An Inconvenient Truth is in trouble with some angry parents who don’t want their children to be watching the film at school. The folks over at cinematical.com have more on the story:
An Inconvenient Truth was the cause of a recent controversy in a suburban Washington school that drew great attention in the community at large, and specifically within filmmaker and activist circles. A science teacher in the Federal Way School District was set to show the Oscar-nominated documentary in class, when an angry parent’s email put an end to all that. the parent in question, Frosty E. Hardison. (Frosty? Oh, they can’t be serious!?) Not only do they believe that there is no truth behind this whole global warming thing, but that it is also relatable to the second coming of Christ — this was in the email,
Wow there is so much more to the story as well. Because of this ridiculous e-mail there is now a checklist that teachers all have to follow before showing the film. it is as follows:
1. The teacher must receive written permission from all parents for their children to see the film.
2. The film materials must be approved by the principal and the school board.
3. Students must be shown an opposing view giving the kids “two sides.” In this case, that would be the global warming argument.
So what is the opposing view to global warming? Revelations? Or is it a war between Hobbits in middle earth?
Sad so very sad. That this film would have to jump through so many hoops just to educate children about something that may in fact save their world. What kind of parents are these? It is this sort of head in the sand, protect my kids until they are completely unself-reliant, pain in the neck mentality that has screws up earth to this extent in the first place.
This movie is not scary, it is educational, it is even a little boring. If you let your kids play video games or watch the news or see religious violent films like The Passion of The Christ then a film about global warming done by the former Vice President of the United States should be pretty much ok.
This stuff just drives me bonkers. I have lived in Canada for 25 years and am now living in Los Angeles, I see climate changes everywhere; it didn’t snow in Canada this year until late January, but earlier this month Malibu had their first snowfall since 1963. This is happening and anyone who doesn’t want to acknowledge it is being completely obtuse.
An Inconvenient Truth is a good film, it is educational and it belongs in schools, lucky for us they are actually getting funding to put it into schools. I think the parents that are complaining about that might need some educating of their own.
You sound like Sheryl Crow – “how can you disagree that global warming is real….it’s soooooo hotttt”
Listen I don’t care if Gore knew he was exaggerating or not. To the extent this dumb movie makes people use less oil and hair spray, i guess I benefit enough to let it slide.
But…y’all need to think this stuff through a little bit before you just jump on bandwagons. Remember what was happenning when all this global warming sky is falling nonsense began…yeah….back in the 70’s when we were standing in gas lines.
The scientific evidence behind all of this is weak. Temperature causes CO2 levels to rise, not the other way around. And almost every piece of evidence in this movie has at least one major scientific community with evidence that something other than greenhouse gases caused the problem.
Anyway – if CO2 is so bad for the environment, and we exhale CO2, wouldn’t these global warming fanatics help more if they all just shut their blow holes?
@Mr Stay Puft
Well, I’m in post right now. It’s got me tied to a monitor all day long every day and I’ve been at it since August. I’m shooting for early March. Then I get to shop it around, probably through the festival circuit. Hopefully audiences will find it interesting. I shot some things I don’t think anyone has ever seen before. I had a lot of cooperation from the Department of Energy and the Centers for Disease Control. The EPA kind of stonewalled me, though. I shot interviews with some people from both sides of the nuclear debate, though, who I found fascinating. One guy was a Bonner Prize winner who used to head up the Cyclotron project at Oak Ridge. He’s in his 80’s and has stories from right in the middle of the highest-level projects that go back essentially to the beginning of the atomic age.
It’s tough to cut a lot of this stuff together, though, because it’s so complicated. You have to pave the road with background information or the comments they make are wasted. That’s really the hardest part of it. You want everything they say to make sense to an audience and it’s an extremely complicated subject. You don’t want it to end up playing like one of those 16mm science films we used to watch in school, though. At the same time you don’t want to limit the audience to people who already understand the issues because then you’re not helping anyone. It’s further complicated by the fact that I can’t shut up about what I’m working on. I’m constantly bouncing things off everyone I know. I’ll catch myself talking so fast that I can barely make sense of what I’m thinking, let alone saying. I’m kind of expecting rumors to start circulating soon about me having lost my mind. ;-)
“It’s going to be the nutters on the left who want us all to live by firefly light against the corporate lackeys on the right who don’t want to spend an extra cent cleaning up after themselves.”
I put that in my files.
Damn, I thought I was deep underground when I went to Howe Caverns. Great info by the way. Best of luck, it sounds like an interesting project. When will your film be finished and available?
@Mr Stay Puft
I can certainly see your point, but people are functionally retarded a lot of the time. ;-)
I did pre-interviews with a lot of environmentalists that didn’t make it to the interview stage. They’d say something like, “We all need to limit ourselves to one 40-watt light bulb and a bicycle!” and I’d say, “Thanks for your time. I’ll get back to you if I need to shoot something.” Realistic solutions aren’t optional. I live in Northern California and I see a lot of environmental extremism that almost makes me want to side with whatever faction will cart those people away to a padded room.
I shot some footage in the WIPP facility outside Carlsbad New Mexico that was pretty amazing to me. They’ve hollowed out an area the size of about 60 football fields 2500 feet underground in a salt vein that was a Permian era ocean. This salt vein is HUGE. It runs from there to central Kansas. They’re using the area as a radioactive waste storage area. It’s SO deep that by the time you get all the way down to the facility the walls are starting to heat up from the Earth’s core. The walls are close to 90 degrees. They give you a brass coin with a number on it when you go down because in case of a collapse there won’t be any identifiable remains and the coin will tell them who you were. Anyway, these salt beds have been stable for 225 million years. They aren’t going anywhere. There’s not a trace of radiation leakage at the surface level. Of course, half a mile of salt acts as a pretty nice barrier. Still there are environmentalists who object to the site. Now, plutonium is essentially a rock. You bury a rock half a mile underground in a salt deposit that isn’t migrating anywhere and is almost completely devoid of water lenses and it’s a pretty safe bet that the rock will still be there in a million years or so. Doesn’t matter to some folks, though. The imagine that the rock will magically wind up in a baby’s breakfast somehow. Then you consider that it takes 800 pounds of coal to power a 100-watt light bulb for a year, but it takes around 10 ounces of uranium to provide all the power a family of four will use during their lifetime and the benefits of nuclear start to be a lot more apparent, but you can’t tell the No Nukes people that.
We need a lot of practical solutions and we need them now. It’s not beyond us as a species. We just have to make it a priority. At some level I guess I feel like the lowest-common-denominator in our society will only see it as a priority if you scare the crap out of them. Of course, they may react really negatively to having someone try to scare the crap out of them. Hard to say, really. You’re right about the next election, though. It’s going to be the nutters on the left who want us all to live by firefly light against the corporate lackeys on the right who don’t want to spend an extra cent cleaning up after themselves. Both sides are wrong and both sides are completely convinced that they’re right.
Thanks for the debate and you’ve hit on a key point in which we differ. I disagree with the Chicken Little approach. Remember, she and her friends were eaten by the fox in their hysteria over the falling sky. Remember back in the 70s that global cooling and the impending ice age was all the rage – cover stories in Time and Newsweek.
“It’s not just Global Warming that’s going to help rid the planet of us.”
The real solvable problems, rather than the apocalyptic visions of environmental extremists. I’d like to see money spent on problems that have solid proof rather than theory. For example. demanding EPA-like oversight of foreign industry is something attainable.
Again, thanks for the debate. I suspect this is going to be a divisive issue in the next election.
@Mr Stay Puft
Back in the 70’s I remember reading that the United States represented 5% of the world’s population and consumed 65% of its resources. I remember thinking at the time that eventually all those zero impact nations were going to want to start consuming like Americans and it was going to be more than the planet could stand. Well, nobody consumes quite like we do, but they’re all ramping up. And of course we consume WAY more than we did 30 years ago. Of course, in the interim we discovered “globalization” so now our dirtiest industries have all been moved to nations with no Environmental Protection Agency. I’ve seen footage of textile mills in places like Jamaica where companies like Hanes can just dump their industrial waste right into the ocean. It’s not just Global Warming that’s going to help rid the planet of us.
The film I’m working on right now concerns a nuclear waste facility where over 800 United States corporations and government agencies dumped from 1962 to 1978. At one point they had several million gallons of radioactive water that they didn’t have a storage space that could accommodate, so they built an evaporator and sent it out as steam. At the time the EPA had an air quality specification that required testing at 12 feet above ground level, so they built a 150 foot tall smokestack at the facility, which was on top of a mountain, and the prevailing easterly winds would blow the radioactive steam away at altitude so their air quality reports wouldn’t reflect what they were doing.
I completely support nuclear power, though. We only spent $240 million on fusion research last year. That’s about what we spent on one month of the Iraq war. China’s spending billions a year. The first nation with clean fusion power is going to be a major economic force in the world and we no longer seem to care if that’s us. In the interim we should be building fission plants, but national hysteria after Three Mile Island pretty much stopped that in its tracks. The French have been very successful with their nuclear power program, though. Their reactors are all essentially identical, so personnel can transfer from facility to facility without having to re-learn the equipment. That standardization has been particularly helpful to them. Also, they don’t try to bury their waste. They spend the money to store it properly.
There are a lot of fundamental things about how we approach business that have to change before the way we impact the planet can change. It doesn’t have to mean the end of profitability or the death of developing nations, but we have to fundamentally change the way we deal with industry or we’re all in real trouble.
You have to live in the world as it is, though. And right now that means reaching people who are apathetic. I think Gore’s approach and that of the environmental lobby is essentially correct. You have to terrify the public until they demand huge changes. I don’t work that way personally. The project I’m working on doesn’t have a sky-is-falling theme, but I understand why so many people are working that way.
Excellent. That’s what a debate is.
You need to understand that I don’t deny that the world may be warming. What I object to is…
…the apocalyptic view Gore promotes to sell movie tickets.
…the dismissal of differing theories that have just as much validity without causing mass hysteria.
…the blame constantly heaped upon humanity as if we have no right to live on this planet.
Pollution can and should be curbed. You talk about localized environmental issues that can be addressed, but don’t get addressed because the focus has been taken away from these issues.
Industry has a responsiblilty to the environment, and has in many cases accepted that responsibility. But when they are blamed for all environmental ills, it is only natural for them to circle the wagons to protect their interests. Don’t forget, we need energy.
And to what extend should we commit ourselves? It has been suggested that even if we spend the trillions of dollars the Kyoto Protocal calls for, we may only impact global temperature by less than half a degree Celsius. In the process we will cripple our economy and stifle developng nations, relegating them to poverty. That is the counter-extremist argument. Rmember, Gore started it.
Or should we go nuclear – no emissions – while we wait for the miracle cure. You can’t force hybrid cars down our throats. If the cost comes down and the reliabitiy improves, people will buy them. Sales increased when gas prices rose last year.
I know I get worked up. It’s not a tantrum, but a disgust with how scientific discovery gets corrupted by political agendas. It pisses me off as a teacher – I’ve been one since 1990. More and more I see blindness to valid ideas that don’t fit someone’s predetermined worldviews – from all sides of the political/social spectrum – and it’s disappointing.
@Mr Stay Puft
There’s really not much to debate. Ice core samples show the planet heating up a lot during the late 20th century. WAY more than it has ever heated up during its cyclic changes over the last several hundred million years. The only thing left to debate is what can be done about it and how much damage we’re going to suffer before we get things back on-track.
I don’t doubt that the environmental lobby is exaggerating the effects to some degree. The naysayers like to imagine that humans are incapable of having an effect on the planet, but we’re seeing a lot of other ugly footprints as a result of industry. Like this from the EPA, who are not prone to being alarmist:
http://tinyurl.com/2m5eod
Those are mercury contamination numbers, primarily from coal-fired electric plants. It’s made the fish dangerous to eat in 24% of the river miles in the United States, as well as 35% of the lake acres and 65% of the coastal waters including 92% if the Atlantic coast and 100% of the Gulf Coast.
You can deny the facts until we all die, but they’re becoming nearly impossible to avoid.
And I will blame him. I don’t fly around the country in a private jet.
Can’t debate so insult. Typical.
STAY PUFT is going to stomp his feet and hold his breath until he turns blue if we don’t all agree that the rapid surge in global temperatures is because of Al Gore. ;-)
Samf, nothing has changed except that the IPCC is now MORE convinced than they were before. The same climate experts are going to dispute their results. Consider this – the IPCC report summary is being released tomorrow. Not the report, just the summary. The report will be released in three months. Why? Perhaps because the report contains the same faulty scientific methods and modeling that the IPCC has always been accused of. Ask yourself – why have the leading climate scientists in the world quit the IPCC?
From the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works:
“First, the IPCC is a political institution. Its charter is to support the efforts of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which has the basic mission of eliminating the threat of global
warming. This clearly creates a conflict of interest with the standard scientific goal of assessing scientific data in an objective manner. The IPCC process itself illustrates the problem. The Summary Report for Policymakers is not approved by the scientists and economists who contribute to the report. It is approved by Intergovernmental delegates – in short, politicians. It doesn’t take a leap of imagination to realize that politicians will insist
the report support their political agenda.”
Why is it OK to dispute the findings funded by energy corporations because of potential conflicts of interest, but it is beyond your scope to believe the IPCC and Al Gore could have a political or financial stake in their theory?
also intelligent design should not be offered in schools as it’s a load of old cobblers (i pity american school kids)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6321351.stm
more than 90% likely.. i’m sorry but those are the odds i’ll take
I remember one really lazy teacher had us watch True Lies. The real question I have is why the kid whinned to his/her parents that they were going to watch a movie in class instead of hearing the teacher drone on and one about who knows what. Me, I was always excited to get to watch a movie in class instead of actually learning something. So, yeah, what in the hell was wrong with this kid?
“Speaking of KANEDA979…I tried understanding your post sober and drunk, but still no luck.” Jagmir
HAHA! Yes, then I succeeded in my plan of comfusing the hell out of atleast one of you. THE WORLD IS MINE! ;D
“TETSUOOOO!!!! lol kaneda should get it…..lol” Chris
Yup, Akira is my all time favorit film. I like the original dubbing better though. I think it’s funnier and makes you think more about it’s deep story. “Neo-Tokyo is about to E.X.P.L.O.D.E.” :p
PS: Doesnt this seem like the “end of times” rhetoric we usually hear from religious fanatics? It does to me, and thats one of the things that makes me think its hysteria and irrational.
There is ‘global warming’ but its probably not because of pollution or because of what Gore thinks (the industrial revolution). Its just a cycle the earth is going through; theres been many global warmings throughout the centuries. This period will pass too and well go through a cooling, probably in a couple decades.
DOUBTING THOMAS –
Excellent response that made much more sense now. I totally agree with what your wrote. Especially when you quoted the actual guy and his radical views that bacialyl say anything taught not agreeing with his ideals should not be taught. In his case, you’re right; he should home school his kid if that’s how he feels. Nice retort and explanation.
Cheers.
I failed to write “engaging in political rhetoric” in the quotes. It is a Lindzen quote from Scientific American. He has never been accused a being a flunky for big oil.
And by Richard Lindzen of M.I.T., Neil Frank, former director of the National Hurricane Center, hurricane expert William Gray of Colorado State, “Rock You Like a Hurricane” singers the Scorpions and other assorted professors and scientists.
The fact is if you accuse the oil and coal lobbyists, you need to consider the same can hold true for the IPCC.
@MR STAY PUFT
“The IPCC has been accused of a lack of objectivity and engaging in political rhetoric.”
Yep. They’ve mostly been accused of that by oil industry lobbyists, although to be fair they’ve also been accused of it by coal lobbyists.
TETSUOOOO!!!! lol kaneda should get it…..lol
peace…
The IPCC has been accused of a lack of objectivity and engaging in political rhetoric. Nothing has changed, so RJ, the upcoming report will show nothing new.
Thomas, a lot of money is to be had in research grants. A lot! There is also prestige, which holds no interest for you or I maybe, but if you are an academic it is very enticing. The way to get it is by engaging in worst case sceranio scares:
“We [scientists] need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.”
Or by offering miracle cures (embryonic stem cells anyone?)
Gore’s words: “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.”
Translation: scare them into listening. Bush gets accused of this all the time. Why is Gore exempt?
Just because research is comissioned by an oil company doesn’t invalid it unless they tamper with the scientific method. So far, research by these companies has withstood scrutiny and is only attacked by skeptics without access.
The burning of fossil fuels has lead to an amazing quality of life in the West. Extreme curbing of fossil fuel use will cripple developing nations during their industrial stage and keep them from attaining that quality. Also, if this is such an important issue, why is the word “nuclear” so dirty? It’s reliable and doesn’t have any emissions.
http://tinyurl.com/285bbb
1) to Ghost_smoker, ok, so the ‘crackpipe and shower’ comments were over the top…sorry. But understand my frustration with folks like KANEDA979…
2) Speaking of KANEDA979…I tried understanding your post sober and drunk, but still no luck.
3) If you folks look carefully, “climatologists” were barking “global cooling” when all of this nonsense started back in the 80’s.
What’s next? Global idiocy? ummm…. no comment.
Ok, ok, i admit i should have been more specific about the target of my vitriol, namely Mr. Hardison himself, the parent who is the subject of this article.
“After a parent who supports the teaching of creationism and opposes sex education complained about the film, the Federal Way School Board on Tuesday placed what it labeled a moratorium on showing the film. The movie consists largely of a computer presentation by former Vice President Al Gore recounting scientists’ findings.
Al Gore’s documentary about global warming may not be shown unless the teacher also presents an “opposing view.”
“‘Condoms don’t belong in school, and neither does Al Gore. He’s not a schoolteacher,” said Frosty Hardison, a parent of seven who also said that he believes the Earth is 14,000 years old. “The information that’s being presented is a very cockeyed view of what the truth is. … The Bible says that in the end times everything will burn up, but that perspective isn’t in the DVD.'”
This is a direct quote from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer regarding the subject. As you can see, Frosty Hardison, the parent who complained, is a christian conservative who is stating that because Gore’s movie doesn’t include the perspective of the bible it shouldn’t be shown in class. And the school board bent to his wishes. Ok, so let’s also include the perspectives of the Koran, the Torah and the buddhists and the Hindus and every other religion – oh wait, that would anger conservatives even more. I make no apologies for my position that what ANY church teaches should stay in the church.
Certainly, the causes of global warming are not completely understood, and the liberals have taken off running with this subject to an extreme degree. However, and I quote the website for An Inconvenient Truth:
‘According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), this era of global warming “is unlikely to be entirely natural in origin” and “the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence of the global climate.”‘
That is all Gore says in the movie, that this is the consensus of scientists on the IPCC and other agencies. He doesn’t say that there is no other possible explanation, he simply is expousing his viewpoint. Quite frankly, i have yet to see an agency report that stated otherwise that wasn’t being funded or otherwise supported by oil corporations and big business, whose financial future would be in crisis if we all started driving hybrid cars.
Certainly the school should be willing to show opposing SCIENTIFIC viewpoints, but if they drop the whole thing and not discuss it at all because someone thinks they should include religion in the discussion? That would be a tragedy and hopefully that won’t happen.
Let me ask you this, what on earth do scientists have to gain by overstating our species’ effect on global warming? Nothing, save for maybe a few more grant dollars (oh no, not more research!)
Diametrically, what on earth do the global-trade groups, oil corporation lobbyists and interest groups have to gain by propogating the idea that our carbon emissions have nothing to do with it? A lot… of money.
Discuss.
“if you don’t like them learning the truth”
Good little drone.
THOMAS–
Where to begin?
Few people on here are crying “foul” about global warning. They’re just asking for ALL viewpoints to be put forth and discussed. Furthermore, that the global media loves to progress a culture of fear. And what could be more frightening than a doomsday scenario because you drive your kids to soccer practice in an SUV?
Intelligent design SHOULD be offered in schools as an alternative idea to evolution. “Shoved down the throat” is kind of harsh language for another explanation to our existence, don’t you think? So you’re saying alternate viewpoints should NOT be taught in schools? One way only? That is ridiculous.
You want “evolution” and “global warming is the fault of humans” taught AS FACT (not as theory) in our schools, but not the alternate points of view. Hmmm. It’s interesting that you only want one viewpoint given in classrooms, then turn around and say that those of us who want MORE than one viewpoint are closed minded.
I’m not putting words in your mouth, you made all of these ideas very clearly in your post above. Please respond.
And for the record, I am hardly a religious anything, much less a zealot.
Thomas, you’re showing your own ignorance by labelling me as a religious zealot. If you can’t debate, attack right?
I have no problem debating global warming theories in schools, but to accept Gore’s film as fact and as the only theory is wrong. Unlike evolution, there are numerous other valid theories as to why the Earth’s temperature has risen, whether there is an ideal temperature within a couple of degrees for the Earth, whether CO2 increases cause temperature increases or vice versa, whether higher CO2 levels have a negative or positive effect on the Earth, etc.
Furthermore, there is genuine concern over things like the Kyoto Protocal, which would be costly, have unknown impact on our economy, and would, if enacted completely, yield less than a half degree Celsius temperature decrease by 2100.
The world wasn’t accepted as round, it was proven.
Hmm, the type of people that are crying foul about global warming being discussed in school are the same people that tried to force “intelligent design” (a “theory” which has even less scientific fact to rely on than global warming) down the throat of the educational system. Remember that your spiritual ancestors believed that the world is flat and all females who practice medicine are witches, and tortured and executed those who dared to state otherwise. Hasn’t history taught us anything? Religious zealots the world over have done more harm than good for this world, maybe it’s time they conceded defeat in the battle of ideals and took their rightful place in the dustbin of history.
As for controlling what your children learn in school, if you don’t like them learning the truth, home school them and then you can make sure they grow up to be closed minded and unwitting participants in the decline of civilization.
Global warming is a bullshit, doomsday, fake-as-fucking-hell “Scientific” theory cooked up by socialists in order to inhibit (and ultimately stop) the success of capitalism.
I wouldn’t let my kids watch that flaming pile of crap either. It’s about as factually and intellectually honest as Fahrenheit 9/11.
Samf, Al Gore’s theory of global warming – which is better labelled as enhanced greenhouse – is a disputed thoery, not fact. The mean temperature over the past 30 years of the Earth has increased. The question really is what causes it.
Many scientists have shown that the primary cause is astronomical or geological, not anthropomorphic. They also have shown that CO2 levels have elevated as a result of increased temperatures and not the other way around as Gore’s film says. Also, Gore calls CO2 a pollutant, when in effect it is an essential element in transpiration. Small increases of CO2 in the atmoshpere have lead to more productive growing seasons (more food is good, right?) which has also lead to the halting of lumbering in wilderness areas (reusable timber lots). Gore doesn’t refute or even discuss any of this.
Ghost, yes, if Gore’s opinion based on what many have shown to be dubious scientific research is to be presented in a classroom, it needs to be not only presented with counterarguments, but without political discourse. If he blamed Jews would you agree? Or gays? Or people named Morrie? Why should political attacks on the president and a political party be allowed? If he intended this as strictly a teaching tool he would have left the attacks out. It becomes clear that it is a political tool when he leaves them in. His fault, and something that cannot be ignored.
How are there people on this board who don’t believe in global warming… thank god I live in a country where they actually teach you global warming as fact (and pretty much everyone believes in it.. even if they aren’t willing to do anything about it). There are unanswered questions about global warming… such as how it’ll all pan out but the fact it is occurring because of human activity not the natural shifts IS undeniable and the only scientists arguing against it are employed by the oil companies
LOL, what the bloody hell! It’s a sad world when a video about protecting the environment and the future is treated like a sex ed video in schools. It’s just too silly to even think about. They sure these so called parents of this kid isn’t really Bush or Bush representatives in discise, lol.
The world isn’t going to hell cuz of God’s “divine plan”, it’s cuz we’ve fucked the world up too much over the years and now it’s pist off. People need to grow up and quit misunderstanding there own religion’s so much. Not that it matters now anyway. I think thanks to good ol’ Buch ignoring the warnings long ago due to his selfish religions beleafes, that it’s probly too late now to turn back time, that we’re already doomed.
It’s starting out small now, but things are going to of changed dramaticly by 2010 and on up. But I do hope that global warming is all just speculation. But what if it’s not and we continue to think it is just slly now, only to find out we were dreadfully wrong in the future. Money plays a big part in this too. People whrather be rich living in hell on earth then poor on a thriving planet. I could go on and on, but anyway… :p
World gone Mad!
I’m currently listening to Bruxys teachings on Organic Life. You should let him comment on this on the Audio Edition. http://www.themeetinghouse.ca/bank/mh/sermon/2006-05-21-497-sermon.mp3
I agree with many of the comments. Like most arguments, there is a middle ground with truths on both poles. The heart of this matter is seeing both sides of an argument. Maybe the teacher has a passion for the environment. In that case, fine, show the film, share your passion, but also have the backbone to show the other side. And then have the maturity to discuss both sides. Aside from learning about global warming and it’s supporters and detractors, these kids would also be learning how to have a mature, open, informative discussion without being a jackass. Isn’t that what education truly is – seeing both sides?
@R.Jackson
“It’s not ‘a few decades worth of information.’ It’s literally millions of years worth of information from ice cores taken at both poles of the planet.”
Yes, the information you refer to represents that long a duration of time (at least, to my understanding). And yes, it’s taken at both poles of the planet.
However, the margin of error often reported for that duration a time is not as specific as what’s being used now. Today, we’re panicking over much smaller changes in temperature than what has been considered even measurable from millions of years ago.
@Darren
What?!? Replace the swords and dragons in Eragon with lightsabers and X-Wings, and you still don’t have anything NEARLY as good as Star Wars! ;)
@JOHN REED
Yes, TODAY there was something in a blog at dailytech.com that says “scientists” are disgusted with the talk of Global Warming. Then it goes on to plug two anti-Global Warming books. And this is supposed to carry more weight than things like this:
http://tinyurl.com/2c3zyc
‘The really chilling thing about the IPCC report is that it is the work of several thousand climate experts who have widely differing views about how greenhouse gases will have their effect. Some think they will have a major impact, others a lesser role. Each paragraph of this report was therefore argued over and scrutinised intensely. Only points that were considered indisputable survived this process. This is a very conservative document.’
my bad about the double post
yea john….the media loves bad news. they like to keep us scared, for some reason.
peace….
http://www.dailytech.com/Bad+News+for+Global+Warming+Alarmists/article5914.htm
This article was on google news TODAY.
In a nutshell, it says that recent scientific advances are debunking the global warming theory, and the media does not like it. Good news does not sell as well as pending disastors.
hey jagmir
do you people even read what im saying, i wasn’t saying that the scientific research was fact. i was commenting on what he ssaid in the film, he said it was scientific research and i presented it like that. didn’t say the research was fact or even if there was research in the first place. he presented the ideas as if they were based on scientific research and thats what i said. im trying to be neutral about the film, presenting the information as it was in the film. didn’t say it was true or false.
also i “brought” politics into this in response to mr. stay puff saying that the film shouldn’t be shown because al gore talks bad about the republicans. wtf are you talking about. i didn’t support gore one time or even supported him. jagmir get a fuckin life. you are the one getting all political and attacking al gore. who the fuck are you anyway. guys like you and brian see my tagname and think im some kind of idiot.
take your head out your ass and fuckin read before you start telling people to drop crack pipes. and where the fuck did you get crack pipe and me not showering. fuckin idiots go back to aicn, the grownups are talking.
its always the assholes or idiots who start personally attacking people in discussions. calm down.
hey jagmir
do you people even read what im saying, i wasn’t saying that the scientific research was fact. i was commenting on what he ssaid in the film, he said it was scientific research and i presented it like that. didn’t say the research was fact or even if there was research in the first place. he presented the ideas as if they were based on scientific research and thats what i said. im trying to be neutral about the film, presenting the information as it was in the film. didn’t say it was true or false.
also i “brought” politics into this in response to mr. stay puff saying that the film shouldn’t be shown because al gore talks bad about the republicans. wtf are you talking about. i didn’t support gore one time or even supported him. jagmir get a fuckin life. you are the one getting all political and attacking al gore. who the fuck are you anyway. guys like you and brian see my tagname and think im some kind of idiot.
take your head out your ass and fuckin read before you start telling people to drop crack pipes. and where the fuck did you get crack pipe and me not showering. fuckin idiots go back to aicn, the grownups are talking.
its always the assholes or idiots who start personally attacking people in discussions. calm down.
Hey Ghost_smoker,
“Al Gore has an opinion based on scientific research….”?? can you really be so nieve? Or are you on crack?
You seem to bring republicans v. democrats (politics) into this and its interesting that you should do this. Al Gore’s implication here is that Republicans somehow are either 1)responsible 2)indifferent and/or 3)evil doers when it comes to global warming.
I find it funny that after poor Al loses a razor thin pres. election, then gains extraordinary weight, loses his temper daily, and rants about his ‘DOOMSDAY’ message at anyone who will listen. Hilarious.
So, drop the crack pipe, take a shower, and get a life. No really, I’m serious.
And FYI, I actually do know more than Sharon about this.
lol i didn’t say christians…damn i said EXTREME religious zealots if that means christian to you then you my friend need to hop off that high horse of yours and get an education. you didn’t even read my post did u? you just saw what you wanted to see and thats the problem…moron
they indeed have the right to not let their kids watch this film, but to write an angry letter and get all angry over something is stupid. if you don’t want your kid watch then don’t.
Ghost Smoker, if you’re going to bring into the equation the evil Westboro Baptist “God Hates Fags” church and suggest that all Christians condone it, I highly suggest you stop doing illegal drugs and possibly get an education. That’s just unbeleivably stupid.
So, back to the debate at hand.
Parents have a right to protect their children from whatever they want. If they don’t beleive that global warming exists(though it obviously does), then they don’t have to let their kids watch the movie. Same if it’s because it doesn’t show the whole picture, which you’ll probably never get in today’s media.
I personally think that Global Warming Exists, but isn’t nearly as bad as people say. Of course, that could change in the future.
for the religious zealots (EXTREMELY religious), harry potter is bad, inconvient truth bad, but going to the funeral of a dead gay boy with signs that say “GOD Hate fags) thats just fine….idiots
This movie is about as important as that other global warming movie – Waterworld.
people are funny…..mr. stay puff for you to say that because al gore has an opinion that he based on scientific research and doesn’t agree with the politics of republicans, it shouldn’t be presented in schools. i hope you know that teachers are human and humans tend to have opinions. just like you. the site you posted is no more or no less an opinion then an inconvenient truth.
the movie doesn’t force anyone to beleive a certain thing, if anything it willl spur debate like this post. to get something banned because you personally don’t agree with it is stupid. like the altheist who don’t want to say god in the pledge. its not telling you to praise god. this country is insane sometimes.
for those who are attacking sharon, hop off your high horse, dont act like you know more than the story than she does. she saw the story and posted her thoughts. with all due respect they are opposing views.
I’m currently working to keep this film from being shown in my daughter’s 7th grade classroom. Set aside for a moment that various part of this film are one-sided, misleading, exaggerated, speculative and wrong and that the film presents promotes theory as fact. Gore makes political attacks on President Bush and the Republican party (I assume you don’t condone attacks on religious or racial groups), which should eliminate it from classroom usage. Teachers are not hired to preach from a soapbox.
Gore is dangerous because he shifts attention from environmental issues which can be improved.
Read this: http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
I’m a long time reader and occasional commenter, so I hope you’ll permit a topical plug. If not, just delete this badboy.
I work with the folks at http://www.desmogblog.com, where we’re “clearing the PR pollution that clouds climate change”. We’ve definitely got a point of view, but we’re keen to separate the massive PR war from the actual scientific consensus.
Regardless of which side of the climate change debate you’re on, if you’re interested in the topic, you’ll probably find some compelling stuff on this site.
Thanks for listening, you may now return to your regular programming.
‘Eragon’ is just ‘Star Wars’ with swords and dragons instead of lightsabers and X-wings. Discuss.
@ERIK
It’s not “a few decades worth of information.” It’s literally millions of years worth of information from ice cores taken at both poles of the planet.
I find Global Warming to be a huge concern, personally. But I’m shocked at the irony of Al Gore spending the better part of the movie traveling from place to place in cars and airplanes to give his speeches, with complete disregard to the amount of carbon he’s using to tell his story.
And it’s not just him. The same thing goes for magazines like Outside, which tend to print articles and advertisements that lean on the side of environmentalism, yet devote 10 or more pages per issue (and sometimes entire issues) on places all over the world that you need to see before global warming eats them all up. Sure burns a lot of fuel getting to Napal these days, I’ll tell you.
That said, it’s a great film, and makes great points, and I think everyone should see it.
Good call on some of the above commentors ont he fear mongering media. The news channels LOVE to give huge air time to anything that might even be slightly menacing (broken escalators, killer bees, lead in bubble gum, etc. etc.) It’s a daily grind on the local news stations “Tonight at 10 o’clock news: Why your kids might not be safe using revolving doors.”
This is the same mentality they use regarding Global Warming. They love to scare us with this crap. The world is coming to an end unless you stop driving your car and blah blah blah. Now, they MAY be right. That’s not the point. The point is, the entertainment industry and the media just loves to propogate it as fact without even looking at alternative ideas.
enough of this shit, I’m going to watch “Little Children.” See ya.
This is from the same person who used the word “like” about 35 times in less than three minutes in her review of “Idiocracy.”
Having said that, I agree it’s an educational film that a teacher should be able to show his/her students. Admittedly I have not seen the film, but I know there are many opposing viewpoints AND scientific evidence to back up what is causing global warming may not be human intervention. As long as all theories and postulates are put forth, I see no problem in educating kids about global issues such as this.
If it can be done better by Al Gore than Mr. Science Teacher, so be it. But again, it should be taught that this is one person’s (or group’s) viewpoint, and there are others. Just like the debate between evolution and intelligent design. Both theories should be put forth and let kids make up their own mind.
Sharon, I think it is so myopic of you to slap us with “Oh, it never used to snow in Canada…but now it does….it must be all the Global Warming….” (insert finger in mouth…barf)
I’ve thought of a few things to write…but let me summarize it as follows:
A large majority of licensed meteorologists refute the ‘global warming’ as being man-made and some refute that it exists altogether.
These few ‘climatologists’ that get airtime do so because they have the alarmist media is willing to stick a microphone in their face.
I am just beside myself when I hear folks like you guys wield this “global warming” nonsense like it was fact. The fact is, the SLIGHT average temperature increase (data suggests somewhere between 0.5-1.0 degrees Celcius) is likely due to a natural fluctuation of the earth’s average temp. There is actually very little to no data that implicates man-made carbon emissions as the culprit of that slight increase. Furthermore, water vapor (you know, the one responsible for snow, rain, hurricanes, etc.) has approximately 3-4 times the heat capacity as carbon dioxide, but the mdeia can’t sell that b/c it doesn’t sound menacing enough. Having 3-4 times the heat capacity means that it can hold more heat, hence, affect temperatures more than carbon dioxide.
There is so much more data and facts that contradict this media frenzy, but as always, when it involves a lack of understanding of the science, the American public turns into gullible sheep and take the alarmist point of view. Hey Sharon, how long have you lived 50 years? 500 years? 50,000 years? I’ve got news for you sunshine: you’re not even a speck on the earth’s lifespan. i.e., a mere 20 years is nothing.
Our estimations for the earth’s avg temperature 500 years ago has a freaking standard error greater than 1 degrees Celsius! Analyze that.
Al Gore is an opportunist and a fool. He may scare the masses, but I just nod my head at him. This “global warming” nonsense has been around for over 20 years, why didn’t he bother with it when he was VP?
Too inconvienient?
I find it sad that the people in the comments above are attacking what they believe to be knee-jerk reactions with what seem to be more knee-jerk reactions.
And I’ll give Al Gore the benefit of the doubt — regardless of politics, I believe that Al Gore believes in the content of the film.
In the interests of showing both sides of the theory, you had asked about the opposing argument to global warming. While I’m a little discouraged at the response of the parents, I DO agree with the fact that schools should show all sides of a theory, not just the most popular side.
Without getting into too much detail, the opposing argument is basically that the vast majority of the global warming issue is being promulgated by a news media industry and an entertainment industry (primarily the former) that thrives on creating an alarmist environment.
That side of the argument reminds that “numbers can be used to prove anything,” as often seen in political polls, and that the abstracts or summaries of many scientific reports that are written as to support the possibility of the global warming theory (allegedly in order to appease their financiers) aren’t always consistent with the data that’s actually in the reports — data that suggests that we don’t really have a clue as to what’s going on.
The general theory seems to be this:
1. We’re trying to find relevance in a few decades worth of information to apply to an environment that’s been around for a few billion years (in other words, comparing one decade to up to a billion decades of no recorded data).
2. We’re trying to make changes (in fixing global warming) that presume we know what effects those changes will have — something that’s proven absolutely disastrous in the past.
3. Much of the theories supporting global warming are suggested by those who are “seeing what they want to see.” People want to see disaster, so all of the data corroborates as such.
4. The situation we’re seeing (some areas getting warmer, some areas getting colder) could just be part of the normal cycle of the planet, as seen in the past.
Sadly, the worst part of this whole thing is that too many people are dismissing the opposite side’s arguments entirely without looking at them at all. People should look at the arguments both for and against global warming, and they should come to their own educated conclusions.
For those who are at least curious about the “misrepresentation” theory, check out some of the essays on author Michael Crichton’s website, and read his novel “State of Fear.” Frankly, it wasn’t the best novel in the world, but it presents an interesting take on the role of the media and special interest groups that should at least be CONSIDERED, if not believed. At the very least, check out some of the essays at the back of the novel, even if you only do so in the aisle at the bookstore. Check out the one about Yellowstone National Park and the one about the push by the media for selective breeding a while back (and then, to be fair, go do your own research on it).
“This is happening and anyone who doesn’t want to acknowledge it is being completely obtuse.”
You’re absolutely correct. In addition, those who presume to understand WHY this is happening, especially those whose scientific information is gathered primarily from the news media, is also being obtuse (come on you techies out there, don’t tell me you don’t cringe when the media gets computer information wrong — do you honestly assume they more consistently get it right for all the other categories?).
“An Inconvenient Truth is a good film, it is educational and it belongs in schools, lucky for us they are actually getting funding to put it into schools.”
Another statement I agree with completely — that it’s lucky for us that they’re actually getting funding to put it into schools (I haven’t yet seen the film, so I can’t attest to its quality or educational value). And a wonderful side effect of this film will (hopefully) be that kids will grow up to be better stewards of our planet, its life, and its resources.
What’s unlucky is that schools often aren’t getting the funding (or even attempting to get the funding) to show balanced sides of theories such as this.
(Also, for those reading this, please don’t assume that just because I’m presenting an opinion contrary to the popular opinion, the one most of you probably believe, that I necessarily subscribe to that other opinion. My intention here is just to get so many people with knee-jerk reactions on both sides of the fence to actually consider the source of the information they base their opinions on and to form opinions based on as much information as possible, from both sides of the fence.)
Parents have a right to determine what kind of education their children receive.
With all due respect, Sharon, there are opposing views.
More than a few people have commented that the movie is in many ways a “campaign film,” one that parents who don’t want politicized films in there schools might like to avoid. And further, while I do believe that global climate change is happening, we’re talking about a difference of a few degrees on average over the course of decades — monumental as the consequences might be — the idea that global warming is happening because you have personally observed strange weather phenomena is so laughable and contra hard science I don’t know where to begin. But I guess that makes me obtuse.
In sum, write about movies or please go back to Canada.
There is absolutely no question that global climate change is happening.
The question that remains unanswered is what is causing it.
The fact that you don’t even know what the other argument is shows how little you know about the subject.
Americans, they can be so nutty sometimes