I would gladly vote for this bill if there was a requirement that the curriculum on global warming be science-based and balanced. That discussion and examination is desperately needed not only in our schools but in the halls of government.

But there is no such requirement in this bill and I don’t believe there is any intention of doing so.

I’m reminded of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s speech to Al Gore’s rally in New York last July, where he called those scientists who question global warming dogma “liars,” “crooks,” “corporate toadies,” “flat earthers” and then he made this remarkable statement: “This is treason and we need to start treating them as traitors.”

That’s not exactly what I would call the dispassionate language of scientific inquiry.

Every time we attempt to hold a serious science-based debate on this subject, we’re told, “Sorry, the debate is over. All the scientists agree.”

Call this the Emperor’s New Clothes argument. But it’s simply not the case.

The ISI Web of Science is one of the most comprehensive collections of peer-reviewed scientific papers in the world. A recent survey of all papers on the subject of climate change that were published between 2004 and February of 2007 found that only SEVEN percent explicitly endorsed the position that man-made carbon dioxide is causing catastrophic global warming. SIX PERCENT explicitly rejected it and a majority of the remaining papers were neutral.

In fact, another directory of peer-reviewed scientific papers explicitly refuting the theory of human-induced catastrophic global warming lists over 500 leading climate scientists. The survey itself was conducted by a team that included Fred Singer, author of “Unstoppable Global Warming – EVERY 1,500 YEARS”, whose qualifications include being the founding director of the National Weather Satellite Service.

Al Gore’s Oscar-winning production was adjudicated in Great Britain last year and found BY THEIR COURTS to be seriously deficient in scientific support – on no less than 11 key scientifically verifiable claims. In fact, the court ordered a specific disclaimer to that effect to be included in any presentation to public school classes. There is no such requirement in this bill.

When some of the most accomplished and reputable scientists in the fields of climatology, meteorology and solar physics all vigorously challenge the global warming doctrine, how can anyone who respects science and the scientific method declare the debate is over and that all dissenters are “traitors” or “flat-eathers.”

After all, it was the “flat-earthers” who, in the Dark Ages, declared the debate on the origins of Earth to be over and scientific inquiry to be heresy. It was the men of science who welcomed a full debate over all aspects of human knowledge, secure in the belief that reason would ultimately prevail in any free debate.

So I find it disturbing that this mandate to teach this theory is not accompanied by a requirement that the discussion be science-based and include a critical analysis of all sides of the subject.

For that reason – and for that reason alone – I will vote no on this bill.

And as Patrick Henry said, “If that be treason, make the most of it.”