[TASMANIANRED]

You and I are arguing cross purposes.

I am arguing from a position that text books are published from a liberal ,politically correct perspective.

They are loaded cover to cover with inaccuracies and deliberately so.

It is far worse in the area of history and social sciences but the bull has invaded science.

The fraudulent drawings have been used for the past 30 years to support the abortion myth of fetus as blob.. It is the political will of the left that this perception continue.

Any science book that is pushing the global warming myth is destined to have other pseudo sciences in it.

Just because a single group of authors issued a correction does not mean that other authors have corrected.

You can keep the chip on your shoulder.

It is your source cited and your place to prove otherwise.

You are extrapolating from a single example to a generality.

[curiosity]

I am arguing from a position that text books are published from a liberal ,politically correct perspective.

Social science and history texts, yes. Science texts, no.

They are loaded cover to cover with inaccuracies and deliberately so.

Science texts? Please give me some examples.

It is far worse in the area of history and social sciences but the bull has invaded science.

Evidence please.

The fraudulent drawings have been used for the past 30 years to support the abortion myth of fetus as blob.

I doubt it very much. Please provide some evidence. I am not going to take your word for it.

Any science book that is pushing the global warming myth is destined to have other pseudo sciences in it.

Global warming isn't a myth.

Just because a single group of authors issued a correction does not mean that other authors have corrected.

Okay, so please point out a textbook that failed to make the correction.

It is your source cited and your place to prove otherwise.

You made the accusation that textbook authors failed to make the correction. The burder of proof is on you. All I did was cite a counterexample.