Are textbooks written for PhD level scientists who are the authorities in their fields, or are they written for students who have not yet learned critical thought? The audience for textbooks are NOT scientists, regardless of what garbage might be in them.
The "evidence" for global warming consists of statements of the sort, "We observed X, which we think is happening because of A and B and anthropogenic global warming." In other words, the "evidence" of anthropogenic global warming is contained within throw-away phrases inserted into otherwise sound scientific papers.
As for "bias" about the theory of evolution... it appears that you are biased against science and the scientific method. The multiple layers of evidence of evolution, which span the paleontological record, the geological record, genetics, and astronomy are pretty consistent on evolutionary processes. In fact, trying to talk about biology becomes almost impossible if one tries to ignore the fundamental principles of it.
You talk as though scientific research is like a buffet dinner where all honest participants are allowed to casually stroll by to inspect the entire thing up close. Scientific research doesn’t work that way. Big science has established various kinds of protections and safeguards against free and open discourse.
The reason I talk as if the data is available to anyone is because the data is actually available to everyone. There has been a push towards more openness and accessibility of science going on for a long time. Published journal articles describing studies are available to everyone; many of these articles are free access, so no one has to pay for them. (The researchers actually pay for them to be free access.) Things like genetic sequence data are uploaded into databases, where they are accessible by anyone who knows about the databases. There are computer programs to analyze the data, which are provided online by governments and universities and are free to use. *Anyone* can access the scientific data. Really. They only need to know the website addresses. Search engines know those addresses if you type in a suitable search phrase (e.g. "Covid-19 sequence data"). Since the sequence data is readily available and there are thousands of scientists and DIY biology buffs out there who all have a strong interest in SARS-CoV-2, *someone* would have noticed by now if the sequence looked artificial. It's as obvious to someone who knows what they are looking at as an image altered by Photoshop.
“The audience for textbooks are NOT scientists, regardless of what garbage might be in them.”
The intellectually flawed textbooks are written by PhD level scientists who are considered experts in their field, and who are elevated by the bulk of mainstream scientists, overtly or through passive acquiescence, as thought leaders.
“Since the sequence data is readily available and there are thousands of scientists and DIY biology buffs out there who all have a strong interest in SARS-CoV-2, *someone* would have noticed by now if the sequence looked artificial.”
Scientists have indeed noticed the sequence looks artificial. See Francis Boyle and Judy Mikovitz, for starters. (Use your intelligence to filter out the communists’ attempts to mischaracterize honest scientists.)