Textbook Case of Climate Misinformation
NEW YORK, Apr 18 (OneWorld) - A nonprofit environmental group is calling on one of the country's largest textbook publishers to correct a school book that it says contains a discussion of global warming "so biased and misleading it would humble a tobacco industry PR man."
Citing what it says are misleading and scientifically inaccurate passages in the chapter that covers environmental policy, the Friends of the Earth network has launched an email campaign asking the public to contact Houghton Mifflin and request a revision to the forthcoming edition and a corrective addendum for all editions still used in classrooms. "The whole chapter creates a false impression that this is an open debate -- and that even if global warming is real and is caused by people, [it questions] whether that's actually a problem," Nick Berning, Friends of the Earth press secretary, told OneWorld. "[This] is no longer a matter of scientific debate. There is scientific consensus that humans are creating global warming that is harming the planet. It's pretty simple." Other environmental groups and prominent scientists including NASA's James E. Hansen and Michael MacCracken, chief scientist for climate change programs with the Climate Institute in Washington, DC, have sent letters to the authors and the publisher requesting a correction. MacCracken's letter dated Mar. 28 says the chapter fails to take into consideration the work done by the thousands of scientists involved with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which has published four reports on global warming that have "unanimous endorsement by the nations of the world." As of Apr. 17, about 5,000 people had used the campaign's Web site to send an email to Houghton Mifflin. At issue are a series of statements made about global warming in a section of the book discussing how policy is made in the United States. Some of the statements are factually erroneous, says Friends of the Earth, while others will mislead students about the severity of the problem. On page 559, the textbook's authors write that "it is a foolish politician who today opposes environmentalism. And that creates a problem, because not all environmental issues are equally deserving of support. Take the case of global warming."
"Our sense isn't that there is an inherent bias on the part of Houghton Mifflin, just that this got by them and we hope that they will correct these errors," Friends of the Earth's Berning said. Berning's group also noted, however, that the textbook was authored by "a prominent conservative, James Q. Wilson, who is affiliated with the...American Enterprise Institute -- which has received oil industry funding -- and by John DiIulio, who served as director of faith-based initiatives in the George W. Bush White House." In a written response to OneWorld, Houghton Mifflin noted that the company takes accuracy and objectivity very seriously. "American Government is a political science textbook, not a science text. It does not take any position on the topic of global warming, nor does it attempt to provide its readers a history of the subject. In the text, the authors use the subject of global warming to illustrate the politics of policymaking," Richard Blake, senior vice president of communications and government relations, wrote. Houghton Mifflin will make an 11th edition update available on-line to educators and students. It is not clear whether this will include a review of or revisions to the sections cited by the campaign. If the publisher does not issue a correction, Friends of the Earth has said it may ask educators and schools to pull the books from their classrooms. The campaign was launched when New Jersey high school student Matthew LaClair shared his concerns about his textbook with the nonprofit Center for Inquiry, which contacted Friends of the Earth. Dimitri Saliani, assistant principal of Eleanor Roosevelt High School, a public school in New York City that is itself working to reduce its energy use -- and busily preparing for Earth Day events this week -- said that the concerns raised by the campaign would not necessarily be enough to prompt his school to stop using the book. "Now that I'm aware of this, I'll take a look at it, but [even if I agree], I am not sure I want to blacklist the textbook based on something like this. Sometimes you want to have that discussion -- if it's controversial, why is it controversial? And let students discuss their own thoughts and analyze the book's perspective together," Saliani told OneWorld. Susan Miller, Roosevelt High School's AP economics and government teacher, agreed, and said the campaign's outcome would not impact her use of the book. Teachers typically supplement textbooks with a range of other materials that help students understand complex issues, she said. "Few of us rely solely on just one textbook." Friends of the Earth's Nick Berning is concerned, however, that students may not be equipped to detect "bias in a textbook." "This is written in authoritative textbook voice. It's not a problem of voice or perspective, it is misleading about science," he said. "These are facts we're dealing with, not opinions, and the textbook gets the facts wrong." Climate TV: Top Climate Change Videos from Around the Web
|
Related links
Comment List
"Textbook"Author:
Patrick Coony
Time: 04/23/2008 16:30
Comment: I object to the textbook's rather authoritative prediction that there are beneficial outcomes to global warming. But the popular environmentalist materials on the subject (e.g. Inconvenient Truth) are equally inaccurate and overstate the crisis, which ultimately helps the opposition. The correct analysis is the following:
1. Global warming is occurring - that is a certainty 2. Human use of fossil fuels is causing global warming - that is a virtual certainty 3. Global warming will produce significant climate change - that is a virtual certainty 4. We have no clear idea regarding the degree and nature of the climate change that will occur - those who suggest otherwise do not have authoritative data Now here is the key conclusion: If current earth climate conditions are acceptable (they are), if we have no idea how they will change (we don't), then why take a chance and purposely change them if we can develop the political and technical will to stop and reverse the process.? |
"Climate Misinformation"Author:
Dr. Robert Sanders
Time: 04/20/2008 01:31
Comment: People of the world care deeply about protecting our natural environment while preserving our quality of life. Consequently, we need sensible environmental and natural resources policies based on a thorough understanding of science, engineering and economics.
Yet, in many cases this is not what we have been getting. Impractical and exorbitantly expensive policies directed towards ‘global climate control’, unrealistic emission standards and so-called ‘green energy’, promoted by ideologically-driven ‘environmentalists’, are being widely accepted and vigorously promoted by mass media and politicians at all levels of government. Rational debate on these issues is virtually non-existent and alternative points of view are not given a proper hearing. Many people have never heard ‘the other side’ of issues such as climate change and alternative energy and they have been conditioned to believe the other side is always suspect. This problem is not unique to the energy sector and the climate change/pollution debate, although these are signature examples. All natural resources management - forestry, fishing, mining, water management and agriculture included – have for years been targets of environmental extremists. Over the past decades, mainstream environmentalism has managed to imbed a strong anti-development mentality in the world's popular psyche, without debate about the science, the economics or the social impact of such an approach on the relationship between humanity and the physical world. This mentality results in bad environmental policy and has serious negative implications for society’s well-being. By maintaining a sense of a constant state of crisis, these advocates have thoroughly distorted the policy process. Dr. Sanders - Pastor, Homeopathic Practitioner, Personal Councelor, Citizen |
"Creating"How to Destroy the World"knowledge sets"Time: 04/19/2008 19:38
Comment: Every time I read something written by environmentalists or environment reporting journalists, I want to scream just like the very famous painting.
And in a perfect world, these environmentalists deserve to be severely disrupted to keep them from what they attempt now to do. No. I am no longer an advocate for intellectual freedom. Environmentalism is something none of us should condone. They have crossed the line. They would be gods! For they appear to refuse to listen. They make their living in this immoral way. What they are doing is obfuscation, and, a massive theft committed upon the future. The mere pretense of competence in these areas of investigation by these immoral fools lends itself to making a world of shear horror that would then be bequeathed to an already horribly stressed and handicapped future. Enironmentalists and their attendant journalists are propagandizing for a popular social movent that will deliver the reins of a world-destroying technological storehouse of information into the hands of those who will surely use it to the detriment of all humanity. The "environmentalists" have not asked the important moral questions before they have given to themselves, their sciences and their social movement an historically common, fetid, and false heir of priestly benificence proffering an impossible god-like salvation from demons no one really understands, and that no one can adequately enough understand to meddle with it, or, to grow this knowledge set. Every technology in succession ever developed by humanity throughout history, as these have been imagined, discovered and fleshed out, EACH in turn presented themselves as a detriment to the future of mankind. Environmentalism will be no different on a very grand scale. The environmentalists are building a knowledge set of information designed and imagined as a knowledge set of what CAN destroy the world! And, this is a good thing? No! It is mere obfuscation. The envornmentalists have simply gone ahead seeking fame and profit willingly creating this knowledge set that will insure the destruction of the planet. There is no credible solution to what they are unleashing upon the planet. They are part of the deeper problem, not any part of even a possible solution. So many before have claimed they too were such a solution. It is an ignorant lie, for these scientists do not know the moral questions to ask. YOUR PRIMARY MORAL RESPONSIBILITY IS TO LIVE A LIFE THAT DETRACTS NOT AT ALL FROM THE LIVES OF THOSE COMING IN THE FUTURE!!!!!!! As it's not a perfect world, so I have to resort to screaming at them. CREATING THE ENVIRONMENTALISTS' KNOWLEDGE SET, IN EFFECT WILL EXPLAIN EXACTLY HOW TO DESTROY THE WORLD. THIS IS IMMORAL!!!!! THERE IS A 100% GUARANTEE OF THE IMMORALITY OF BUILDING THE ENVIRONMENTALISTS' KNOWLEDGE SET. HISTORY ASSURES US SOMEONE WILL MIS-USE THIS KNOWLEDGE SET!!!!! DO YOU UNDERSTAND ME YET ? Don Robertson, The American Philosopher |
Printable version
Back to top
