While I don't 100% agree with BEE, their main purpose seems to be combating the pro-AGW agenda by demanding representation of the 'other side'. In short: a pissing contest. Not the strategy I would recommend, but understandable. That said, I could give substantial arguments that BOTH positions on AGW do *not* belong in elementary, middle and high school curriculum AT ALL. (But, Steve, how should the AGW issue be presented in schools? As a case study on what to do/not-do when you explore proof/disproof of a THEORY - just like the study of Galileo v. the Church.)
I must say I am distressed at your numerous snide comments about individuals and their (supposed) motivations. It ill becomes you. Attack their science and conclusions, if you will, but such petty snipes (i.e., the caveman metaphor, ) simply because you disagree with them is beneath you. Let others use personal attacks as a defense - you have too sharp a mind to allow it to be lulled by such nonsense.
You see, you are absolutely correct in spotting BEE's adoption of the if-you-can't-lick-em-join-em approach. If the pro-AGW crowd uses such techniques (bullying, intimidation, argument by authority, suspension of rational debate, etc.) - and you know they do - then BEE is simply attempting to play by the same rules. (They're just not very good at the tactic because of a lack of experience.) The fact that the pursuit of GOOD SCIENCE should rise above such things - and yet does not - is the real tragedy.
*Sigh* As for the status of polar bears, try here or here (arguments by authority; I thought you'd like my using it. See? Just using the same tactics, but politely.). As for climate scientists “lying to us”... Oh my, need I mention Jones and Mann again?
And no, “renewable energy” is not for sissies: it takes real courage to overcome the self-generated panic of uninformed hysteria. Unfortunately, the majority of highly-touted "renewable" sources have a significant problem completing when it comes to being COST-EFFECTIVE. Those green 'solutions' just don't hold up very well when it comes to the bottom line. Have you looked at how much physical space would be required for windmills to generate even 10% of the current U.S. Energy requirements? To say nothing of the very real danger to birds... And why aren't there demands to paint roofs white? And why don't we demand (and regulate) the planting of trees atop sky-scrapers?
Geo-thermal is nice, but has the distinct disadvantage of having your power source located so far away from the power consumers as to be impractical. Solar has significant cost issues. Bio-fuels take away resources from FEEDING PEOPLE.
And don't get me started on how much better a NUCLEAR ENERGY development program would be - a fact known to everyone except those who think protons, neutrons and electrons are roughly the size and shape of a small pea - and yet are absolutely certain all such things are 100% bad, evil, and toxic. QUESTION: The U.S. Navy has effectively used nuclear power for YEARS with no accidents, health concerns, waste disposal problems, etc. - just what is keeping us from adapting THAT practical real-world experience technology for use on dry land?
Sadly, children have been increasingly used as political pawns for decades; the AGW 'debate' is merely one instance. A recent TV commercial showed a father looking to buy a 'green' big-screen TV system because his little girl was crying for him to “save the polar bears, daddy”... That is simply wrong, no matter what the motivation is. I think we'll agree with each other here.
Which leads me to your comment on education, where I note you left out the REVIEW process - e.g., when HOW they are teaching is proven NOT to work - you do something else. Currently, it is far more politically important to maintain full-employment for teachers, regardless of their ability to actually TEACH... Makes you question motivations and priorities, doesn't it? The old adage was that a school consisted of a log with a teacher on one end and a student on the other still has merit, but doesn't generate adequate union dues. Oh, well.
Fair is fair - If it's somehow wrong for BEE to develop a course curriculum *against* the advancement of the AGW-theory, then it is equally inappropriate and wrong for the U of Colorado to do the same as *advocates* of AGW. I don't care how many 'distinguished scientists' support it (argument by authority) because the experts can be wrong, too. Remember, the philogiston theory? And how those who dared challenge the conventional belief system were vilified and academically destroyed? Do you see the parallels in recent challenges to a systemic “the debate is over” belief in AGW?
* * * * *
Is "Going Green" bad? NO. but for your consideration, I submit this stated agenda of some so-called leaders of the environmental movement:
“This is the way we are setting the scene for mankind’s encounter with the planet. The opposition between the two ideologies that have dominated the 20th century has collapsed, forming their own vacuum and leaving nothing but crass materialism.
It is a law of Nature that any vacuum will be filled and therefore eliminated unless this is physically prevented. “Nature,” as the saying goes, “abhors a vacuum.” And people, as children of Nature, can only feel uncomfortable, even though they may not recognize that they are living in a vacuum. How then is the vacuum to be eliminated?
It would seem that humans need a common motivation, namely a common adversary, to organize and act together in the vacuum; such a motivation must be found to bring the divided nations together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one invented for the purpose.
New enemies therefore have to be identified.
New strategies imagined, new weapons devised.
The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.
* * * * *
[shudder] Have we devolved to a point where the ultimate goal is the promotion of species-based self-hatred?
* * * * *
Back to the subject at hand... If we're going to talk about SCIENCE, then let us do so without regard for the (obvious) political agendas, which have no place in the scientific method anyway. Prove the AGW theory with appropriate research supported by duplicatible scientific fact (I don't think that's possible, but folks are welcome to try - remember: it only takes ONE to disprove the theory).
Be aware PROOF doesn't mean we can use “it's our best guess” as a validation. It doesn't mean the results from a computer model are 100% fact. It doesn't mean you can cherry-pick the statistics you want to use, and discard the others, simply because they don't support the theory. And, above all else, it doesn't mean you spend billions of dollars trying to find ways to CONFIRM the theory! I want to see all those 'peer-review-qualified' scientists trying to aggressively DISPROVE the theory, before asking us to blindly accept their belief, especially when following them has such life-altering and economically disasterous consequences.
Like you said, “Pretty simple, I think.”