Archive for Wednesday, April 9, 2008

Popular textbook under fire

Government book is biased, student says

Matthew LaClair, 18, holds his American Government textbook at his home Tuesday in Kearny, N.J. LaClair, a senior at Kearny High School, has raised questions about political bias in a popular textbook on U.S. government, and legal scholars and top scientists agree.

Matthew LaClair, 18, holds his American Government textbook at his home Tuesday in Kearny, N.J. LaClair, a senior at Kearny High School, has raised questions about political bias in a popular textbook on U.S. government, and legal scholars and top scientists agree.

April 9, 2008

Advertisement

— Talk 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.

They say "American Government" by conservatives James Wilson and John Dilulio presents a skewed view of topics from global warming to separation of church and state. The publisher now says it will review the book, as will the College Board, which oversees college-level Advanced Placement courses used in high schools.

Matthew LaClair of Kearny, N.J., recently brought his concerns to the attention of the Center for Inquiry, an Amherst, N.Y., think tank that promotes science and which has issued a scathing report about the textbook.

"I just realized from my own knowledge that some of this stuff in the book is just plain wrong," said LaClair, who is using the book as part of an AP government class at Kearny High School.

The textbook is designed for a college audience, but also is widely used in AP American government courses, said Richard Blake, a spokesman for the publisher, Houghton Mifflin Co. Blake said the company "will be working with the authors to evaluate in detail the criticisms of the Center for Inquiry." Blake said some disputed passages already have been excised from the newest edition of the book.

Both authors are considered conservative. Dilulio, a University of Pennsylvania professor, formerly worked for the Bush administration as director of faith-based initiatives. Wilson is the Ronald Reagan Professor of Public Policy at Pepperdine University. Neither responded immediately to calls seeking comment.

LaClair said he was particularly upset about the book's treatment of global warming. James Hansen, the director of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, recently heard about LaClair's concerns and has lent him some support.

The edition of the textbook published in 2005, which is in high school classrooms now, states that "science doesn't know whether we are experiencing a dangerous level of global warming or how bad the greenhouse effect is, if it exists at all."

A newer edition published late last year was changed to say, "Science doesn't know how bad the greenhouse effect is."

The authors kept a phrase stating that global warming is "enmeshed in scientific uncertainty."

While there are still some scientists who downplay global warming and the role of burning fossil fuels, the overwhelming majority of climate scientists and peer-reviewed scientific research say human activity is causing climate change. Last year an international collection of hundreds of scientists and government officials unanimously approved wording that said the scientific community had "very high confidence," meaning more than 90 percent likelihood, that global warming is caused by humans.

LaClair also was concerned about the textbook's treatment of U.S. Supreme Court decisions regarding prayer in school.

The textbook states that the court has ruled as "unconstitutional every effort to have any form of prayer in public schools, even if it is nonsectarian, voluntary or limited to reading a passage of the Bible."

Those examples are not correct, says Charles Haynes, of the First Amendment Center in Washington.

"Students can pray inside a public school in many different ways," Haynes said, adding they can pray alone or in groups before lunch or in religious clubs, for example.

Comments

jmadison 9 years, 7 months ago

How dare anyone question global warming, its an article of faith.

gr 9 years, 7 months ago

The Al Whores - whoring science and citizens.

Ralph Reed 9 years, 7 months ago

It will be interesting to see how this pans out. Only two or three states really have any say in what textbooks are published and distributed; Texas and California, if I remember correctly. Even with the Center for Inquiry helping, this young lad from NJ has an uphill battle. Center for inquiry (http://www.centerforinquiry.net) Center for Inquiry Article on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Inquiry)***I'm me. Who are you behind your hood of anonymity?

Robert bickers 9 years, 7 months ago

I may not agree with the author's politics (the article uses "Conservative" as an ad-hominem, telling us nothing about the men) but they are correct in stating that science has no clear, bullet-proof explanation for climate change.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 9 years, 7 months ago

"How dare anyone question global warming, its an article of faith."No, good scientists question it everyday, and they do so with the best data and analytical tools available to them, which currently say that human activity is causing global warming, and the effects of that warming could be disastrous for humans and other species. But little Neros like you want to fiddle around in your own truly faith-based ignorance till its too late to do anything about it.

bondmen 9 years, 7 months ago

Global Warming and Nature's Thermostat: Precipitation Systems;How Could So Many Climate Modelers Be Wrong?Temperatures Over the Last 2,000 Years and more at:http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm

Richard Heckler 9 years, 7 months ago

3 years ago on radio news the Cheney's were discussing rewriting school books to reflect their views regarding many political history matters . Sounds like they are being successful with McGraw-Hill of Texas I believe as their pusher. Now I wonder who bought the name McGraw-Hill?Lynn Cheney implied that the Reagan years would be an acceptable starting point so far as history is concerned. This is what disturbs me about USD 497 choosing the K-12virtual school curriculum. It was developed by none other than Bill Bennett of Reagan/Bush and friends. There are others to choose from that have been around for decades upon decades. They want to pollute the minds of our children.

OldEnuf2BYurDad 9 years, 7 months ago

Our planet has been down this road before, and I mean before Henry Ford was even born.Is it happening? Yes. Should we panic and blame? Maybe. Not sure.

ndmoderate 9 years, 7 months ago

"Nearer My Bank, to Thee"Oh, I thought you were talking about pastors of Mega-Churches -- oops!

bondmen 9 years, 7 months ago

My friend Frank H. is an extremely well read book seller and he is knowledgeable on a myriad of important topics. I'll never forget a few years ago while discussing Albert Gore and his deep family ties to Occidental Petroleum, Frank summarized Albert in five delicious words: "A verbally facile, high moron" and I laughed for minutes thinking about what he'd just said. I still cherish the words to this day!

jonas 9 years, 7 months ago

Can immediate reference to Al Gore and assumed adherence to his political line with no particular reference to make said assumption also be considered an ad-hominem attack?"consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim."Hmmm. . . why yes, I think it can be!

pisafromthewest 9 years, 7 months ago

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says:"Why don't you just go rearrange the deck chairs, and leave the actual thinking to those more clearly more qualified?"Like you?[roflmfao!]I think the tin-foil has slipped down over your eyes, clown-boy. When did I say "random?" I believe I said unknown. The little "inconvenient truth" that you and the rest of the mindless AlGore drone idealogues keep conveniently omitting from your tripe is that these climate changes have happened without mankind's intervention : or presence : in the past. And we don't know why, but suddenly climate change is based on anthropogenic causes?So, I don't suppose you can answer the question, bozo : pretty sure, given your usual utter lack of ability to back up anything you say, that you won't even try : but if global warming is caused by man, why did it happen before mankind existed? And if you can't answer that question (and you can't), how is it such a hard cold proven fact that those same unknown reasons aren't causing today's shift?Let me guess: 'Cause the clown says so.Speaking of considerable evidence, clownie, there's quite a bit of it that says you're a mindless waste of protoplasm.

Cait McKnelly 9 years, 7 months ago

When 90% of scientists say that yes global warming exists and yes human beings have a high likelihood of being responsible for it denying it is a bit like sticking your head in the sand. You can either do something proactive about it or die in denial.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 9 years, 7 months ago

"So, I don't suppose you can answer the question, bozo "Not sure exactly what the question is, but I think I did answer it. But I'll give it another stab, since you didn't seem to understand the first time.There are many mechanisms that can affect climate, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere being one of them. There are other mechanisms that have caused major climatic changes in the ancient past. And while those warrant close study, their mere existence does not magically mean that the buildup of CO2 due to the massive burn-off of fossil fuels isn't a creating a dangerous situation for billions of humans (and members of other species) who are on the planet right now. Fretting about mechanisms that changed the climate millions of years ago, mechanisms that don't appear to be affecting us right now, is nothing but a ruse to distract from the very real problems facing us right here, right now.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 9 years, 7 months ago

Unfortunately, many self-professed conservatives, rather than going by the adage of true conservatism, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," would rather just deny that it is broken.

littlegrace 9 years, 7 months ago

Wikipeda is not an acceptable source for anything.

SpeedRacer 9 years, 7 months ago

It is not unusual for history textbooks to have political slants. This applies to elementary school books as well. Historical figures go from heroes to villians and back again. I have seen several different revisionist versions of the terms of FDR, Truman, JFK, Nixon and Reagan. Those who select the textbooks to use in school are motivated by political and cultural leanings, as well as financial aspects.

littlegrace 9 years, 7 months ago

Read it and weep. By thier own admission Wikipeda is not the end all source nor do they stand by thier accuracy. http://www.svsu.edu/clubs/vanguard/stories/1141

bondmen 9 years, 7 months ago

It is the new fad for sure to believe in and have faith in man caused global warming - it is the rage of the age. But there are serious stumbling blocks to your emotive fantasy called facts and facts often do get in the way of fantasy, especially in the cognitive capacity of the open minded.The Sun http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.com/thesun.htmlCO2 & Temperature http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.com/co2_temperature.htmlMelting Ice and Sea Levels http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.com/MeltingIceSeaLevels.htmlTemperature Record http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.com/temperature_record.html

jonas 9 years, 7 months ago

littlegrace (Anonymous) says:"Read it and weep.By thier own admission Wikipeda is not the end all source nor do they stand by thier accuracy."Which means what, exactly? We're not writing dissertations here, in case you hadn't noticed. A Wikipedia entry is nothing but an accumulation of existing knowledge and opinion. It certainly can't be taken as a direct or primary source, but it is invaluable, and generally accurate, in a surface skimming of issues. If you have an issue with information that exists within a wikipedia entry, bring out more accurate or reliably sourced information to refute it. Simply writing it off because its from Wikipedia is just assuming that it is wrong, which is no better than just assuming that it's right. . . . ."read it and weep"? chuckle

notajayhawk 9 years, 7 months ago

"While there are still some scientists who downplay global warming and the role of burning fossil fuels, the overwhelming majority of climate scientists and peer-reviewed scientific research say human activity is causing climate change."I wonder if they have to replace all the hygiene textbooks every time the "consensus" of the American Dental Association changes from brushing up-and-down to brushing side-to-side.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 9 years, 7 months ago

". I refuse to buy into the Al Gore and extremists far-left storyline though,"There is no such storyline. There is data and science, for which you are too ignorant and ideological to have an intelligent response, so you resort to silly name-calling.

stuckinthemiddle 9 years, 7 months ago

well done, Matthew... your public school education has served you rather well...there is no more important lesson to learn than the importance of recognizing, questioning and taking action against the follies of authority...

Ralph Reed 9 years, 7 months ago

RT (anonymous) writes at 1237 ..."I just know BS when I see it and see it from dawn 'til dusk on this wonderful LJW reader comments forum."**The BS works both ways RT and you know that.*RT (Anonymous) writes at 1444: ":so you resort to silly name-calling."'Far-left extremists' is silly name-calling? Wow, that's news to me. You must strongly condemn all of the far-left extremist blogs then too, right?"**This statement implies you condemn the far-right extremist blogs. Is this true? If so, you must be moving towards a centrist position similar to what you say I have.**I agree that Wikipedia is not definitive. It is, however, a good starting point. Like others, I occassionally reference it, but I always check its veracity elsewhere.**I'm me. Who are you behind yourhood of anonymity?

Ralph Reed 9 years, 7 months ago

oopsI referenced someone in error. Red_Peters, I called you RT, short for Right_Thinker. It was a slip of the keyboard. Sorry, it's just that your comments and writing style virtually mirror what his was when he was still posting here.- Ralph

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 9 years, 7 months ago

"Far-left extremists' is silly name-calling? Wow, that's news to me. You must strongly condemn all of the far-left extremist blogs then too, right?"I'm not going to condemn anything merely because of your superficial characterization of it. Show me some actual content for consideration, and I'll give you my opinion on that particular blog.

salad 9 years, 7 months ago

"This RT character has apparently left a lasting impression on many LJW neighbors"...and you are him, R_P, you are him.

pisafromthewest 9 years, 7 months ago

anxiousatheist (Anonymous) says: "Let me guess, all of those who don't believe in global warming are actually studying the eco-system, geology, hydrology, biology and all the other science that you must refer to when speaking on global warming."And let me guess, you really believe that all the Gore acolytes have actually studied those things, and aren't just parroting the anti-big-business "sky-is-falling" looney toons.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says: "There is data and science ..."There is also data and science that says this planet had bigger climate shifts when the only way fossil fuels got burned is if they got hit by lightning while grazing, and long, long before anyone could blame it on mankind, as they weren't around quite yet.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 9 years, 7 months ago

"There is also data and science that says this planet had bigger climate shifts when the only way fossil fuels got burned is if they got hit by lightning while grazing, and long, long before anyone could blame it on mankind, as they weren't around quite yet."That was then, this is now. And one thing extremely different between then and now is that humans are busy burning off billions of tons of fossil fuels releasing carbon that had been stored up for countless millennia, in a period of time several magnitudes shorter. The other important difference is that those warming periods had absolutely no effect on human civilization, because it didn't exist. We do exist now, and our actions have bit us in the a@@ more than once in our relatively short existence. We likely won't be around forever, but I'd just as soon not hurry the process of our extinction any more than we can help.But I know those little facts are ideologically inconvenient, so I'm sure you'll continue to deny their importance.

RedwoodCoast 9 years, 7 months ago

Hey Red, the "Little Ice Age" ended about 150 years ago.Bozo: Actually humans have survived several "Ice Ages." They were pushed to the southern portions of Europe during the last major glaciation beginning about 20,000 years ago. Afterwards, they moved back in. This has happened several times during the 40,000 years we were in Europe, which is where the greatest effects were felt.You know Red, what drives me crazy about the "right" is the smugness that I perceive in their arguments. It's a change-resistant I like the way things are because it benefits me kind of thing. Granted, I'm not a far-left person, and I do find some left-leaning arguments a little absurd. However, the same goes for right-wingers who appeal to tradition and authority, lacking a live-and-let-live philosophy and a clear vision of what their legacy will be for future generations on this planet.As for the textbook: Excise away.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 9 years, 7 months ago

"You could give a flying fig about dead US soldiers or CO2 emissions."Careful with your projections there, RP/RT.

Jim Phillips 9 years, 7 months ago

And 30-some years ago it was global COOLING that would detroy the world. HHHMMMMMMMMMM!!

pisafromthewest 9 years, 7 months ago

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says: "That was then, this is now. And one thing extremely different between then and now is that humans are busy burning off billions of tons of fossil fuels releasing carbon that had been stored up for countless millennia, in a period of time several magnitudes shorter. The other important difference is that those warming periods had absolutely no effect on human civilization, because it didn't exist."Oh, those were the differences.It doesn't bother you at all, does it ... do you even read the drivel you type? Yes, you're correct ... mankind did not exist then, and nobody was around to be "burning off billions of tons of fossil fuels releasing carbon that had been stored up for countless millennia, in a period of time several magnitudes shorter." And yet, oddly enough, the climate shifts still happened!But I know that little fact is ideologically inconvenient, so I'm sure you'll continue to deny its importance.Want another little difference, clownie? Nobody has a "consensus" on why those (larger) climate shifts happened way back then, other than S.W.A.G.s. Which means nobody can say that the exact same thing that caused those prior shifts aren't causing this one, that it isn't a perfectly normal cycle in this planet's life.But I know that little fact is ideologically inconvenient, so I'm sure you'll continue to deny its importance.There are two major factors that drive the chicken littles like bozo. One is unmitigated hubris, the belief that somehow mankind has more influence over the environment of this plant than the natural forces that have been in play for millions of years. The other is the same thought process that drives conspiracy theorists ... they're absolutely terrified by something they're unable to completely explain, and the only way they can get out from hiding under their beds is to force the known facts into a pattern that gives them some deluded belief in being able to control it (omitting, of course, the "inconvenient truths" that this has all happened before, and their explanations can't account for those prior incidences).It's okay, bozo, you don't have to be so frightened, you'll be fine ... your tin-foil hat should keep you cool when the temperature goes up.

matahari 9 years, 7 months ago

hey just because he has acne, no reason to become an over achiever!

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 9 years, 7 months ago

Yea, that's a great argument, pisa. Random forces caused catastrophic climate change in the prehistoric, pre-human past, so we should just ignore the considerable evidence that our own actions could very likely be causing similarly catastrophic changes right here, and right now.Why don't you just go rearrange the deck chairs, and leave the actual thinking to those more clearly more qualified?

bondmen 9 years, 7 months ago

For all the GW loonies, don't put your aluminum coats and hats away yet; here's the latest weather prediction:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/04/10/eaclimate110.xmlGeologist: Sun's shift could mean global chill'Warming' fits 30-year cycles, geologist argueshttp://www.bellinghamherald.com/102/story/375112.html

jonas 9 years, 7 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 9 years, 7 months ago

You guys are so much fun. Here's more toward your thirst for knowledge in regards to prior warming episodes on earth:http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11676If there's a troll here, that would be you, pisa. Enjoy.

pisafromthewest 9 years, 7 months ago

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says: "Fretting about mechanisms that changed the climate millions of years ago, mechanisms that don't appear to be affecting us right now, is nothing but a ruse to distract from the very real problems facing us right here, right now."Fretting about anthropogenic causes is just a ruse to distract from the fact that climate shifts such as we are experiencing now have been happening for millions of years and there's no way our esteemed 'climatologist's' models can explain them. But of course they're right about his time. Sure.But hey, by all means, let's go through all the effort and monumental expense of making the changes AlGore and his acolytes want us to make, only to find out down the road that hey, guess what, climate shifts happen anyway due to non-anthropogenic causes. Good plan, bozo. Guess this is why we don't let someone who refers to himself as bozo make policy for the rest of us.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 9 years, 7 months ago

"Fretting about anthropogenic causes is just a ruse to distract from the fact that climate shifts such as we are experiencing now have been happening for millions of years"Yea, the fact that billions of tons of fossil fuels are being burned off into the atmosphere for the first time ever is just an irrelevant elephant in the room, right, pisa?"Guess this is why we don't let someone who refers to himself as bozo make policy for the rest of us."Read my handle again, my fellow bozo.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 9 years, 7 months ago

littlegrace (Anonymous) says:"Wikipeda is not an acceptable source for anything."I like the explanation of bragg gratings. Very accurate.

pisafromthewest 9 years, 7 months ago

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says: "Yea, the fact that billions of tons of fossil fuels are being burned off into the atmosphere for the first time ever is just an irrelevant elephant in the room, right, pisa?"Yet more of the monumental hubris of believing mankind affects the environment more than the natural forces that have been shaping this planet's weather for millions of years.Hey, bozo, if you put a large rock on top of the water in your pool, it will sink. Rocks have always sunk when placed on water. Whether there have been some anthropogenic changes made to that rock ... maybe you painted a clown face on it or something ... while they may make that rock heavier in an infinitesimal way, those changes aren't what made the rock sink. And passing a law against painting rocks, and undertaking a huge project to go out and remove the paint from all rocks already so decorated, will not keep rocks from sinking. Rocks sink (as I'm sure you've noticed when you've let your head relax in the bathtub).The elephant in the room, clown, is that climate change happened before man existed, and likely will long after he's gone. It has happened repeatedly without mankind's contributing anything. Whether or not we're burning fossil fuels, climate change happens, just as rocks sink. And until you can explain what caused those prior shifts, and rule out that the same forces aren't influencing the weather today, then you haven't proved jack. 'Consensus' is a majority opinion, but it's still nothing more than opinion, and a far cry from proven fact.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 9 years, 7 months ago

The hubris is to think that we are somehow separate from nature. We've been affecting everything around us since we appeared on this planet, and now that we are here in the billions, and burning off billions of tons of fossil fuels, and who knows what all else our activities influence, your faith-based "what, me worry?" attitude would be cute if it weren't so mass-suicidally dangerous.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 9 years, 7 months ago

pisa says,"And until you can explain what caused those prior shifts"I am fairly certain the prevailing opinions account for this, and the opinion still remains. Failing to account for it would leave a huge hole and there would be a throng of scientists that would be all over it.But, by all means, keep throwing crap around to see what sticks. You are obviously scientifically challenged.

jonas 9 years, 7 months ago

So, one article that the earth's weather patterns are more complex than a single moving factor, and another with the hypothesis of a single retired geologist? Are you suggesting that this disproves global warming, then?

jonas 9 years, 7 months ago

"Very likely" wouldn't even get you convicted in a court of law. Not even in civil court. But it's proven "science."Ahhh. . . I see the problem. You seem to believe that our understanding of the natural world should operate on the same frame of certainty as our understanding of our human-created modern judicial system. That Would rule out any ability to get behind the idea of global warming, evolution, etc. Of course. . . . it would probably hurt your ability to get behind the idea of the human genome, gravity, etc, as well.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 9 years, 7 months ago

Actually, "very likely" very well could get you convicted in a civil court. But, again, this proves my point about you and people like you in that it must be proven to be black or white or it must be ignored. As Jonas points out, that line of thinking would hamper your ability to understand a good number of principles that most of us take for granted, and, most importantly, form the basis for further research in that area.I'm sure that the others in this forum can see the crazy person in the corner, pisa. You just made yourself look pretty foolish.It's been fun attempting to get you to re-examine some of your flawed positions. Not that it matters that much to me what you think, anyway.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 9 years, 7 months ago

Folks like you, ENS, don't operate on facts and logic. You operate on pure emotion, and have to have some bogeyman against whom to focus your venomous irrationality.

pisafromthewest 9 years, 7 months ago

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says: "your faith-based "what, me worry?" attitude would be cute if it weren't so mass-suicidally dangerous."Faith-based, bozo? Coming from someone who couldn't read a book on the subject if he wanted to as his face is planted too squarely in AlGore's butt to see, that's amusing. Let's see: We've established that your canonized scientists can't explain what caused prior climate shifts ... but they're sure they know what's causing this one. And it can't be proven or demonstrated, but they've reached a "consensus." And I'm the one taking things on "faith?" Right. Wish I was the used car salesman who saw you coming from a mile away. But, at least you don't win the prize for the most *sinine statement of the day ... that honor goes to:- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -a_flock_of_jayhawks (Anonymous) says: pisa says,"And until you can explain what caused those prior shifts""I am fairly certain the prevailing opinions account for this, and the opinion still remains. Failing to account for it would leave a huge hole and there would be a throng of scientists that would be all over it.""Fairly certain?""Prevailing opinions?" (Opinions, as in plural, by the way ... none of which you seem to be able to mention ... how odd.)Wow, guess that proves ... wait, let me see ... absolutely freakin' nothing, except to those of small minds who are "fairly certain" that the "prevailing opinions" explain everything, like flock_of_lemmings."But, by all means, keep throwing crap around to see what sticks. You are obviously scientifically challenged."Yes, that's right, lemming, if what you're spewing passes for "science," I'll pass, no matter how "fairly certain" you are of the "prevailing opinions." Hard to believe, what with the absolute conviction, backed up by ... let's see ... absolutely no facts or evidence, that you so aptly (and typically) demonstrate.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 9 years, 7 months ago

"Let's see: We've established that your canonized scientists can't explain what caused prior climate shifts "That's your contention, and I have no doubt that numerous theories abound. But the fact remains than in none of those earlier climate shifts were there billions of tons of fossil fuels being pumped and mined from underground sequestration and injected directly into the atmosphere. ": but they're sure they know what's causing this one."No, they say that given the data and analytical tools available to us, there is an extremely high probability that global warming is happening, it's caused to a very large extent by human activity, and the results could be catastrophic. But your faith-based ideology and beliefs require to you to totally discount any possibility that those who know most about this field of science might be right. Now maybe you don't mind getting squished by the elephant in the room that your precious ideology blinds you to, but I, for one, don't want to hinge our survival solely on how agile that elephant really is.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 9 years, 7 months ago

Seems to have touched a nerve. You're an idiot. When a discussion leads down this road, it's my policy to wish you a nice day and move on. Let the record show that I tried to keep this civil and it was you that could muster up nothing more than crude hate and nastiness, which is what usually happens when you have nothing further in your corner.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 9 years, 7 months ago

You know, pisa, the diatribe you just spewed was so incredibly misinformed and false that I don't know where to start. I'll leave that for others, who will no doubt have a field day with it. Moron.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 9 years, 7 months ago

pisa makes some comments,"Fairly certain?"I reconsidered. Yes, fairly certain implies that there is a high level of confidence. It is obvious that you are of the thought that everything must be black or white. In science, it often does not have to work out that way to be useful. In many circumstances, you do your best with the best available information to determine which side things fall on given some scenarios. In fact, there are some situations in which the results of a simple analysis are enough proof that the answer cannot be something, that you know enough not to waste your time on attempting to prove beyond doubt that it isn't. "Prevailing opinions?"You clearly do not consider the fact that there are several scientists that have slightly differing opinions, but that the general consensus is in the same direction. Again, in science, it often works out that way."let's see : absolutely no facts or evidence"And you conclude that there are no facts or evidence. Way off the mark and utterly ignorant (as in failing to recognize the voluminous facts and opinion before you). BTW, I work with science in my profession on a regular basis. It has served me and those I have had the opportunity to serve rather well in my career. Fortunately for you, there are professionals like me that understand science on a level that you never will that are the people that invent and improve for your benefit. It's quite alright for you to question, but when it digresses to a disdain and incompetence like that you have put up for display, it's in your best interest to just shut up, keep your lousy, flawed opinion to yourself and just enjoy the ride.With your foul logic, if it can't be proven to be either black or white, it must be ignored. Again, you should feel fortunate that there are people in your world that don't stop asking questions at that point, put their pencils down and give up.

pisafromthewest 9 years, 7 months ago

a_flock_of_jayhawks (Anonymous) says: "Seems to have touched a nerve. You're an idiot. When a discussion leads down this road, it's my policy to wish you a nice day and move on."Yeah, I could see that from your following posts, fool. Just as I can see that your whining (and outright lying) attempts to claim the moral high ground ("Let the record show that I tried to keep this civil and it was you that could muster up nothing more than crude hate and nastiness, which is what usually happens when you have nothing further in your corner."). This must be what flock_of_lemmings means by keeping it "civil": "But, by all means, keep throwing crap around to see what sticks. You are obviously scientifically challenged." My, how civil. But I agree ... posts like yours, lemming, are exactly what we get when you have nothing to back up your opinion but your own rather limited intellect."You know, pisa, the diatribe you just spewed was so incredibly misinformed and false that I don't know where to start. I'll leave that for others, who will no doubt have a field day with it. Moron."Or, the translation: "Sputter ... sputter ... sputter ... I don't have anything to come back with ... not a single fact or piece of evidence because for all my bluster I'm an uninformed idealogue of an idiot ... so I'll just 'declare victory' and claim no argument is necessary." (Although that won't shut lemming up, as his next post evidences ... three posts in response to mine, but he thinks he's the one who touched a nerve...)"In fact, there are some situations in which the results of a simple analysis are enough proof that the answer cannot be something, that you know enough not to waste your time on attempting to prove beyond doubt that it isn't."Especially when the little children of the world, like flock_of_bozos, are already sold. Oh, yeah ... and it can't be proven, only agreed to by "consensus." UH, lemming ... you do know there's a difference between "consensus" and scientific proof, don't you? I realize it's probably beyond your third grade education to understand what the difference is, but you should at least understand that there is one."You clearly do not consider the fact that there are several scientists that have slightly differing opinions,"No, sorry, lemming, you're the one who doesn't seem to grasp that. Yes, there are scientists of the opinion that global warming is anthropogenic, just as there are those of the opposite opinion. Establishing 'fact' through 'consensus' is a far cry from scientific proof.(cont. below)

pisafromthewest 9 years, 7 months ago

(cont. from above)"And you conclude that there are no facts or evidence. "And we arrive at the crux of the problem ... flocked-up has a little problem with reading comprehension. I said, moron, that you haven't presented any facts of evidence, for all your pretending to have a snootful. You claimed that "prevailing opinion" explained the earlier climate shifts ... but gee, didn't mention one word about what any of those opinions might be. (Come on, lemming, it's been hours ... forget how to use Google?)"I work with science in my profession on a regular basis ... Fortunately for you, there are professionals like me ..." Fortunately there are still people that question the bluster of pompous jacka**es like you. I notice you didn't say you were a scientist, lemming, but that you "use science." Duh. Wow. Hey, lemming, I "use science" when I turn on the lights in my house. "it's in your best interest to just shut up, keep your lousy, flawed opinion to yourself "Or, the translation: "How dare you question my opinion? How could you doubt I'm as smart as I think I am? What this boy did ... question what's in the literature because the evidence doesn't prove it ... that's great! What you're doing ... questioning what's in the literature because the evidence doesn't prove it ... that's "flawed," and you need to stop!" Why? What's the difference? Because the boy in the story agrees with flock_of_lemmings, and I have the audacity to disagree. Him, such a fine, upstanding user of science on a regular basis!"Again, you should feel fortunate that there are people in your world that don't stop asking questions at that point, put their pencils down and give up."Which is precisely what you have done, when you settle for opinion rather than proof. As a matter of fact, you even praised that very practice: "there are some situations in which the results of a simple analysis are enough proof that the answer cannot be something, that you know enough not to waste your time on attempting to prove beyond doubt that it isn't." You put your pencil down a long time ago, flocker, and it sure sounds like you found it when you sat down.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -anxiousatheist;I refer to the Nobel winning Mr. Gore for his status as the poster child for those who think science is grounded in "consensus" rather than fact.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 9 years, 7 months ago

Well, geniuses, maybe you can explain why the statements in this article by this group are made:http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/media/2007/50YearCO2Record.htmlYou paid for it.Need any more evidence? There's plenty.

pisafromthewest 9 years, 7 months ago

From flocked_up_jayhawk's link:"Carbon dioxide is the most important of the greenhouse gases produced by humans and very likely responsible for the observed rise in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century."Wow."Very likely.""Very likely" wouldn't even get you convicted in a court of law. Not even in civil court. But it's proven "science."Hey, if this is science, flocked_up, why don't they say "is causing?" Maybe because the total amount of CO2 put in the atmosphere by humans is infinitesimal compared to the amount of the most abundent greenhouse gas ... water vapor? Maybe that's anthropogenic ... the AlGore acolytes are sweating profusely that the predicted epic hurricane seasons didn't happen the last couple of years.Gee, for some reason, flocked_up_jayhawk still hasn't answered the simple question: What is the "prevailing opinion" of what caused prior incidences of global warming, and how have they been ruled out this time? Having a hard time coming up with an answer there, genius, oh great and powerful user of science?Hey, this has been real, but somehow continuing to feed trolls like flocked_up seems like less fun than ... oh, heck, anything else.

jonas 9 years, 7 months ago

bozo: I think its clear that emotion and a bogeyman don't really enter that much in Eggnog's shtick. (Which I just noticed, chuckle, that he misspelled) I think it's pretty clear that his solitary goal is just to piss people off. At any rate, with his language and abusive behavior, it's only a matter of time before he gets yanked.

jonas 9 years, 7 months ago

You'll really have to do better, Eggnog. If you're hoping to get a rise out of me, you're going to have to sound less infantile. As it is, I might as well get irritated by the commentary scratched onto a bathroom stall. The level of maturity is about the same.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 9 years, 7 months ago

I guess that explains why ENS lit right into me with such vigor and without any provocation. Such a brazen display of rudness and hate. I feel kinda sorry for those kind of people. I get the idea that they really can't enjoy life. Too bad.

BrianR 9 years, 7 months ago

How many of these books are there? Couldn't they be used as a fuel source?

Commenting has been disabled for this item.

loading...