21st century America is a strange place indeed.

So, people, there is no debate among climatologists that the Earth’s surface is warming, and the indication of human influence is 97% according to the last IPCC report.

So while kids in Montreal and Quebec are learning about the science of climate change IN SCHOOL, we have a full generation of people already aware and ready to find solutions.

Good luck with this social problem !

A concerned neighbor.

Do we really think that all theories taught in our schools are totally accurate? – Our education system is itself evolving and learning and there should be no harm in presenting facts that support a yet to be proven argument.

Are we naive enough to think that politics isn’t already a driving force in our schools curriculum? Choosing to not present the material and open it for disscussion is in effect choosing a side and supporting a political adgenda.

David’s a smart fellow, has children who have a stake in the future, believes in science and has the healthy skepticism of a conservative/libertarian. His site is fertile ground for understanding the skeptic’s perspective. So, David, where does your passion for arguing against the climate science mainstream come from?

One of the most troubling aspects of this debate is that while people are arguing the science, I believe they take positions based on prior attitudes and beliefs. David’s often-repeated refrain is that global warming is a dangerous tool used by elites too wrestle power from freedom loving individualists. Many in the environmental movement make arguments infused by the values and culture of earth-mother morality. Many of the professional skeptics are politicians, academics and think-tanks who are defending particular powerful economic interests.

Back to topic. In order to engage the climate change debate, we need to understand the complex and rapidly evolving body of scientific evidence, comprehend the socially-constructed nature of the interpretation of that science and arrive at conclusions that cannot avoid the political sphere.

So, science teachers, show the film and engage the students in understanding the debate. Arm them with the tools (internet anyone?) to investigate further and make their own minds up. But most importantly, communicate how important and meaningful it is to pursue a career in science. The politically charged nature of this issue is an opportunity to engage students passionately and deeply into understanding the content, process and context of science in society.

Ignoring such a fantastic learning opportunity for fear of the political is cowardly.

I’m rather concerned by some of the other comments in this thread though. Particularly, I’m uncomfortable with David Janes’ apparent labeling of Anthropogenic Global Warming as ‘folk wisdom’.

Perhaps I’m just a sucker for the wise men cabal’s propaganda, but the scientific organisations who support the position that Global Warming is real, man made and dangerous seem to be a few notches above the ‘folk wisdom’ level to me.

Sticking to science for a moment, there are so many variables involved in the climate system that only limited conclusions can be drawn about the future. Which is why weather forecasts get less reliable the further out you go. But that won’t stop many people from extrapolating certain of the forces at work way out, while ignoring others (because once you have more than a few variables each with a lot of variance, you have nothing that is statistically significant, and then you can’t really accomplish anything). The same mistake is being made now as when Ronald Reagan relied on supply-side economics: the Laffer Curve was based on actual economic forces, but it left out others.