Should children be taught both sides to a theory (fore and against) and is it propaganda if they are not.
Yes. Any one-sided presentation is propaganda. The contained assumption is that reducing carbon footprint is 'good', which is only valid if CAGW is a given. This is a petitio principii, which seems to be the favorite logical distortion of the environmental left.
Judging by the materials, the indoctrination in California schools is worse. They are doing the 'earth has a fever' game with kindegarteners.
Such teaching is antithetical to critical thinking. We are bringing up a generation of dogmatists, unable to think critically:
"Indoctrination: Not to be identified with every form of teaching, but rather with the kind of teaching that tries to ensure that the beliefs acquired will not be re-examined, or with pedagogical methods that in fact tend to have such a result. Indoctrination tends to lock the individual into a set of beliefs that are seen as fixed and final; it is fundamentally inconsistent with open-minded teaching. R. M. Hare suggests a helpful test for open-minded teachers who wonder whether or not their own teaching may be drifting in the direction of indoctrination: How pleased are you when you learn that your students are beginning to question your ideas?"
No, they should be taught science. Frankly I don't care whether global warming is even mentioned in elementary and secondary schools, we just need to give children a solid education in physical science and mathematics. People that have a solid grounding in science will grow up to make intelligent decisions on the subject.
Those that don't learn science will believe the Earth is 6000 years old, or the poles are colder than the equator because they're farther away from the sun, or the warming is due to the Earth's core, or the ships are causing sea level rise, or that CO2 doesn't matter to the Earth's climate.
What a bullsh*t story The man is a diehard skeptic
1. AGW is not just a theory, it is a reality that you and other skeptics deliberately deny. Real time temperatures records show that the planet is still warming This can't be logically refuted or scientifically either. The author believes that the sun causes AGW and that has been debunked repeatedly
2. As to alternate theories, all I see are lies and deliberate .manipulation of data. There is no scientific evidence anywhere that proves that humans are not responsible for the current warming
3. Whether it be you or the author, claiming indoctrination is just another BS skeptic fantasy
I am new here but have not sen a post or answer by any skeptic that has any real value
4. You have been indoctrinated by the denier platform and have blind faith in the lame ideas that go with it
Who cares if it is? Religious indoctrination is bad. Political indoctrination is bad. But I don't see anyway environmental indoctrination could be bad. Global warming is a pretty one sided issue. The science is in: The planet is getting warmer, it is more or less humanity's fault, and we've already gone to far to stop the damage. Kids having that lesson embedded in their minds will probably do more good than harm.
I agree, lets teach them both sides of the story.
On the one side there is science and on the other side there is "CO2 is good for plants".
should we also be teaching the other side of the earth is flat too. There are always two sides, one more likely.
I have grave concerns for future generations. And I don't mean a worse climate.
http://iceagenow.info/2013/12/hunger-games-climate-games/
Should children be taught both sides to a theory (fore and against) and is it propaganda if they are not.
