Typical irrational misinformation from you, Bacci. Disgraceful. Someone else here (not mentioning names) rams his anti-climate science beliefs down his children's throats. As they grow up in a warming world they will realise who was right and who was wrong. They will (hopefully) learn to make informed choices despite being indoctrinated against climate science at home.
Trying to equate belief in human induced global warming with communism is wrong. It just shows how out of touch you are with the scientific reality. We are talking scientific consensus here, not political doctrine.
There was recent discussion here about Einstein's two theories of relativity. These are "theories". They are accepted by all scientific institutions around the world. They have been proven many times over by scientific observation. Most people here do not understand the two theories at all and questions were asked about the rather bizarre nature of the predictions for scenarios where the speed of light is approached. That is fair enough, but no one should be saying these theories should not be taught in school or university because they do not understand them or because the predictions are bizarre.
My point is, we should not let lay people who have little or no understanding of science dictate the school curriculum, particularly where their ideas have been distorted by some outlandish political dogma that is irrelevant to the science.
As for climate change - it is accepted science and it should be taught in schools. Alternative theories do not exist and are not accepted science and should not be taught. If a credible alternative theory emerges then of course it should be considered.
For those of you who are not in touch with what is being taught at university - I recently did an economics subject for my Masters this last semester. I did the last four exams as study for my final exam. In EVERY case, the one exam question that was asked every time was about "externalities". (An externality is an un-priced cost or benefit of a market transaction. It is an example of a market failure and results in a socially inefficient outcome.)
The reason this question is included every time is because everyone at the university (economists, engineers, psychologists, lawyers, doctors, you name it) is acutely aware that this is the biggest social and economic problem we face. Economists get it. Economists realise that we cannot continue to do business as we do now without pricing in the social costs of pollution and greenhouse gases, because to not do so is economically inefficient, the side effect being reduced well-being for all, children at school included.
Child abuse? Child abuse is to deny children access to scientific consensus and to the truth. Child abuse is indoctrinating your own children against the scientific reality. They will only grow up to despise you for it.
Your mistake, Bacci, is to confuse science with communism. Your political agenda has clouded your faculties for rational thought.
