Many areas of science are strewn with controversial areas (including evolutionary theories), but the phrase “teach the controversy” to me betokens an ideological agenda that misrepresents the nature of controversy.
Thanks for the critique. Rereading the text it seems indisputable to me that Fred has himself intentionally attempted to misrepresent the nature of the controversy, or he simply doesn’t believe there is one.
Some inference can be drawn about his predilection to bias. Why did he bracket (including evolutionary theories), he seems content to insist there is some controversy in evolution but not in Climasology (made up word).
But I agree, The “controversy” should be taught in Ethics not science.
From what I can deduce from the current discipline of public discourse over the matter, there will be no option but for the episode of AGW to be included in psychology papers.