it would be expensive for Houghton-Mifflin to employ a staff of SMEs to fact-check every single statement for every single subject. It's not surprising these things slip through.
Reply-
-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I stand corrected. The concept is still the same: The school boards tend to trust an educational powerhouse like Houghton-Mifflin. Further, school boards are unlikely to challenge the curricula provider they have likely contracted with for tens of thousands of dollars.
If the provider wants to maintain educational credibility, they have a certain responsibility regarding the content of the materials they provide.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It sounds good to me. But then you left wing types always prefer theory made into law but never correct the problem when its proved wrong. Freon was supposed to kill the ozone layer. Changed by law to other gases for air conditioners. The new ones are corrosive and less efficient.
Now it has been proved false is anybody asking to reverse that law?????
A lot of scientists say that Al Gores vision is a fantasy.
But you true believers just keep the faith even when evidence is to the contrary.
Reply-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You are correct, freon didn't turn out to be the ozone-destroyer scientists feared, however, other chlorofluorocarbons are confirmed ozone-eaters, and freon was in the same chemical 'class'. To the same point, Red dye #2 turns out to be not nearly as dangerous as scientists originally feared. Turns out Thalidomide is useful in tightly controlled conditions.
Science does get stuff wrong from time to time. Science may indeed be wrong regarding global warming. However, what are the consequences for being wrong in this articular instance? Isn't the reduction of reliance on fossil fuels a good thing, both from pollution and homeland security standpoints? Who stands to lose from lowered oil consumption? The same folks who posted record profits for the last two years and are on track for a third. I'm sorry, but my pity level is plumb spent.
Reply -
-
Neutral
Charlson1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
" A lot of scientists say that Al Gores vision is a fantasy. "
As compared to the vast majority who says their statistics back up the global warming threat.
" But you true believers just keep the faith even when evidence is to the contrary." The overwhelming evidence contradicts your vision of faith that there is no global warming.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I loved this quote:
"The authors kept a phrase stating that global warming is 'enmeshed in scientific uncertainty'."
--I would have re-phrased the original sentence this way:
"A small but unbelievably shrill minority comprised of wingjob zealots from the religious right and some desperate corporatists are certainly enmeshed in denial." ;-P
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
Muleskinner1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, let's see, the earth has actually cooled (according to NOA and the world climatologists in the last 10 years by @ 1 deg F. Prior to that it was unchanged for 50 years. I'd say that there are a whole bunch of very competent climatologists (nearly half) who can demonstrate that GW is, at best, very arguable and probably a demonstrable fallacy. Including the founder of the Weather Channel and the head of the Canadian assn of Climatologists. Just because gore says it doesn't make it so. On the contary.. He learned well from his old boss how to ignore the truth LOL
Reply-
Neutral
disraeli1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
All the predictions I have seen indicate that the half the earth will warm this year, peaking in July followed by a gradually cooling until January. Curiously the same thing, only reversed will happen in the other half of the world.
I just don't know what to make of it.
Reply -
Neutral
MonkeyBiz1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"I'd say that there are a whole bunch of very competent climatologists (nearly half) who can demonstrate that GW is, at best, very arguable and probably a demonstrable fallacy."
You COULD say that, and I COULD say that the moon is made out of pixie dust and dried cheese whiz. My statement would be as accurate as yours.
Nearly half of the climatologists are flat earthers?!!?? In your dreams! LOL!!
Reply -
Neutral
david_nwpa1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Really? Because I have not seen that documented anywhere. I am curious, what is your source? Can you identify that so I can read the same information you have uncovered? Last I saw, the Earth's mean temperature has increased by a degree since 1900. Yes, the planet warms and cools cyclically, but the rate at which the temperature has been climbing is reflective of something man-caused rather than planetary. Besides, what harm can there be in cleaning up the pollutants in our atmosphere which are responsible for a sharp rise in patients with asthma and other respiratory conditions?
Reply -
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes, please provide your data. I did a google search on "NOA cooling" and found a few hits for localized cooling, but nothing global. There is data that the upper stratosphere has cooled, but this is predicted by the global warming model that allows less heat to escape into the upper stratosphere because it is trapped below the CO2 layer.
If it is a 'demonstrable fallacy', then please provide your evidence.
Thing is a portion of the 'deniers' are busy arguing there is no measurable warming, while the rest are arguing that demonstrable warming is not due to human influence. I've seen individual players on these boards take both stances when it is convenient to the article they are commenting on.
Meanwhile, Glacier National Park is perhaps 10 years away from being Glacierless National Park.
Reply-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Last ten years flat with a dip this year. 2000 meter down ocean temperature, speed and direction sensors show a slight drop in temperature. Antartica Ice is growing and getting colder. North pole melting will raise the water level 0 inches. Average temperature of the moon is the same as the average temperature of the earth. Those greenhouse gases did that right?
Graphs of past cooling and warming cycles sometimes shows CO2 sometimes lagging temperature instead of leading.
Reply-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'd like links to your data. I've seen the 2000 meter sea data, but even those investigators are still scratching their heads over what it all means. You say Antarctica ice is growing and getting colder, yet a huge chunk of the ice shelf recently sheared off with much, much more likely to follow.
Specifically, I'd like a link to the data you say points to a flat ten-year period with the last year being a dip.
As to your last point, yes, warming tends to increase CO2 emission after the fact, just as the current warming is threatening to melt long standing permafrost areas potentially releasing huge amounts of methane.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
markmawn21 year, 8 months ago
-
-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The problem is that they have been raising the time until they are hitting the limit due to known universe expansion. The problem requiring all that time is the probability of it happening gets smaller. They fall back on "Given enough time anything can happen." Unprovable but sounds nice.
Reply-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That's kinda what brane theory is all about. The shorthand is: all possible states of all conceivable universes exist all the time. The one we happen to be in is one of the only ones where conscious life is possible, so, well, of course we'd happen to be in one like this.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
joeeddie1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Not that I think the earth is not billions of years old, but where did man spontaneously appear? Piltdown? I think the lack of a true missing link points to the premise that it may have been more spontaneous (in earth years, not man years) than you think. Otherwise the fossil records would be more complete for man.
Reply-
Neutral
markmawn21 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Man is so "new" that there would not be a deep sediment fossil record. Just because the link is not found "yet" that it will never be found. I'm not banking on a link myself, but to assume we all appeared in our current evolutionary state in a garden a few thousand years ago is pushing it. But even more frightening is the thought that we could regress to destroying any link if it appears, and maintaining the "proof" of a fallacious myth, if the powers that be also regress.
Reply -
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You need to investigate more. There is no such thing as a 'missing link'. Transitional fossils leading to modern humans is pretty well documented. Fossilization is a rare occurrence to begin with.
Let's be clear here: the fossil record is necessarily the weakest of the three pillars of evolution. There is FAR more supportive data contained within phylogenetics and molecular genetics to more than make up for the 'gaps' in the fossil record. These latter two disciplines have produced predictions that have been born out by later fossil discoveries. To clarify: the study of the taxonomic tree and genetics have predicted that a certain 'transitional' species should be discovered within a certain range of geologic strata, and been proven valid!
Reply-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ROFLMAO
"Transitional fossils leading to modern humans is pretty well documented. Fossilization is a rare occurrence to begin with."
When were they found? in the last couple of months?
THEY HAVE NO RECORD OF A SLOW TRANSITION FROM ONE SPECIES TO ANOTHER.
They now make excuses for not having them.
"There is FAR more supportive data contained within phylogenetics and molecular genetics to more than make up for the 'gaps' in the fossil record."
A study of microbiology and understanding of how DNA etc. works for single cell and larger organisms make it more and more impossible for the "slow" changes to occur. It also makes it more and more impossible for life to begin in the primordial goo.
A "simple" single cell is more complex than the shuttle sitting on the launch pad being monitored by NASA. And it all just came together. What a fantasy.
Reply-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'd suggest looking at the evolution of the modern horse for the most documented series of species transition. Also take a look at ungulates to cetaceans.
For the record, ALL species are 'transitional'. There are 'transitional' aspects of even human anatomy.
Your assumption of 'slow' transitions is a straw man. While generally true for so-called 'higher' life forms, large scale 'frame-shift' mutations have been observed in nature, resulting, for one, in the 'nylon bug' that can feed off the by-products of artificial polymers.
The processes of biological adaptation are ill understood by most people, so I appreciate the incredulity in accepting that it all just 'came together' like shaking a bag of clock part and expecting to pull out a functional watch. Understand that watch parts have no capacity to self-organize as organic molecules do, nor are such mechanical parts subject to millions of years of survivability trials.
Reply-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes, I can provide a list of identified fossil species leading up to modern humans. Again, that is only 'evidence', not 'proof'.
Regardless of scientific fact, you are always free to personally believe whatever your choose. Scientific fact can never override personal belief, just as personal belief cannot override scientific fact. American government, like it or not, is rooted in rationalism and therefore tends to look at scientific fact before considering personal belief, at least as far as the law is concerned.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
joeeddie, evolution is my 'bag'. If you have any questions, I'm more than happy to answer any questions you have. There are lots of misconceptions, lots of deliberate deception regarding the science behind the emergence of life.
Science doesn't have all the answers, but if you're serious about learning what science says about these matters, I'll engage you in a respectful, if not friendly, manner.
Reply-
Neutral
joeeddie1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Why would you not be friendly? What is the evolutionary time frame of the connection between ape and man? In other words, what is the window of time from our ancestors being "all ape with no shared connections to our species" versus "part ape with some shared connections"? All of the information I've read explains that this window is very small. That is the only point I was making. Can you shed more light on this for me?
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
MonkeyBiz1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ummm... the article is about blatant (and busted!) CONSERVATIVE indoctrination in a high school text book. If you think that the items shown to be incorrect are liberal, you must be so far right wing, the very thought of anything but a fascist government must make you apoplectic. Do you wear a swastika armband and think we fought on the wrong side in WWII?
Reply-
macpoffComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hate to break it to ya, but teaching and research is simply mot a priority for most conservatives, who tend to prefer more profit-centered careers.
I might as well whine that the upper echelons of corporations are full of the 'Rapist Right' that are (more arguably) destroying America. It's the nature of the ideologies.
How would a conservative professor teach a Liberal Arts class in the first place? "Class, Sociology is Liberal BS. See ya."
Reply -
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Muleskinner1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
While I disagree with the conservative slant to this (or any) textbook, I found in HS & College that the vast majority of them are slanted to the left, as is academia as a whole. Get them young & indoctrinate them to the left wing thought process... Maybe these authors were just trying to balance things out, a tiny bit :o).
Reply-
-
-
-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I agree, there is a certain amount of left-leaning authorship. Again, those who choose careers in research and instruction in general tend to be of a liberal bent. Simply put: there are precious little conservative scientific authors. This is not by censorship, simply by choices dictated by the ideology.
People are entitled to their own opinions, they are NOT entitled to their own facts.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
joeeddie1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Textbooks should never be trusted whenever editorial is given. I wish that all slanted language could be left out of all textbooks. It used to be more pathetically pervasive than now. How many American's here can remember reading a History textbook that labeled Native Americans "savages" in their pages? America has mislead it's youth for far too long with the use of biased commentary. The Secretary of Education should appoint a watchdog group for this practice.
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
Itachirumon1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You mean rather than the more likely alternative? That he'll be murdered and beaten brutally to become a product of neocon revenge based solely upon the fact that he chose to open his mouth and expose their lies? I pray for this child-man's safety because you KNOW he's in line to be killed -especially because this has become a habit of his. Good man I hope he makes it out of that place someday
Reply
-
-
Neutral
david_nwpa1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I am intrigued by the nonsense about gay marriage in this textbook. How on Earth did the authors make the leap from the Texas s0domy case to gay marriage. I suppose they ignored the fact that Massachusetts has gay marriage. I wonder if that is a part of newer editions. Perhaps too, they included civil unions and the marriage equality movement. Oh right, those are lib items. Incidentally, why do gay people have an agenda but straight people have a vision?
Reply -
-
Neutral
Ruggaboo1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This article fails a common litmus test for biased journalism in itself.
Every issue raised, in fact is straight from the libertine handbook of flagship causes.
Hmmm...Global warming the multi-billion dollar business employing Scam-bots like Gore...is in fact largely unproven. Especially in light of 2007 horrendous winter storms; some the coldest ever.
Not to go astray, the article also mentions a struck down Texas law that used to prohibit same sex action. We can't have that...nothing to speak out against common perversions.
Prayer in school is also well mentioned and rounds out Junior's liberal indoctrination on some college campus perhaps by the stereo typical long hair, burned-out, pseudo-intellectual whinger that all to often preach from bully pulpits their sick agendas.
This article is garbage plain and simple and the kid is probably a twisted little sicko with homo tendencies...
albeit this is a guess and is... as always good for a real chortle.
Reply -
Neutral
bluenote15221 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Global Warming is the distraction that a magician uses. While he waves his left hand he removes your wristwatch with his right.
Can we say solar activity causes global warming? No because that won't allow the politicians to fleece us as the bad guys.
Reply
loading ...
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.