Quote:
Originally Posted by JP5
I don't see that as being "right-wing" at all---but rather telling both sides of the issue. What's wrong with that? Are you proposing that kids be taught that global warming is being all caused by humans should be the ONLY thing said in this textbook????
I think it should be even more than those few paragraphs. Like----the textbook should ask questions about Greenland----being once a lush green country; but all under ice now. That says to me that if anything, the world may be making it's way back to the way it used to be. Most of us don't argue that there's no global warming at all. What we argue about is how much, if any, is caused by man? And how much is just naturally occuring?
That's NOT a right-wing agenda.
|
Should the textbook also debate whether the Earth is spherical or flat? Perhaps we can call those who believe the Earth is spherical as "Activist scientists" as in "Activist scientists claim the Earth is spherical. Skeptics note that there's much evidence to suggest otherwise." The point of a textbook is to accurately depict the view from the scientific community, rather than giving the false and deliberate impression that the scientific community is fiercely divided between "activists" and "skeptics".
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uplo...k_Critique.pdf
An accurate wording would be to state the consensus view and the IPCC's main conclusions, endorsed by the academies of sciences, then note that a few individual scientists agree with one or more of the central conclusions.
Note here the wording. "Activist" has negative connotations, as in right-wing depictions of "activist judges". It presents the far right opinion that most scientists are ideology-driven while reasoned skeptics aren't. I wouldn't describe the scientific academies that way. Conversely, "skeptics" is a positive term. All scientists consider themselves skeptics.