Not sure if the concerns raised are valid, but if so... then yes, I think that pretending that there isn't a controversy about climate change (in "Social studies texts", for example) is foolish. It's a topic that involves huge political and economic forces and deserved recognition.

That doesn't mean presenting human-caused climate change as factually questionable -- still being studied and revised like pretty much every other area of scientific inquiry, sure, but not truly in doubt.

Presuming the school board's decision wouldn't affect texts related to Political Science or Modern History or whatnot, though, then yeah, it's a bogus complaint.

I voted Yes to, "Do You Think That Schools Taking Away Books That Enable Climate Change Deniers is a Good or Bad Idea?" Even though it was not a yes or no question, and I want to vote No for the other question, "Should Portland Public Schools Enable Climate Change Deniers?"

So...Yes, I guess? Basically, science is pretty clear on this topic. We should be pushing science, not conspiracy theories or whatever space Truthers, Flat-Earthers, anti-vaxers, and creationists occupy.

This seems similar to Gov. Cuomo's new law that boycotts groups that support the BDS movement.

Do we allow history textbooks from Wikipedia? Do we accept textbooks from religious sources re: creationism in our biology classes? It seems to me that kids get plenty of exposure outside of their classrooms. This is most certainly not censorship as defined by the constitution.

Are you f****** kidding me? Who the hell is issuing this material and who is accepting it into school curriculums? It is well known that oil companies have spent billions on climate change denial rhetoric. How is this even a question?