Wonk Room » American Government Textbook References A Rogue’s Gallery Of Climate Deniers

American Government Textbook References A Rogue’s Gallery Of Climate Deniers

By Brad Johnson on Apr 11th, 2008 at 10:22 pm

American Government Textbook References A Rogue’s Gallery Of Climate Deniers

American Government, 11th Edition Houghton Mifflin, the publisher of the climate-denier textbook American Government, responded to criticism on Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth blog with the following claims:

The authors do not provide a history of global warming; rather they use the issue to illustrate “entrepreneurial politics.” As part of this illustration, the book cites a wide range of sources, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to Nobel Prize Winner Al Gore.

Late last year, we released the 11th edition of “American Government,” which included some revisions to the “entrepreneurial politics” section. These revisions reflect current developments in environmental policy research.

Not a single sentence in their response accurately represents the textbook’s content.

HOUGHTON-MIFFLIN	FACT
“The authors do not provide a history of global warming…”	The authors provide a misleading history of global warming: Second, many environmental issues are enmeshed in scientific uncertainty: the experts either do not know or they disagree about what is happening and how to change it. For example, some people worry that society is burning so much fuel (thus producing a lot of carbon dioxide) and cutting down so many trees (thus reducing the plants available to convert carbon dioxide back into oxygen) that the earth will soon become a greenhouse: the excess carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere will prevent heat from escaping, and so the earth will get warmer with disastrous effects for humanity. But there are some scientists who say that human activity is not a major cause of global warming; instead, they argue, it is the result of natural changes in the earth’s temperature.³– American Government, 11th Edition, p. 556
“…rather they use the issue to illustrate ‘entrepreneurial politics.’”	According to James Q. Wilson, “entrepeneurial politics” is a situation where “the costs are heavily concentrated on some industry, profession, or locality but the benefits are spread over many if not all people.” In Wilson’s mind, it is the government that burdens industry with regulations, rather than industry burdening the people with pollution.
“As part of this illustration…”	The section on global warming (p. 559) is illustrated with a photograph of a snow storm, without explanation.
“…the book cites a wide range of sources…”	Of 22 sources cited in the the 11th edition’s environmental chapter, nine are about global warming. Of the nine, five question climate change science: a paper (cited twice) from Sallie Baliunas, an astrophysicist who claimed the ozone hole didn’t exist and works for industry-funded right-wing think tanks like the Marshall Institute Bjorn Lomborg’s Skeptical Environmentalist, a book found guilty of scientific dishonesty the National Academy of Sciences’ Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions — mistitled by Wilson and DiIulio as “Climate Change: An Analysis of Some Key Questions” an article from the Brookings Review about state-level policies Albert Gore’s Earth in the Balance government climatologist and IPCC lead author Stephen Schneider’s Global Warming Gregg Easterbrook’s A Moment on the Earth (cited twice), a book “replete with errors and misinterpretations of the scientific evidence” a website by Frederick Seitz, a solid-state physicist who co-founded the Marshall Institute and became a tobacco apologist a paper by climatologist Patrick J. Michaels, an industry-funded climatologist who works for Cato and the Marshall Institute
“… from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change…”	None of the references are from an IPCC publication, although Dr. Schneider is an IPCC scientist.
“… to Nobel Prize Winner Al Gore.”	The reference including “activists” Al Gore and Schneider contrasts them to “skeptics” Seitz, Easterbrook, and Michaels.
“Late last year, we released the 11th edition of ‘American Government’ …	True.
“…which included some revisions to the ‘entrepreneurial politics’ section. These revisions reflect current developments in environmental policy research.”	A section that claimed “neither all nor almost all scientists believe” in global warming in the 10th edition was replaced with the following in the 11th: But our natural concern for global warming must address three difficult questions. First, we do not yet have an accurate measure of how much human activity has contributed to the warming of the earth. The earth has become warmer, but is this mostly the result of natural climate changes, or is it heavily influenced by humans putting greenhouse gases into the air? Second, if human activity is a main contributor, what would it cost in lost productivity and income to reduce greenhouse gases? Since America acting alone cannot eliminate greenhouse gases, we have to figure out how to get other countries, especially rapidly growing ones such as China and India, to absorb their share of the cost. Third, how large would be the gains to humankind, and when would they occur? On the one hand, a warmer globe will cause sea levels to rise, threatening coastal communities; on the other hand, greater warmth will make it easier and and cheaper to grow crops and avoid high heating bills.⁷ –American Government, 11th ed., p. 559 The revisions reflect current developments in right-wing tactics for blocking global warming solutions, replacing talking points for denying anthropogenic climate change with talking points for delaying action. Tellingly, the citations were not updated. In fact, the latest citation for the passage is from 1998.

Friends of the Earth has a petition to Houghton Mifflin to repair the book’s distortions, bias, and lies.

UPDATE: Local TV and radio stations like KIDK (Pocatello, ID) and KTAR (Phoenix, AZ) are covering the story, interviewing students and teachers who use the book. WIVB (Buffalo, NY) has interviews with Matthew LaClair and a representative from the Center for Inquiry.

Citations for Chapter 21 of American Government, 11th Edition, are peppered with global warming deniers:

Alexander W. Astin et al., The American Freshman: National Norms for 1989 (Los Angeles: UCLA Graduate School of Education, 1989), 89.

John W. Bridgeland, speaking at the Robert A. Fox Leadership Forum, University of Pennsylvania, September 30, 2004.

Sallie Baliunas, “The Kyoto Protocol and Global Warming,” Imprimis 31 (March 2002); Climate Change: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, 2000); Bjorn Lomborg, The Skeptical Environmentalist (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), ch. 24.

Barry G. Rabe, “Statehouse and Greenhouse: The States Are Taking the Lead on Climate Change,” Brookings Review 20 (Spring 2002): 11-13.

Baliunas, “Kyoto Protocol,” 2.

David Vogel, National Styles of Regulation (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1986), 19-30.

For arguments by activists, see Albert Gore, Earth in the Balance (Boston:Houghton Mifflin, 1992), and Stephen Schneider, Global Warming (San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1989). For arguments by skeptics, see Gregg Easterbrook, A Moment on the Earth (New York: Viking, 1995), ch. 17; Frederick Seitz et al., “Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide,” on the World Wide Web at oism.org/project; and Patrick J. Michaels, “Global Deception,” Policy Study 146, Center for the Study of American Business, Washington University (1998).

Easterbrook, A Moment, 309.

R. Shep Melnick, Regulation and the Courts: The Case of the Clean Air Act (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1983) 84-96.

Pietro S. Nivola, The Politics of Energy Conservation (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1986), 11-12, 244-247.

Robert W. Crandall, “Pollution, Environmentalists, and the Coal Lobby,” in The Political Economy of Deregulation, ed. Roger G. Noll and Bruce M. Own (Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute, 1983), 84-96; Crandall, Controlling Industrial Pollution (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1983).

Bruce A. Ackerman and William T. Hassler, Clear Coal/Dirty Air (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1981).

Robert Dorfman, “Lessons of Pesticide Regulation,” in Reform of Environmental Regulation, ed. Wesley A. Magat (Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger, 1982), 13-30.

Easterbrook, A Moment, 386-395.

Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report (January 12, 1990): 166-170.

Richard Doll and Richard Peto, “The Causes of Cancer,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute 66 (1981); World Cancer Research Fund, Food, Nutrition, and the Prevention of Cancer (Washington, D.C.: American Institute for Cancer Research, 1997).

R. Shep Melnick, “Deadlines, Cynicism, and Common Sense,” The Brookings Review (Fall 1983): 21-24.

Comments
5

5 Responses to “American Government Textbook References A Rogue’s Gallery Of Climate Deniers”

ninique Says:

I think it is a sad day when those who’ve gone to university and have received degrees as credited scientist in the vast field of science, are viewed in a high school textbook as “activist.” That is such an unnecessary and childish insult to them, to their profession and every high school student forced to endure such one-sided deceit. Who are we to criticize other countries for brainwashing their youth when we’re doing it in our own backyards?
April 12th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
jps Says:

Please join me in sending this:

To: richard dot blake at harcourt dotcom

Subject: American Government annual meeting questions

Cc: bocallaghan at riverdeep dot net

Richard Blake
Senior Vice President, Communications and Government Relations
Houghton Mifflin

Dear Mr. Blake:

As a shareholder and a taxpayer, I am very disappointed and upset, and
I am going to do something about it.

I intend to ask three questions at the next Riverdeep annual general
meeting regarding this article by Brad Johnson:

http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/04/11/houghton-mifflin-factcheck/

1. Is “not a single sentence” of your statement about the critique of
the “American Government” high school textbook true?

2. Why does the proportion of global warming skeptics in Chapter 21 of
American Government, 11th Edition, not reflect the proportion (<1%) in
the peer-reviewed scientific journals?

3. What will be done to correct these egregious errors?

I look forward to your reply. If there is a prompt retraction and
recall of the defective textbooks, then I will no longer need to
attend the next annual meeting.

Thank you.

…

cc: Barry O’Callaghan, CEO Riverdeep Holdings (Ireland)
April 12th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
fletc3her Says:

This misinformation comes from the same group of people who have been denying the “theory of evolution” for over a century. Intellectual dishonesty is their stock in trade. The textbook provides a good teaching moment, but about global warming, or even “American Government”, but about the lengths that the right wing ideologues will go to to attempt to brainwash a new generation of talk radio drones. If I were a civics teacher I would demand a refund.
April 13th, 2008 at 9:49 am
gkam Says:

When discussion or contempt is insufficient to deter these who choose to believe what is convenient, we must resort to ridicule.
April 13th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
topdedcntr Says:

I am so disappointed in people that are so wrapped up in the propaganda of climate change…either the deniers…excuse me, “flat earthers” or the person that took the time to write this article. I personally am not going to waste my time to read the chapter in the book much less spend so much effort into critically assessing it in such an “un”confrontational way. I am more worried about my kids just getting a basic education over what is written in one chapter in some text book that will never get taught anyway. Do you really believe that schools are teaching American Government, it’s about being a good global occupant not a nationalized citizen.

one side believes all humans should kill themselves to reduce emissions (i believe that would solve the problem, you go first:) and the other wants to just keep on going, everything is fine. Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead…

both sides suck…how about compromise instead of just stupid bullheaded yelling that the other side’s solution doesn’t work while nothing gets done. find a common reason to unite…maybe we could end our oil dependence and maybe that will end our wars to control it…free up our economy and bring our soldiers home rather than tie it down and them dying.

gkam says
When discussion or contempt is insufficient to deter these who choose to believe what is convenient, we must resort to ridicule.

What??? what discussion? believe what is convenient…global warming is fully vetted and completely understood, we really know everything? maybe believe that global warming is a man created movement to create a global cause that will require global governance. does anyone that wants to post here truly believe that the UN won’t eventually step in demand some money to “fix” the problem. This statement reads that same from both sides when you sit in the middle.

jpsays:
2. Why does the proportion of global warming skeptics in Chapter 21 of American Government, 11th Edition, not reflect the proportion (<1%) in the peer-reviewed scientific journals?

…i don’t know maybe because it isn’t a peer reviewed scientific journal…its a textbook!!! A textbook that some 6th grader is going to go whatever over while texting his buddy. Please tell me the proportion of skeptics to believers that were reflected on the IPCC report?

We have the knowledge to solve the problems if we could all just get along and listen to each other with compromise in mind rather than all or nothing…we just keep getting nothing.
April 15th, 2008 at 11:43 pm