So you're anti "an inconvenient truth" being shown in schools? Interesting.

Not at all and I should have clarified in my first post.

I'm upset that it is shown so much and seems so blatanly one-sided. They don't even discuss the possibility that it could be wrong or that man-made GW doesn't exist.

They show it as if it is the definitive proof and there is no more debate. I stated, "better than showing an inconvenient truth" because in that discussion, there is a debate. In the one where I'm shown IT three times in two years, there is no debate.

Yes, I did. And most of the organizations explicitly concur with the IPCC statement "An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities." If you disagree, point out which ones you think are at odds.

No. It's science-driven. Those not acknowledging this could be said to have their own agenda.

__________________
"You have shown what history teaches us - that at defining moments like this one, the change we need doesn't come from Washington. Change comes to Washington."

- President Barack Obama, 8/28/08

"To the average American who’s struggling, we’re in some other stratosphere. We’re the party of Big Business and Big Oil and the rich."

- Sen. Olympia Snowe (R)

Budget surplus inherited by Bush: $236 billion (CBO, 2000)

Budget deficit inherited by Obama: $1,667 billion (CBO projection, 3/2009)

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.

__________________
"Look, a rule of thumb here is whenever you find yourself on the side of Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega and the Castro twins you ought to re-examine your assumptions.” Charles Krauthammer, speaking of Pres. Obama

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.

__________________
"You have shown what history teaches us - that at defining moments like this one, the change we need doesn't come from Washington. Change comes to Washington."

- President Barack Obama, 8/28/08

"To the average American who’s struggling, we’re in some other stratosphere. We’re the party of Big Business and Big Oil and the rich."

- Sen. Olympia Snowe (R)

Budget surplus inherited by Bush: $236 billion (CBO, 2000)

Budget deficit inherited by Obama: $1,667 billion (CBO projection, 3/2009)

I haven't seen any solid evidence to determine the level of man's role in global climate change (don't call it "global warming", since some areas of the earth get cooler as a result of the change).

But maintaining clean water and air, to stay on the safe side, seems like a good idea. I don't see the point of the debate about GCC, since with or without GCC, I enjoy clean water and air. What reason is there NOT to clean up our emissions? And if we need to clean it up anyway, what's the point of debating about global climate change?

I don't know about y'all, but clean air really helps my sinuses and overall health. That's why I live in a place where I can see the Pacific ocean, and breath it's clean fresh air, from my bedroom window.

__________________
Sarah "Barracuda" Palin: 10 Red Flags

Clueless.

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847