Climate science indoctrination

The current AAAS Science magazine says:

So, we’re all familiar with the century-long debate over whether evolution or creationism should be taught in grade schools and high schools to children. But, because of the political debate that’s going on today – it’s very loud, it integrates every part of the media over whether or not climate change is occurring and how attributable it is to human activity – grade school and high school teachers are now finding parents coming to them and saying, “You shouldn’t be teaching climate change to our students because it’s not a science, it’s not scientifically based.” And there have even been cases where administrators and school boards have told teachers not to teach climate change, that it’s an unsettled area of science. ... And so, one of the things that’s been happening is some of these people will suggest maybe you should have a debate – you should have a climate denier and a climate scientist get up on stage in front of students and talk about the pros and cons, which has a lot of scientists and educators concerned because that’s not the way that science works. Science works through peer review and through reaching a consensus based on data – not through who has the louder voice. There’s a case in Los Alamitos – in southern California, in Orange County, it’s a conservative area – just a couple of months ago the school board there decided that they didn’t like the idea of climate change being presented in a high school classroom in an advanced placement class. And so, they passed a new mandate stating that teachers were going to have to present evidence every year of how they were going to talk about both sides of the debate. ...

Climate change is something that’s very rapidly changing, and it’s very hard to keep up with. The last thing that they need, when they’re often struggling with this very complex science themselves, is people coming in and saying, “You’re teaching us wrong. You need to be teaching all of these other positions that may or may not be actually based in science and more based in policy.” ...

Interviewer - Stewart Wills
Well, some of the issues regarding the teaching of evolution have kind of played out in the courts. Is there any such remedy for climate change teaching, as well?

Interviewee - Sara Reardon
It doesn’t seem likely from the people I’ve talked to that teachers would have a lot of recourse there. The reason that creationism has been shut down time and time again in the courts is that it’s been ruled that it’s a religious stance. And under the first amendment you can’t present religion in a public school. But, climate change is not couched in religion.

Interviewer - Stewart Wills
Okay, well if the courts aren’t available, where is this headed? What can the scientific community do in response to this?

Much of global warming (aka climate change) is driven by the Gaia religion, with the skepticism based on science. So using the courts to censor religion would not suit the interests of the leftist-atheist-evolutionists in this case.

It is funny to see these folks lecture us on "how science works", and then tell us that no one may tell a teacher that he is teaching it wrong, and that students must not be allowed to see contrary evidence.

It should be clear from this that using the courts against creationism is just a tool to eliminate a contrary view and to force one particular belief system on students.

Meanwhile, the leftist-atheist-evolutionist Jerry Coyne just posted rules for his Why Evolution Is True blog (which he prefers to call a web site, not a blog):

2. Most of our readers are atheists. If you come over here professing belief in God in a loud or obnoxious way, I reserve the right to request that you describe the evidence that led to your belief. If you fail to provide it, you may not be allowed to post again.

He regularly posts attacks on the Bible, Koran, and related theology, so he reads religious writings. But he is eager to censor the comments on his blog to be within his worldview.