Debate on global warming as a socio-scientific issue: science teaching towards political literacy

The focus of this response to the original article by Tom G. H. Bryce and Stephen P. Day (Cult Stud Sci Educ. doi: 10.1007/ s11422-012-9407-1, 2013) is the use of empirical data to illustrate and expand the understanding of key points of their argument. Initially, I seek to discuss possible answers to the three questions posed by the authors related to: (1) the concerns to be addressed and the scientific knowledge to be taken into account in the climate change debate, (2) the attention to be paid to perspectives taken by ''alarmists'' and ''deniers,'' and (3) the approaches to be used to conduct controversial global warming debate. In this discussion, I seek to contribute to the debate proposed by the original paper, illustrating various points commented on by the authors and expanding to other possibilities, which highlight the importance of political issues in the debate. Therefore, I argue that socio-political issues must be taken into account when I aim for a scientific literacy that can enhance students' political education. Likewise, I extend the debate presented in the original article, emphasizing the attention that should be paid to these aspects and approaching science education from a critical perspective. Highlighting only the confirmation bias without considering political implications of the debate can induce a reductionist and empiricist view of science, detached from the political power that acts on scientific activity. In conclusion, I support the idea that for a critical science education, the discussion of political issues should be involved in any controversial debate, a view, which goes beyond the confirmation bias proposed by Bryce and Day for the global warming debate. These issues are indeed vital and science teachers should take them into account when preparing their lessons for the debate on climate change.