According to this article in the San Jose Mercury News, a bill is in the works in California that would require climate change to be taught in the state’s public schools. The bill would also require that future science textbooks approved for use in California public schools include climate change. (ALL science textbooks? Even, say, biology books and chemistry books? Or is it just that the aggregate set of science books must include one or more that covers the topic of climate change? The article does not say.)

The motivation behind this proposed bill can be found in the words of its sponsor, state Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto: “You can’t have a science curriculum that is relevant and current if it doesn’t deal with the science behind climate change. This is a phenomenon of global importance and our kids ought to understand the science behind that phenomenon.”

Somebody please correct me if I’m mistaken, but I believe it is very unusual for a state legislature to pass bills prescribing what must be included in a state’s public school curricula (except perhaps in cases of evolution vs. creationism). It is normally the local school boards that determine curricula, although they must adhere to standards set at the state and federal levels. For a state Senator to push climate change as a required topic of education, claiming it is “a phenomenon of global importance,” leads me to suspect that there is (more than just) a bit of alarmism at work here.

The danger, of course, is that our schools may become a mechanism by which young minds are indoctrinated into a certain mode of thinking — in this case, global warming alarmism.

I’ve tried to show before on The Thinker (see this post) how incredibly complicated the issue of global warming really is. I’ve provided evidence (see this post) that the experts themselves are not in agreement about global warming, in spite of the claim by the alarmists that there is “consensus” on the matter and “the debate is settled.” I’ve also offered evidence (see this post) that the more we learn about climate change, the more the research community has backed away from the notion of anthropocentric global warming. I’ve also highlighted the many claims in Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” that have been shown to be false (see this post), and I’ve posted (see here) about an article that enumerates the cognitive biases, fallacies, and propaganda tactics that alarmists often use to further their cause.

Given how politicized the topic of global warming is, how comfortable should we be that our public schoolteachers can overcome their own personal biases and political worldviews and teach climate change in a balanced fashion? Can we count on teachers to tell both sides of the issue and carefully describe the degrees of uncertainty involved in the research community’s climate models? I’m sure some will be able to do so — forgive my cynicism but I’m guessing this will be a small percentage, as most will filter their teachings through their own opinions. This is not a bash against teachers; it’s merely human nature. (And in all fairness, teacher’s opinions will not just tend towards alarmism; some will tend the other way, towards unjustified denial.)