Global warming is a key doctrine of the Religion of the Left and forcing that religious belief (as it is not based on science) on our children should be forbidden.

Such teaching in public schools would be illegal under the separation of church and state provision in the Constitution.

Actually, it is based on science.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26065-2004Dec25.html

a) it is NOT based on science as the science remains indeterminate even if one reads the IPCC's documents (NOT the policy summaries)
b) the group is absolutely correct that there's a gap between science and action--only they've got their sign wrong! There's a lot more action than the science warrents!

So is this the deal: you can teach global warming as long as they can teach intelligent design? Suddenly I feel like I'm at my poling place trying to decide if I should vote for the Democrat or the Republican. Why is there never a none of the above option?

If they can guarantee that every High School Student has first completed physics through AP Physics C, chemistry through AP Chemistry, math through Calculus BC, and Biology through AP Biology, then there might be time for GW propaganda. Until then the schools need to stick to teaching science.

We'll be teaching global warming in K-12, but we'll still be graduating 18 year-olds who can't balance a checkbook or read a newspaper article critically.

I have found it interesting that the infomation that I have been finding on a variety of subjects I have been looking into have a distinct differance in presentation by the disparate factions. If you take an example of global warming, there are more information arena's extolling the danger humans pose to the enviroment than there are that it is a non-threat. The internet is the best example. There are thousands of sites dedicated to the enviromental peacekeepers, whose sole purpose is to enlighten the wastefull masses, that our raping of the earth's resources, and throw away mentality, is the harbringer of our own doom. Very interesting reading, but no-where in these articles is there any sort of data that will make this all plain for any and all to see.
On the other side of the discusion is a group of people who ask the question, "What is this threat?" They publish the data, that they have gathered from various sources, which they alway's give referance to, for people like myself, who have the inclination to look into personally, so that I can reveiw the information presented to me in a more informed manner.
All information and data can be manipulated to make the presenter of the infomation appear correct.
If an "Information" site provides no referance's to where they pooled their opinion from, they should be considered suspect.
Michael Crichton, the author, well known for his books and novels, as well as a notable movie classic, or two, has an opinion of his own to share in "State of Fear". Personally I found it very dry reading, and a little predictable, but I found it very entertaining in the light of his message to not take information at face value.
Look into matters yourself before you decide.

After is too late.

A person, who cannot live with another person's opinion, is a dictator.

[QUOTE]
There are thousands of sites dedicated to the enviromental peacekeepers, whose sole purpose is to enlighten the wastefull masses, that our raping of the earth's resources, and throw away mentality, is the harbringer of our own doom.
[/QUOTE]

Ah yes. The offspring of "Famine 1975!" and "The Population Bomb."