ThinkProgress Logo

Climate Progress

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

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

American Government, 11th EditionHoughton 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:
“… 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: Read more

Politics

Self-proclaimed ‘Godfather of Green’ now among the ‘Dirty Dozen.’

By Ali Frick on Apr 11, 2008 at 9:08 pm

Despite calling himself the “Godfather of Green” and touting his environmental record, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) was added yesterday to the League of Conservation Voters’s (LCV) 2008 “Dirty Dozen” list. LCV said it would wait “to see if the McConnell-led Republicans allow debate and votes on a bill to deal with global warming before determining how much it will spend on ads against him this fall.”

Security

Dick Cheney: ‘I Always Think Of Bernard Lewis’

By Matt Duss on Apr 11, 2008 at 8:10 pm

lewisDick Cheney was on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show yesterday, offering his serious and sobering take on serious and sobering events. Asked about Iran’s role in Iraq, Cheney responded that “Iran has been a bad actor in many respects“:

The Iranians have got a choice between whether or not they want to see a successful, stable Iraq, democratically governed next door to them, or whether they want to continue to try to promote strife and instability, and support acts of terror, and in the process of doing that, permanently damage their relationship with Iraq, their next door neighbor.

As Brian Katulis and I write in an op-ed in today’s Baltimore Sun, Bush and Cheney’s characterization of Iran’s relationship with the government of Iraq is extremely misleading. Iran maintains ties to all of the major Shia actors in Iraq. There’s little evidence that Iran is in danger of “permanently damaging” its relationship with its neighbor, or maybe Cheney didn’t see any of the pictures of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s public welcome there, which came only a few days before Cheney himself was once again smuggled in and out like a box of contraband cigars.

Hewitt and Cheney’s conversation starts to get really loopy, though, when Hewitt undertakes to question Cheney about elements of Shia eschatology, and, even more amazing, Cheney undertakes to answer him.

HEWITT: Do you, Mr. Vice President, do you have a personal sense of whether or not the Iranian leadership is actually motivated by this end times, bring back the 12th Imam sort of theology that we’ve read so much about?

CHENEY: Well, I’ve read about it, too. I don’t know that that motivates all of the leadership. The one guy who talks about it repeatedly is Ahmadinejad…I mean, if I look at what his beliefs supposedly are, the allegation that the return of the 12th Imam is something to be much desired, and that the best contribution that a man can make is to die a martyr facilitating that return, and all that goes with it, I always think of Bernard Lewis, who has said that mutual assured destruction during the Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviets meant peace and stability and deterrence. But mutual assured destruction in the hands of Ahmadinejad may just be an incentive. It’s a worrisome proposition.

Another worrisome proposition is that Cheney is still quoting scholar Bernard Lewis, whose learned foreign policy advice to the Vice President was that “one of the things you’ve got to do with Arabs is hit them between the eyes with a big stick. They respect power.” Lewis advocated the Iraq invasion in the delusion that we could quickly, and with a minimum of fuss, install a modernizing Ataturk-like secular strongman there, (how’d that work out?) and is also the originator of the “clash of civilizations” thesis that has done so much to confirm Osama bin Laden’s propaganda about the West. Shukran, Professor Lewis!

Dan Froomkin has more, noting that Lewis “hinted in an Aug. 8, 2006, Wall Street Journal op-ed that Ahmadinejad might be planning a nuclear attack on Israel just two weeks later, on the date in the Islamic calendar when the Prophet Muhammad made his mystical journey to Jerusalem…Needless to say, the day went by without incident.”

Politics

McCain defiant on vote against 1990 civil rights bill.

By Ali Frick on Apr 11, 2008 at 8:00 pm

In 1990, President George H.W. Bush vetoed a civil rights bill requiring employers to show a “business necessity” to screening out women or minority applicants, arguing that it would impose quotas for hiring minorities. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) voted to sustain Bush’s veto — a veto that survived by only one vote in the Senate. Last weekend, McCain was unapologetic for his vote, calling the issue “more complicated in the 90s” and repeating the false argument that it would have led to quotas. Seven years earlier, McCain had also voted against the creation of a holiday honoring Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., though he now calls that vote a “mistake.” (HT: Huffington Post)

Politics

Bush ‘approved’ of top advisers’ talks on interrogation.

By Amanda Terkel on Apr 11, 2008 at 6:59 pm

ABC News recently revealed that President Bush’s most senior and trusted advisers met in “dozens of top-secret talks and meetings in the White House” beginning in 2002 to approve the use of “combined” interrogation techniques. In a new interview with ABC’s Martha Raddatz, Bush confirms that he approved of these meetings:

President Bush says he knew his top national security advisors discussed and approved specific details about how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency, according to an exclusive interview with ABC News Friday.

“Well, we started to connect the dots, in order to protect the American people.” Bush told ABC News White House correspondent Martha Raddatz. “And, yes, I’m aware our national security team met on this issue. And I approved.”

During the interview, Bush also defends using waterboarding against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, stating, “We had legal opinions that enabled us to do it. And, no, I didn’t have any problem at all trying to find out what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed knew.”

Climate Progress

The Solution to Global Warming …

By Joe Romm on Apr 11, 2008 at 6:28 pm

… will have to wait until next week. [Note to self: You are starting to sound like Ryan Seacrest on "American Idol".]

I got bogged down in giving three talks and responding to Breakthrough Institute’s mistakes about breakthroughs and finishing my next Salon piece and writing the pieces explaining why the Pielke et al. Nature article is wrong in a variety of respects, most especially its conclusion — and then responding to the latest personal attack on me by Breakthrough Institute that I confess was totally unexpected.

I promise I will run the solution posts next week. And the three pieces on the Nature article, too. Though if Tiger doesn’t get his act together at August tomorrow, I may have some blogging time Sunday….

Politics

Lott: ‘I haven’t paid for lunch in 30 years.’

By Matt Corley on Apr 11, 2008 at 6:14 pm

In an interview with the Washington Post’s Mary Anne Akers yesterday, former Republican Sen. Trent Lott (MS) discusses his new career as a lobbyist, saying the private sector “isn’t as cushy” as his gig in the Senate, where he had “free lunches” and a “taxpayer-funded car and driver.” “I took the Metro for the first time,” said Lott. Apparently joking, Lott told Akers, “I haven’t paid for lunch in 30 years,” to which his lobbying partner former Sen. John Breaux (D-LA) added, “he’s learning how to pay for lunch.”

lottmoney.jpg

As a senator, Lott was such a fan of lobbyist-funded lunches that when the Senate was considering ethics reform, he complained: “Now we’re going to say you can’t have a meal for more than 20 bucks. Where are you going, to McDonald’s?”

Yglesias

The Legitimacy Difference

By ThinkProgress on Apr 11, 2008 at 6:04 pm

Unfortunately, I’m now having trouble tracking down the specific comment, but someone asked the other day with regard to Heads in the Sand what’s the difference between liberal international and just “imperial adventures I approve of.” That’s an important question, because I do think some liberals basically see it that way.

But the difference that I see (and this is in no way an original-to-me idea) has to do with legitimacy and institutions. One alternative to an imperial conception of America’s role in the world would be to adopt a “mind our own business” posture. The liberal alternative rejects this, but also rejects the idea that the purpose of our engagement with the world should be to try to come out as top dog in an endless struggle. Instead, it seems international conflict as negative sum and international cooperation as positive sum. With that understanding, liberals seek to build and strengthen institutions that facilitate cooperation and offer less-destructive means of resolving conflicts.

Liberal internationalist willingness to use force abroad should, following the above, be constrained by ideas about legitimacy. The currently prevailing ideology in the United States holds that, in essence, we have a right to use force unilaterally against countries whose WMD or human rights policies we don’t like, but no other country has this right and we have no need to apply the same standard to different countries. The liberal sees that this is incoherent and unworkable, and though agreeing that the United States rightly concerns itself with WMD and human rights issues in foreign countries, thinks these need to be dealt with through some kind of reasonable legal, procedural, and institutional frameworks — the U.N. Security Council, the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the IAEA, etc., etc., — and that flaws in these frameworks should be dealt with through good-faith efforts to improve the frameworks rather than to cast them aside. The general idea is that American power should be used in way that’s sustainable rather than threatening to the rest of the world, because it gives adequate deference to the fact that other countries have their own interests and perspectives.

Of course these ideas don’t fully specify a foreign policy — the Security Council could authorize something foolish or impractical and existing rules and institutions are often in need of change of one kind or another. But it does generate a framework within which to think about this. We want and need to be involved in the problems of the world, but wish to do so in a constructive, legitimate manner that involves working with other countries according to the established rules of the game as laid out in treaties, etc. rather than fooling ourselves into thinking that if we cast off all restraint we’ll be able to remake the world with ease.

Photo by Flickr user etobicokesouth used under a Creative Commons license

Politics

Feith: Rumsfeld Was Not An ‘Advocate For War,’ He Was Just ‘Analyzing’ Options For War

By Satyam Khanna on Apr 11, 2008 at 5:23 pm

feith222.jpgYesterday, in an interview with Diane Rehm, Iraq war architect Doug Feith — who has been on a campaign to revise the record about the failures in Iraq — vigorously defended Donald Rumsfeld against claims he invaded Iraq without considering the facts. The administration, in fact, was not “hell bent” on war, Feith claimed.

Feith cited a pre-war memo in which Rumsfeld “laid out the strongest case possible not to go to war.” The memo included the prospect of there being no weapons of mass destruction, no link to al Qaeda, and the potential of sparking ethnic strife — proving that Rumsfeld was “analyzing” both sides of the issue:

FEITH: I don’t think that anyone who actually examines the record would come to the conclusion that this administration was hell-bent on war. … There was an extremely intense effort and a respectful effort made to look at the arguments against going to war. […]

It’s interesting that Secretary Rumsfeld is viewed as an ‘advocate’ for war. But he wasn’t advocating. He was analyzing. And he put forward the arguments against war much more strongly than Secretary Powell did, than Director Tenet did, than anybody else in the administration who now likes to put himself forward as a skeptic ever did.

Listen here:

[flv http://video.thinkprogress.org/2008/04/rummyfeith.320.40.flv]

In reality, Rumsfeld was “advocating” for the military invasion of Iraq well before 2003. In 1998, Rumsfeld wrote to President Clinton as a signatory of the neoconservative Project for a New American Century, urging “military action” against Iraq. After 9/11, Rumsfeld pushed again:

– On 9/11, an aide recorded Rumsfeld’s orders, which said, “best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] at same time. Not only UBL [bin Laden].”

– “Tasks. Jim Haynes [Pentagon lawyer] to talk with PW [Paul Wolfowitz] for additional support…connection with UBL,” an aide also recorded.

When it came time to vote on the Iraq war in fall 2002, Rumsfeld pressured Congress to authorize force against Iraq as soon as possible:

– “It’s important that Congress send that message before the U.N. Security Council votes,” he said. “Delaying a vote in Congress would send the wrong message, in my view.”

Feith has long shilled for Rumsfeld. Before the war, Feith worked in the Office of Special Plans, Rumsfeld’s intelligence shop that drummed up the threat of Hussein. In 2005, Feith wrote an op-ed titled “The Donald Rumsfeld I Know” in the Washington Post, proclaiming that Rumsfeld “is the opposite of an ideologue.”

Yglesias

Blurbs

By ThinkProgress on Apr 11, 2008 at 5:13 pm

Justin Logan notes that the “McCain’s no neocon” theory is a bit hard to square with the fact that McCain also blurbed Robert Kagan’s book. It’s true that Kagan (this Kagan!) is the neocon writer who’s most likely to garner praise from non-neos, but he’s still very much a true believer in that approach to foreign policy and the McCain blurb reflects how deeply enmeshed McCain is with that circle of thinkers.

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up