Wyoming may not be "politically correct" on the issue, but they are correct that "global warming" being caused primarily by man-made emissions isn't settled science. (And no, computer scientists are not the correct scientists. ;) )
Regardless of local effects, the basic problem is that we should be warming right now, and we aren't.
Why should we be warming right now? The Medieval Warm Period (950-1250) was much warmer than the period that followed - and warmer than now. Wine grape grew in England back then. This was followed by the Little Ice Age (1350-1850). These are considered cyclical, so we should be getting warmer for a few hundred years, starting around 1950. Regardless of human-sourced emissions.
But the other problem is, we're not really, at least not on the activists' schedules. The IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report concedes for the first time that global temperatures have not risen since 1998, despite a 7 percent rise in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Despite global human CO2 emissions in the last 15 years representing about one-third of all human CO2 emissions since the start of the Industrial Revolution, temperatures didn’t budge.
If man-made global warming is your religion, it looks like settled science despite the actual results. If science is your religion (rather than your credential), there's no enough evidence to support the hysteria yet, and a growing amount calling it into question. So why should it be considered "fact" in a kid's textbook? Are we trying to teach them to think or are we trying to indoctrinate them?