It is often said that belief in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) is more akin to a religion than to science, and I tend to agree with this. This essay about how climate science is taught in schools is very long and tedious, but what can be ascertained by reading it is that the author is so utterly convinced in her cause that she simply is unable to countenance that there could be any other side to it than her interpretation. She totally rejects that teachers should acknowledge or give credence to doubts.

Yet it is plainly obvious to most adults who study this subject the there are plenty of perfectly legitimate concerns, some of which are raised by the IPCC themselves. The primary one is the degree of warming which the IPCC say can be from 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C for a doubling of CO2.  Once someone has understood that then everything else is put into question.

A bright child would pick up on this and think, if there is such a wide variation, then how much else is in doubt? A little reading will soon find that there are learned and much respected science professors such as Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer who can make out a good case for the 1.5 degrees C to be even lower in which case the warming will be no more than has been experienced in the 20th century. Once trust has been undermined then the teacher will lose respect and the pupil will become more sceptical.

That is the dilemma facing the climate activist. If they are too hard-line in their approach they risk being discovered as being too doctrinaire and may be accused of indoctrinating their pupils. On the other hand if they admit the flaws in the hypothesis that risks undermining the urgency that is claimed to be needed to combat it.