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.
April 9, 2008
Advertisement
Washington — 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.
9 April 2008 at 5:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bondmen (Anonymous) says…
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-Spen…
9 April 2008 at 7:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jmadison (Anonymous) says…
How dare anyone question global warming, its an article of faith.
9 April 2008 at 7:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
OldEnuf2BYurDad (Anonymous) says…
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.
9 April 2008 at 8:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“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.
9 April 2008 at 8:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
markoo (Anonymous) says…
Uhh, bondmen, is bringing up Roy Spencer, a known creationist/ID supporter who's BS theories have been riddled with inaccuracies, suppose to bolster your case somehow?
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2008/01/sp…
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc…
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc…
9 April 2008 at 8:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
RalphReed (Ralph Reed) says…
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_…)
***************
I'm me. Who are you behind your hood of anonymity?
9 April 2008 at 8:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
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-12
virtual 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.
9 April 2008 at 8:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ndmoderate (Anonymous) says…
“Nearer My Bank, to Thee”
Oh, I thought you were talking about pastors of Mega-Churches — oops!
9 April 2008 at 8:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gr (Anonymous) says…
The Al Whores
- whoring science and citizens.
9 April 2008 at 8:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Jimbo (Robert bickers) says…
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.
9 April 2008 at 8:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
autie (Anonymous) says…
At least this high school kid is obviously bright enough to question. I think it is great he has the critical thinking skills, that he can read something and not necessarily hold it to gospel, even if it is some high toned textbook, written by some well regarded authors. When the student can challenge the wisdom of the teacher, the learning experience has been successful. comparable to RP believing global warming to be a fraud and Markoo's comment on Roy Spencer. Keep questioning. It is the only way to find an answer.
9 April 2008 at 9:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
Even more important, autie… Matthew LeClair can spot extremist propoganda before he even finishes a sentence. ;)
—Ag
9 April 2008 at 9:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bondmen (Anonymous) says…
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!
9 April 2008 at 10:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jonas (Anonymous) says…
Rock on, kid, rock on!
9 April 2008 at 10:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jonas (Anonymous) says…
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!
9 April 2008 at 10:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cait48 (Anonymous) says…
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.
9 April 2008 at 10:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
Reference…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Go…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Q._Wi…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Diluli…
9 April 2008 at 11:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
autie (Anonymous) says…
So very right, cait48. You can stick your head in the sand, but you won't enjoy much of the sunshine. I do not understand why the idea of becoming proactive to a problem and developing solutions seems so foreign to so many. Then they will tell us it will raise taxes, take away our rights and lead to global economic collapse. So much for thinking outside the box and trying to stop the train before it crashes.
9 April 2008 at 11:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Hey, Aggie, how come and whyfore can *YOU* use Wikipedia but if I use it as a reference, folks, including yourself, have jumped all over me?
Whatup?
9 April 2008 at 11:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
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.
9 April 2008 at 11:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
monkeyspunk (Anonymous) says…
“Lies My Teacher Told Me.”
Good book.
9 April 2008 at 12:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
Show me, please, in what post I have ever laid into anyone here for posting a Wikipedia link?
I think Wikipedia is the ultimate source of **initial** information on most any topic. I don't think info gathering should stop with Wikipedia, or any other single source. The big difference between Wiki and the old-fashioned “World Book Encyclopedia” and “Encyclopedia Britannica” is that with Wiki, you almost always get references, sources etc. at the bottom of each article.
Please note the first word of my previous post:
“Reference”
I offer the links as a “reference” only—not as the (pardon the light step on your tender atheist toes) “Biblical Truth” or “final word” on the subject. I only offer them as a starting point for more info.
Accuracy? That's why you have sources at the bottom of the entry. I think concerns over inaccuracy are way overblown. Much like eBay, the site polices itself far more often than not.
Yeah, I take potshots at people. I'm human. I have emotions. But far more often (I hope), I try to contribute reasonable prose… ask probing questions… and give readers some things to **think** about.
So, if you have Wikipedia references, post away!
—Ag
9 April 2008 at 12:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
littlegrace (Anonymous) says…
Wikipeda is not an acceptable source for anything.
9 April 2008 at 12:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
SpeedRacer (Anonymous) says…
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.
9 April 2008 at 1 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
littlegrace (Anonymous) says…
“Wikipeda is not an acceptable source for anything.”
__________________________________________
Why not?
How is it different and/or inferior from any other source, including web sites… newspapers… periodicals… televison and radio broadcasts… or old-fashioned encyclopedias?
9 April 2008 at 1:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
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.
http://www.svsu.edu/clubs/vanguard/stori…
9 April 2008 at 1:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
Oh, I see. You have your blinders on… and you completely ignored my 12:20 post.
Okay, I understand now! :)
9 April 2008 at 2:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…
“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.
9 April 2008 at 2:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“. 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.
9 April 2008 at 2:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jonas (Anonymous) says…
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
9 April 2008 at 3:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
autie (Anonymous) says…
Why argue about the validity of sources? Read them all and make an informed decision. It is all propoganda one way or another.
9 April 2008 at 3:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
autie (Anonymous) says…
Maybe my monitor is broken..that reads “The Fox News Channel—fair and balanced. ?? You have got to be kidding. That is the most one sided, narrow minded bunch in the entire lot. Most of the stories I see there have to do more with paranoia than news. I'm guessing you don't read the NY Times? It is the difference of opinion that makes horse races. eh?
9 April 2008 at 3:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Windlass (Anonymous) says…
Re-write history to what end? To repeat the mistakes of the past? And do the conservatives hope for another Holocaust? God forbid.
9 April 2008 at 3:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
RalphReed (Ralph Reed) says…
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?
9 April 2008 at 3:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
RalphReed (Ralph Reed) says…
oops
I 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
9 April 2008 at 3:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
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. OR, you are a parrot to your corporate masters, (church leaders, politicians, industry titans), My guess is the latter…
9 April 2008 at 4:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
anxiousatheist (Anonymous) says…
“The Fox News Channel–-fair and balanced. They've done more good for this crumbling nation than anything else.”
Pretty funny “Red_Peters”, you consider spreading war propaganda as “good”. Also it's funny that you admit that this nation is “crumbling” with a republican in power for the last eight years…Keep sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming as loud as you can, that way your brain will never be influenced by reality. Also, “Autie”, not everything is propaganda, but that's what your corporate masters, (church leaders, talk-radio, Faux-News), will tell you, (to keep you listening to their propaganda of course).
9 April 2008 at 4:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
Memo to RalphReed:
Your “troll detector” is *not*—repeat—*not* broken.
Seems to be working just fine!
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
http://www.uscentrist.org
http://www.americanplan.org
9 April 2008 at 4:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“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.
9 April 2008 at 4:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
salad (Anonymous) says…
“This RT character has apparently left a lasting impression on many LJW neighbors”
…and you are him, R_P, you are him.
9 April 2008 at 5:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
pisafromthewest (Anonymous) says…
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.
9 April 2008 at 5:34 p.m.
Permalink
anxiousatheist (Anonymous) says…
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
9 April 2008 at 5:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“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.
9 April 2008 at 6:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
anxiousatheist (Anonymous) says…
Don't tell me “red-peter”, you're afraid of black people…
9 April 2008 at 6:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
anxiousatheist (Anonymous) says…
You don't seem to love scientists and the work they do…You don't seem to care about soldiers being sent to die for the chickenhawks…You don't seem to understand the plight of African-Americans…Just who do you care about? I think it's one person and one person only…
9 April 2008 at 7:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
RedwoodCoast (Anonymous) says…
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.
9 April 2008 at 8:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“You could give a flying fig about dead US soldiers or CO2 emissions.”
Careful with your projections there, RP/RT.
9 April 2008 at 9:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Guardian (Anonymous) says…
And 30-some years ago it was global cooling that would detroy the world. hhhmmmmmmmmmm!!
9 April 2008 at 9:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
pisafromthewest (Anonymous) says…
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.
9 April 2008 at 9:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
matahari (Anonymous) says…
hey just because he has acne, no reason to become an over achiever!
9 April 2008 at 11:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
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?
10 April 2008 at 6:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bondmen (Anonymous) says…
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…
CO2 & Temperature http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.com…
Melting Ice and Sea Levels http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.com…
Temperature Record http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.com…
10 April 2008 at 7:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
stuckinthemiddle (Anonymous) says…
teach your children well…
10 April 2008 at 7:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
pisafromthewest (Anonymous) says…
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.
10 April 2008 at 8:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
I see somebody bothered to take out the trash this morning. Thanks.
10 April 2008 at 9:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“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.
10 April 2008 at 9:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
stuckinthemiddle (Anonymous) says…
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…
10 April 2008 at 10:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Stain (Anonymous) says…
Kudos to this young man. Good job, Sir.
Maybe there is hope for America, in the next generation.
10 April 2008 at 10:50 a.m.
Permalink
jonas (Anonymous) says…
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
10 April 2008 at 11:44 a.m.
Permalink
anxiousatheist (Anonymous) says…
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
10 April 2008 at 1:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
pisafromthewest (Anonymous) says…
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.
10 April 2008 at 1:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“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.
10 April 2008 at 2:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
a_flock_of_jayhawks (Anonymous) says…
littlegrace (Anonymous) says…
“Wikipeda is not an acceptable source for anything.”
I like the explanation of bragg gratings. Very accurate.
10 April 2008 at 2:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
pisafromthewest (Anonymous) says…
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.
10 April 2008 at 2:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
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.
10 April 2008 at 2:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
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.
But, by all means, keep throwing crap around to see what sticks. You are obviously scientifically challenged.
10 April 2008 at 4:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
pisafromthewest (Anonymous) says…
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 t