Proposed Texas Social Studies Textbooks Get Climate Change Wrong Too

NightAirPollution.jpg
Gavin Schaefer
Researchers say climate change has a valuable place in social studies classes. But that doesn't mean students should debate the cause or even existence of global warming.

As if Texas social studies textbooks haven't been getting enough flack for pointed political and religious biases, a report released Monday by the National Center for Science Education highlights inaccuracies about climate change in proposed state textbooks.

See also: SMU Academics Speak Out Against Political and Religious Bias in Texas Social Studies Textbooks

This fall marks the first time in 12 years that new social studies books are being adopted, and between a politically motivated review committee and publishers trying to balance Texas curriculum requirements with substantial material, the debate is heating up.

Josh Rosenau, a policy analyst with the NCSE, says many of the inaccuracies surrounding climate change in the textbooks can be blamed on sloppiness rather than political motivation. "A lot of the content is not written by the person whose name is on the cover. That person probably wrote the chapter content, the publisher rearranged it, and wrote suggestions for exercises. So there are likely things the person on the front cover never even saw," he says. "These are textbooks that are not written by people who know the material."

See also: The People Choosing Texas' Social Studies Texts Don't Know Enough about Social Studies

Nevertheless, much of the material regarding climate change comes off as politically biased. In one case, a sixth-grade geography textbook equates global warming information from the Heartland Institute -- a conservative think tank -- with that of the Nobel Peace Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is composed of the top scientific minds in the field of climate research.

Another instance prompts students to debate possible causes of climate change, suggesting that human action might not be a major contributor to global warming. And one elementary school textbook claims that some climatologists think any warming is simply a part of the natural process. "Some scientists say it is natural for the Earth's temperature to be higher for a few years," the textbook reads. "They predict we'll have some cooler years and things will even out." The NCSE counters that no known publishing climatologists have said any such thing.

Although the National Center for Science Education is a California-based think tank, the group keeps a close eye on Texas textbooks because, as Rosenau says, "what happens in Texas doesn't always stay in Texas." Often, publishers use Texas textbook adoption to prepare books for markets in other states.

Robert Luhn, another spokesman for the agency, says that Texas textbooks and revisions typically have a strong effect on every other classroom in the country. "In part it's because Texas is one of the biggest textbook markets on the planet," he says. "As Texas goes, so goes the nation. It has a huge sway with publishers. If Texas says they want something, the textbook changes ripple throughout the United States."

State standards do not require that social studies courses teach climate change, but as it's an issue with huge cultural, social and geographical implications, most textbooks address global warming at some point. "There are so many questions to be asked about how climate change will affect cultures, how will it alter our geography, how cities will respond to it. These are interesting questions that in a social studies class would be good to discuss," Rosenau says.

But the muddy language leaves room for debate on the cause or existence of climate change, he says, and these are issues that is no longer considered debatable in the scientific community. "A social studies class is not the place to have a scientific debate. There was a debate, and it was resolved years ago," he says. "But social studies teachers are not the ones to answer what the science entails."


Advertisement

My Voice Nation Help
130 comments
EducatedHalfAsian
EducatedHalfAsian

So many Texans are sadly mislead when it comes to scientific data and the overall consensus about climate change. FOX NEWS is a proponent of negative, idealogical media and anyone who thinks otherwise is just another blind, (probably religious) angry and science-retarded. 

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/14/five-facts-about-fox-news/

Shoot around unbiased info on how influenced their audience is compared to how skewed their viewer base is.

Watch them all gang-up and talk nonsense to make their pigeon-holed sensibilities feel better so they can go to their mega-church and act like Jesus would have done the same. (He didnt go to a mega-church btw).

infideli
infideli

I think the confusion about CO2 being a poison gas and many conservatives opposing that view is that liberals typically have bad breath.

infideli
infideli

The same scientists to tell us that the temperature has been rising every year since the 1950's also say that there are several different explanations for the warming" hiatus" whereas there has been no warming since 1998.I don't trust the UN as far as I can throw them. Nobel Peace Prize my backside.

tonyruggio
tonyruggio

Many of these comments make me sad. The fact that people actually believe what Fox News tells them... 

westexthomas
westexthomas

Weather is scary. Only the federal government can save us by taking more of our money and writing more laws. The Nobel Peace Prize is of great importance. Conservative think tanks do not have access to top scientific minds.

holmantx
holmantx topcommenter

It's due to the granularity of the Left's argument.

The AP Style Book just introduced a new word into the Lexicon in order to look smart.

Granular.  Granularity.

Stand by to be pummeled with it.

God save us from the notional movement of thespian group-think.

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

" The NCSE counters that no known publishing climatologists have said any such thing."  An outright lie, or the NCSE is as much a shill as the Heartland group.

A simple google search will return pages of hits, some reputable, some dubious, of scientists who claim exactly what was said.  The big problem, as I see it, is proving antropomorphic climate change or natural cyclic climate change.  The big problem on the side of the deniers, a much bigger problem, is they tend to equate refutation of anthropomorphic global warming as a refutation of climate change altogether.

What is climate change doing in elementary level books anyway?  Even high school age kids are going to struggle with the science of climate, much less climate change and its root causes.  Let's focus on teaching the elementary kids reading, writing and arithmetic, huh?  Shall we?

noblefurrtexas
noblefurrtexas

The latest genius move by the amateur in the White House is to unilaterally accelerate banning refrigerants and coolants that will cost ordinary people are fortune to replace all of their air conditioners and their cars. 

I just wonder which of his supporters is in the business of producing the alternative coolant and new systems. 

Replacing all of these units will cost taxpayers billions of dollars, not to mention the inflationary spiral Obama has started by making business cost higher. 

The Republicans need to take the Senate, and then take the Liar-In-Chief to the woodshed for going around the Constitution AND Congress. 

TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

If climate change and evolution are both settled science, what's all the fuss about?

dfw_maverick
dfw_maverick

In science the debate is never over and science is never settled, particularly when the science in question is based on highly complex models with thousands of variables

noblefurrtexas
noblefurrtexas

@EducatedHalfAsian It must be truly sad to be this so grossly uniformed, and misinformed. 


The reason Fox News has stayed ahead of everyone else on audience ratings and surveys of viewers is that it IS fair and balanced, and not afraid to present both sides of controversial news. 


And, speaking of mega-churches, if you don't think the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem was a mega-church, then you are clueless.  It was huge, and in order to worship there, one had to cough up money to exchange for the half-shekel which was required to even go into the building. 


Jesus also held what in modern days would be revivals.  But, beyond that, he traveled by foot all over the Middle East wearing nothing but sandals.  If you've ever been to Israel, then you know the rugged terrain and rocks the size of your fist, did not lend themselves to sandals.

TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

@EducatedHalfAsian

I suggest you read Newsbusters.org for a month, it might demonstrate for you just how corrupted, biased and dishonest the other news outlets are.

You can tell they're retarded simply because of their (fading) fealty to America's worst president, for whom they campaigned vigorously.

noblefurrtexas
noblefurrtexas

@tonyruggio What does Fox News have to do with anything.  And, are you aware that Fox has been found by Stanford to be the most informative and politically balanced in terms of its news?  It says that so many other networks stations are so far Left, that Fox in the middle looks farther to the right than it is. 


I know people who think for themselves are a threat to the low information crowd and GroupThink, but I wouldn't blame it on Fox or Ted Cruz or Rick Perry or the Tea Party.  Texans have thought for themselves for almost two centuries, and are likely to continue in the vein. 


What's great about America is you have the right to be wrong.  Of course, exercising that right too often will not help your credibility.

TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

@ozonelarryb

ISIS is right, there is no evolution in the Islamic world.

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

@westexthomas Gaia is angry, and only offerings of quinoa and body odor will keep her from destroying us all in fire.

EducatedHalfAsian
EducatedHalfAsian

@RTGolden1 Modern climatology and environmental science is pretty important outside of Texas lol lets just NOT teach our kids that haha #VeryHickish

infideli
infideli

They have to be taught what to believe in order to be popular. It's like the saturated fat thing that the government still promotes.

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

@RTGolden1 It's harder to get caught failing to teach kids global warming than failing to teach reading, writing and arithmetic.  

noblefurrtexas
noblefurrtexas

@TheRuddSki I think it's funny that they had to change the name of their religion to "Climate Change" because they were so wrong on Global Warming.


Now I'm waiting on this idiot judge to explain why CO2 is a poisonous gas, yet millions of children have played with it without harm.  Same as Global Warming;  a myth and/or a scam.

grumpypenguin
grumpypenguin

@dfw_maverick actually that is not at all correct... When a Theory is so thoroughly supported by a wide body of evidence then it essentially settled.From the National Academy of Sciences -

"Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)...One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed."

The same is true of AGW.

noblefurrtexas
noblefurrtexas

@tonyruggio Here is a Pew Research story on Fox which you might find interesting.  http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/03/18/Pew-Study-Proves-Fox-News-Critics-Wrong

(I found that in 30 seconds by searching "Fox News most balanced".   You have the usual liberal suspects like Huffington Post, which is daily losing viewers, criticizing Fox for being too conservative.  But, fair and balanced media assessment, AND RATINGS, indicate that Fox is the most trusted.


Keep in mind that Fox is the most widely-viewed station on the "dial", and beats out all the competition for both news and editorial programming.

TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

@noblefurrtexas

You have to forgive Tony, he's just parroting what MSNBC has told him. It's very sad.

noblefurrtexas
noblefurrtexas

@TheRuddSki Islam is about as retarded as you can get with GroupThink.  If you don't think like the Group, they'll cut of your ability to think at all right around your neck. 



noblefurrtexas
noblefurrtexas

@WaitWhat @noblefurrtexas Yup.  When you raise the costs of doing business, those costs are passed on to consumers.  It also makes the U.S. less competitive on the world market. 


Raising prices for almost every business in the U.S., and for most homeowners and automobile owners, will lower the quality of life, and increase costs even more. 


Those added costs mean those people will demand raises to offset their increased living expenses.  The rising costs of employees will be passed on to consumers, or result in layoffs. 


Obama is just too stupid to know this, or care.  All he cares about is playing golf and playing imperial president.

ScottsMerkin
ScottsMerkin topcommenter

@noblefurrtexas @TheRuddSki The planet warms, the planet cools, species come and go, humans are no different, we will be gone one day and no one will miss us.


And how did we ever emerge from the Ice Age if the planet didnt warm?

TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

@noblefurrtexas

We're told there's really no stopping change now anyway, so I officially don't give a shit how hysterical the cult gets, as long as they don't block traffic or cost me money.

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

@grumpypenguin @dfw_maverick  The same is true of AGW.


Except that all the predictions made by the AGW hypothesis have failed and all the falsification predictions have been observed.


So, you know, we "tweak" the hypothesis (and the data too where they think they can get away with it) and carry on rather than admit that the hypothesis has been falsified.

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

@grumpypenguin @dfw_maverick I would say Climate Change is settled science.  The geographic record shows various periods of planetary shivers and sweats.  Anthropomorphic global warming, however, is far from settled.  A colder than usual decade or two (like the 60's-70's, when the climate alarmists were predicting another ice age) could easily present the evidence to alter the AGW theory.  Volcanic activity itself puts out more 'global warming gasses' than the totality of human contributions.

The one anthropomorphic element to climate alteration that makes the most sense to me, isn't even discussed in science circles: the disruption of the natural flow of surface water through diversion or damming.  I still don't think humankind could possibly be the sole cause of climate change, but since the Earth's climate is largely driven by water, man's continual dicking with the natural flows of rivers and streams has got to be having some effect on the weather (not climate, weather.)

Catbird
Catbird

@grumpypenguin @dfw_maverick  please; we have the email in which they discussed how to conceal the "Little Ice Age" and exaggerate the "Hockey Stick". When the email was leaked right before the Oslo conference the international consensus fell apart. To avoid further erosion of the "settled science" the perps. at the University of East Anglia destroyed their own data set so that no one else could duplicate their work. The whole thing is rotten to the core.

dfw_maverick
dfw_maverick

@grumpypenguin @dfw_maverick  One of the central issues is believed to be why the IPCC failed to account for the “pause” in global warming, which they admit that they did not predict in their computer models. Since 1997, world average temperatures have not shown any statistically significant increase.

The summary also shows that scientist have now discovered that between 950 and 1250 AD, before the Industrial Revolution, parts of the world were as warm for decades at a time as they are now.

noblefurrtexas
noblefurrtexas

@grumpypenguin @dfw_maverick The problem is, there has BEEN no wide body of evidence derived by The Scientific Method.  There have been theories, computer models, speculation, and creative interpretations.  But, not ONE shred of actual evidence.

TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

Battling PEW links. LOL.

tonyruggio
tonyruggio

@TheRuddSki I'm parroting what 95% of the world's scientists have said. I'm an independent. I don't watch Fox or MSNBC. I just listen to the facts. 


I'm singling out Fox News because they do the most damage when it comes to influencing people, leading a large segement of society to distrust facts and believe in fantasy. MSNBC does it too, though to a lesser degree. 


Fox and MSNBC represent a right-left paradigm that is poisonous to the country's political climate. And it's obvious that the both of you have decided to take a particular side. 


If you think not believing in climate change is "thinking for yourself," I have to ask...how old are you? Show me facts instead of conspiracy theories. 


As far as a Stanford study, you'll have to provide a link. You could be talking out of your ass for all I know, because I haven't found what you're referring to. Nice try though. 

TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

@noblefurrtexas

That's not Islam, it's True Scotsmen.

TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

@ScottsMerkin

Sterno?

noblefurrtexas
noblefurrtexas

@TheRuddSki There's one good thing about "Doomsday is just around the corner".  You don't waste a lot of time worry about it, and live life to the fullest - and even take more risks. 


Of course, if the world doesn't end on time, you need a Plan B.  :)

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

@TheRuddSki Another Peace Prize winner campaigned on a platform of change and won the Oval Office.  Who knew the change he was promising was of the climate variety and not the political kind?

noblefurrtexas
noblefurrtexas

@WaitWhat @grumpypenguin @dfw_maverick Global Warming theory has a number of moving parts, many of which strain credulity and the imagination. 


I think evolution is an excellent example for proving-up an hypothesis.  The Warmers have to not only prove the Earth is warming, and by how much over what period of time, but also few degrees of warmth would be catastrophic for the planet. 


So far, we've seen no scientific evidence of either that was derived by the Scientific Method. 


We're spending billions of dollars per year on a belief system that has never been proved, and for which there is no substantial evidence derived by the Scientific Method.  And, you've got the crazies like Obama who keep coming up with news ideas to cost us trillions in the name of Global Warming, while all he is doing is feathering the nests of his briends who will, in turn, fund his campaigns and projects. 


Never forget Solyndra.  It's icon for Obama's scams.

grumpypenguin
grumpypenguin

@Catbird "University of East Anglia destroyed their own data set".. uh no... they used data from a variety of sources and that data is still available from those sources...

grumpypenguin
grumpypenguin

@dfw_maverick @grumpypenguin .."parts of the world were as warm"... do you not understand the concept of Global.... you keep ranting about scienctific method but i doubt you understand it. 150 + years of observation, data collection, and research is behind it so it up to the deniers to show where basic physics and chemistry is wrong. you can start with Joseph Fourier's work in the 1800's..

noblefurrtexas
noblefurrtexas

@TheRuddSki That's what wrong with liberals.  They hate and fear an intellectual  challenge!  :)

TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

@tonyruggio

Sorry, son, but any time I see an argument that consists of a condescending snotty reference to FOX, I immediately assume the commenter is a bit of an idiot.

FOX is one of the few news outlets practicing traditional adversarial journalism with this administration, so they are seen as radical and divisive by devotees of the misadministration, which prefers advocacy, not journalism.

As to warming. Why do you think it went from "warming" to "change"? Because the Earth's climate didn't cooperate with the scientific models and predictions maybe?

Read the IPCC report footnotes, that's where you might get a hint. "We could be wrong, and if we're right, there's nothing that can be done anyway except adapt.

If you choose to believe, I applaud you, as long as you follow through with your faith. Walk, don't drive; breathe as little as possible and whatever else you believe will help cool Earth, but don't expect me to show up at your church any time soon, because I read the footnotes

As an aside, what news organization is free of bias in your eyes?

noblefurrtexas
noblefurrtexas

@tonyruggio @TheRuddSki First of all, you haven't a clue what you're talking about concerning the media.  And, as you probably know, your figure of "95%" is horribly exaggerated - which is typical of the Warmers.


And, in a scientific discussion, the burden of proof is on those advancing a theory; not on disagreeing or skeptical scientists or observers.


But, if you're correct, all you have to do is provide conclusive proof derived from the Scientific Method to win your case.  Otherwise, it's nothing more than speculative drivel in support of social changes using science as a fulcrum. 


The study was done about two or three years ago, and it never dawned on me to store the link somewhere as the results were both accurate and logical.  I DO remember that the study was done by a combined group from the University which included Political Science, and Economics.  I believe Journalism was involved, but I would swear to that. 


By the way, the Obama Department of Justice was just caught red-handed again conspiring with Media Matters to go after a journalist who has written stories they don't like.  So, the cheating is on the side of the Obamunist Administration. 


If you don't understand Fox News Channel's lineup, let me explain it for you. 


There is a huge difference between "news" and "television talk shows".  The morning shows are news, and better balanced than any media outlet I know of.  However, during the day, you get more "talk show" kinds of programming that is NOT a part of news.- even with a somewhat newsy format. 

In the evening, you get distinctly conservative shows like O'Reilly, Hannity, etc.  But, even those tend to be balanced and have representatives from both sides of an issue.  In Journalism, that is called "editorial content" as distinctly different from news.

Being an obviously very biased and easily-led person, you probably watch more CNN, MSNBC, and smattering of network news still left from the Big Three.

If you're a slave to Global Warming's religion, I actually feel sorry for your absence of independent opinion.  But, this is America, and you have a right to be wrong. Of course, if you can prove you're right with solid proof derived by the Scientific Method, then have at it. 

 

TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

@WaitWhat

Renewable energy and recycling. Now they power our cars.

noblefurrtexas
noblefurrtexas

@grumpypenguin @dfw_maverick Lemme see.  Because some other theory is wrong, that proves Global Warming by the Scientific Method? 


I've seen nothing that is credible that PROVES Global Warming exists.  But, I see plenty of cheating and manipulations by those trying to sell that idea - including the CO2 is poisonous -- as declared by a judge. 


It's a big deal to me that the Global Warming sides has been caught cheating, over and over.  They've also been proved wrong several times.  Yet, the other side hasn't cheated once.

Surely you know that Global Warming is more of a religion than science.  If there was ever actual indisputable proof of Global Warming, it would be in large letters on every front page in the world. 



TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

@noblefurrtexas

Life in the bubble. Libs tend to value agreement over ideological diversity, that's why they make such good dupes.

noblefurrtexas
noblefurrtexas

@mavdog @noblefurrtexas There is no way one can assign a one-to-one ratio with global warming on the Industrial Revolution.  This has been known ever since the myth of Global Warming first reared its ugly head. 


Again, deep ice core sample refute any such notion.


The Earth has gone through warming and cooling trends for millions of years.  And is likely to continue those cycles.  Yet, CO2 actually cleans up the atmosphere and produces much more Oxygen which, in turn, supplies life to the animal kingdom. 



RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

@noblefurrtexas @grumpypenguin @dfw_maverick There is a simple way to determine if CO2 is poisonous.  insert one's head into a plastic bag and seal it shut.  As respiration replaces atmospheric oxygen with expelled CO2, have an observer monitor and record physical indications of poisoning.


I'll not be volunteering to be the test subject.  I think the test subject should be someone who adamantly demands that CO2 is harmless and that a judge needs to prove it is poisonous.

noblefurrtexas
noblefurrtexas

@EducatedHalfAsian @TheRuddSki  Bad news for you: 


"The Pew (PEJ) report for the 2008 election cycle is out.  

Among the findings?  

FOXNEWS provided the most balanced cable coverage of the 2008 presidential election among major news outlets (CNN, MSNBC, FOXNEWS) and likely the most balanced of all six outlets (NBC, CBS, ABC included), although they oddly didnt release the latter three network's numbers."

http://www.yelp.com/topic/new-york-foxnews-is-the-most-balanced-election-coverage-pew-research-centers-project-for-excellence-in-journalism-2008

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@noblefurrtexas 

CO2 actually cleans up the atmosphere and produces much more Oxygen which, in turn, supplies life to the animal kingdom.

where do you come up with this bs?

"These are not small changes in percent terms. Two or 3 million years ago was the last time we had concentrations in this range, so we're moving into territory that's almost outside the scope of human existence on the planet at this point," he says.

http://www.npr.org/2013/05/10/182029983/dangerous-territory-carbon-dioxide-levels-reach-iconic-high

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@noblefurrtexas " the myth of Global Warming"


This from the conservatard who believes the myths of the Holey Baable.

noblefurrtexas
noblefurrtexas

@mavdog @noblefurrtexas CO2 doesn't make the atmosphere "dirty" and it promotes the creation of Oxygen which does - in fact - have a cleansing impact on our air supply and its quality. 


CO2, despite what some stupid judge says, is NOT toxic at all.  Scientists long ago concluded through experiments that CO2 was a mechanical suffocant,  But, so are most gases.

CO is toxic, but what a difference a molecule makes.

Remember the claims that the rain forests were disappearing?  They turned out to be false, and more CO2 means more rain forest which means more Oxygen. 

A good way to test this is to light a match.  If it won't burn, then there is too much CO2 in the mix of fresh air.  CO2 actually retards fire and the ability for matches to burn.   



noblefurrtexas
noblefurrtexas

@mavdog @noblefurrtexas The more CO2 that we have in terms of available atmospheric contents, the more Oxygen that is produced by plants breathing in the CO2 and converting it to O2. 

Contrary to the EPA's claim that CO2 is toxic, it is not toxic at all.  It doesn't matter what some Democrat federal judge did so he could possibly be named to a higher court by Obama, his declaration was fraudulent and incorrect.

It is also a fact that if Global Warming really existed, the Earth wouldn't have been in a cooling trend for almost 20 years because of all the claims of excessive CO2 production.  Yes?

 We have already wasted many billions of dollars on Global Warming, and nothing has changed except more cooling that was supposed to be warming.  Perhaps it's time to wake up and smell the mistaken opinions.

 



noblefurrtexas
noblefurrtexas

@DonkeyHotay @noblefurrtexas I have actually been to the Holy Land and much of the Middle East, and archeologists there tell me that they keep confirming the information in the Bible over and over. 

I met one chap who was Jewish and was excavating in Megiddo, Israel,  He said he moved to Israel with his parents from Europe, and was not very religious.  But, his education in archeology and actual discoveries in his field work had convinced him both the Old Testament and New Testament were historically accurate. 


I have no doubt some stories in The Bible are more metaphoric and accurate retelling of actual events.  However, he said that the deeper they would dig, the more they discovered truth.  (His words; not mine.)


I think religious beliefs are very personal, and that they are part of our value systems as well as our sense of law and ethics. 


But, I also know a great deal of religious history, as retold and retold, can take on some creative license. 


However, there is enough of the Bible that has been confirmed to make a convincing argument about its contents.




noblefurrtexas
noblefurrtexas

@WhiteWhale @RTGolden1 @noblefurrtexas @grumpypenguin @dfw_maverick 

Carbon monoxide is toxic; carbon dioxide is not.  CO2 is a mechanical suffocant which,  in enough concentrations, can rob immediate atmosphere of sufficient oxygen.  But, you can breathe lots of CO2, and still be just fine. 

That's why many kids have played with dry ice for decades without incident. 

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@noblefurrtexas "I think religious beliefs are ..."


Superstitious Nonsense for Ignorant Imbeciles.

noblefurrtexas
noblefurrtexas

@DonkeyHotay @noblefurrtexas I don't find that odd at all.  Christians and Jews recognize the existence of God, and even largely agree on Jesus.  I don't recall the statistics of those worldwide who believe in God, but it's huge.  Even Islam has similar beliefs, although it varies depending on which sect of Islam someone embraces. 


Most people on Earth believe in God or a god.  That there are sectarian differences is not surprising.  Just look at the differences in education, and humans have been educating their children and each other since the dawning of Man.

noblefurrtexas
noblefurrtexas

@DonkeyHotay @noblefurrtexas Psychologically healthy humans absolutely have a "fight or flight" instinct that is part learning, and part conditionally instinctive. 


Everyone is born partially ignorant. Is this some kind of new discovery for you?  That many liberals chose to embrace that condition is sad, but everyone is different.  :)

Now Trending

Dallas Concert Tickets

Around The Web

From the Vault

 

General

Loading...