Gore's Inconvenient Truth required classroom viewing?

[Voegelin]

By Kevin Libin, National Post

First it was his world history class. Then he saw it in his economics class. And his world issues class. And his environment class. In total, 18-year-old McKenzie, a Northern Ontario high schooler, says he has had the film An Inconvenient Truth shown to him by four different teachers this year.

"I really don't understand why they keep showing it," says McKenzie (his parents asked that his last name not be used). "I've spoken to the principal about it, and he said that teachers are instructed to present it as a debate. But every time we've seen it, well, one teacher said this is basically a two-sided debate, but this movie really gives you the best idea of what's going on." . . .

Even scientists who back Mr. Gore's message admit they're uncomfortable with liberties the politician takes with "science" in the film. But, McKenzie says most of his classmates are credulous . . .

In England, the government has made the movie part of the public curriculum. In Spain, the government is buying copies of the movie for all of its schools. In Australia, private donors are buying copies for schools . . .

Politicians and educators may accept on their face filmed warnings of a world tumbling toward catastrophe if we don't dramatically cut back on our greenhouse gas emissions. But some of Mr. Gore's allies have acknowledged glaring inaccuracies in the film . . .


http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=27a24986-008e-4a55-a18c-fb3fb7acf0e9&k=0

They know and acknowledge the film is inaccurate but are continuing to promote it to school kids.

Why?

 

[ContentInHim]

Got me. I have no idea except there might be the idea that the publicity will goad Gore into running for president - but why would Canada care except that they hate the Republicans like the Democrats do.

 

[GraceLikeRainFallsDown]

I do not know why either. I do know that my daughter was being taught only one side of the global warming issues in elementary school. All she learned in school was that man has ruined the earth.

There was no discussion that many of the theories are debated in the scientific community. When she came home I had to show her article stating the other side of the story.

She went to school the next day and when it came up again she raised her hand. She told the teacher that some of the things they were telling them were under debate by the scientific community. She mentioned some items specifically. The teacher just said that is one opinion and then moved on to the "man is bad" theory again.

I do not understand why they are not willing to present all the information in classrooms. Why are they afraid to present all sides?

 

[woman.at.the.well]

By Kevin Libin, National Post


They know and acknowledge the film is inaccurate but are continuing to promote it to school kids.

Why?

Don't get me started Voegelin. Just don't . . .

Got me. I have no idea except there might be the idea that the publicity will goad Gore into running for president - but why would Canada care except that they hate the Republicans like the Democrats do.

I do not know why either. I do know that my daughter was being taught only one side of the global warming issues in elementary school. All she learned in school was that man has ruined the earth.

There was no discussion that many of the theories are debated in the scientific community. When she came home I had to show her article stating the other side of the story.

She went to school the next day and when it came up again she raised her hand. She told the teacher that some of the things they were telling them were under debate by the scientific community. She mentioned some items specifically. The teacher just said that is one opinion and then moved on to the "man is bad" theory again.

I do not understand why they are not willing to present all the information in classrooms. Why are they afraid to present all sides?

The answer to your last question was in the question . . . fear.

 

[Voegelin]

Don't get me started Voegelin. Just don't . . .

So, the movie getting good reviews from the eduational establishment in your neck of the woods?

 

[dcyates]

Got me. I have no idea except there might be the idea that the publicity will goad Gore into running for president - but why would Canada care except that they hate the Republicans like the Democrats do.

I assure you, not all Canadians hate Republicans. The editorial board of the daily national newspaper that Voegelin was citing in the OP, The National Post, is predominantly right-of-centre and conservative-friendly. (It used to be owned by Conrad Black.)

 

[woman.at.the.well]

So, the movie getting good reviews from the eduational establishment in your neck of the woods?

So far our ed est. seems to be out of that loop

I assure you, not all Canadians hate Republicans. The editorial board of the daily national newspaper that Voegelin was citing in the OP, The National Post, is predominantly right-of-centre and conservative-friendly. (It used to be owned by Conrad Black.)

I sure am glad to hear that dcyates! Thank you for letting us know.

 

[Gwenyfur]

It's not that far outa the loop. One of my neighbor's kids was shown the film twice in as many weeks in school...mind you he's in 2nd grade!

Thank G-d He's provided for Bug to be in a private christian school, free from the "man is bad" teaching of the secular world.

we haven't even bothered to watch it

 

[dcyates]

It's not that far outa the loop. One of my neighbor's kids was shown the film twice in as many weeks in school...mind you he's in 2nd grade!

Thank G-d He's provided for Bug to be in a private christian school, free from the "man is bad" teaching of the secular world.

we haven't even bothered to watch it

I used to say that you couldn't pay me to watch Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," but after being challenged to watch it for the umpteenth time I finally gave in. (But at least I didn't pay to see it.)

Even aside from the scientific inaccuracies--some of them laughably so--I had no idea it was also going to be such an egregious exercise in narcissism. I knew Gore was a self-important jerk with a messiah-complex but I really had no idea it was to such an extent before viewing this movie. After each 10 or so minute segment where Al actually addresses the so-called "climate crisis" the movie breaks off into a series of vignettes lasting about 5 or so minutes where we're treated to some aspect or another of Al Gore's life--several of which have little or nothing to do with the climate at all! All told, considering the movie is about an hour and forty minutes long, about a full third of the film is all about Al.

 

[FallingWaters]

My 13 year old saw it this year.
I found out when he asked me this question:
"Mom, what sea level are we at?"
As I asked him questions about why he wanted to know, I found out about the film.
The film made him worry about the sea level rising and his secure home being washed away.

I had difficulty settling his heart and mind until I reminded him that NOTHING will happen to this earth that God doesn't want to.
That reminder made my 17 year old feel better, too.

After the film, came the homework assignments.
My son dragged his feet and I ended up having to help him with his research on the internet.
After I while, even I became paranoid with all the fear-mongering statistics.

I tried to find the opinions of Christian scientists, and even they agreed that the earth is getting warmer, and that there is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

The difference was that they didn't pretend to know what was causing it,
and they did not seem to think that it was necessarily man-made carbon dioxide.

Interestingly, there are a couple of scientists in northern Europe who have been studying sun spots who think they possibly have found a correlation with sun spot activity over the last 1000 years, and increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

I think the worst outcome of this movie is to scare governments into placing expensive restrictions on businesses which in the end will have no impact, if what we're seeing is indeed not a man-made problem.

I also read one scientist who said that if today we stopped ALL man-made carbon dioxide output, it would take 100 years to see a difference.

I think that fact alone demands that we use some responsibility to determine the cause and not go rushing headlong into things.

I'm sure someone will ask me for some resources.
Hopefully, I kept the links.
I will get them for you.

 

[FallingWaters]

I couldn't find the article with the 2 scientists studying sun activity.
Sorry.


Human-Caused Global Warming Slight So Far
Technical article
by Michael Oard
September 20, 2006

Climate chaos? Don't believe it
By Christopher Monckton,
Sunday Telegraph
telegraph.co.uk
Last Updated: 05/11/2006

The Harvard University Gazette
Brightening Sun is Warming Earth
May account for major part of global warming
By William J. Cromie

Sunspots reaching 1,000-year high
By Dr David Whitehouse
BBC News Online science editor

 

[dcyates]

My 13 year old saw it this year.
I found out when he asked me this question:
"Mom, what sea level are we at?"
As I asked him questions about why he wanted to know, I found out about the film.
The film made him worry about the sea level rising and his secure home being washed away.

I had difficulty settling his heart and mind until I reminded him that NOTHING will happen to this earth that God doesn't want to.
That reminder made my 17 year old feel better, too.

After the film, came the homework assignments.
My son dragged his feet and I ended up having to help him with his research on the internet.
After I while, even I became paranoid with all the fear-mongering statistics.

I tried to find the opinions of Christian scientists, and even they agreed that the earth is getting warmer, and that there is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

The difference was that they didn't pretend to know what was causing it,
and they did not seem to think that it was necessarily man-made carbon dioxide.

Yes. And they would have us believe that carbon dioxide is some sort of toxic pollutant! I seriously can't count the number of people who, when I tell them that CO2 is harmless, counter with, "Oh yeah? Well turn on your car with the garage door down and see how harmless it is." When I point out that that's carbon MONOxide, not carbon DIoxide, the stunned looks on their faces speak volumes. (There have been times when it was a struggle on my part to stifle a laugh.)

Interestingly, there are a couple of scientists in northern Europe who have been studying sun spots who think they possibly have found a correlation with sun spot activity over the last 1000 years, and increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Exactly! How many times have we heard in the media that the polar ice caps on Mars are also melting? That all the planets in our solar system also show signs of getting warmer? That our sun is burning hotter now than it has in the past 1,600 years?

I think the worst outcome of this movie is to scare governments into placing expensive restrictions on businesses which in the end will have no impact, if what we're seeing is indeed not a man-made problem.

This is indeed a huge concern. When it comes right down to it, these radical environmentalists are not as much anti-pollution as they are anti-technology, anti-industry, anti-progress and anti-people, period.
In a recent issue of the radical-lefty magazine "Adbusters" there's a caption reading that humans have spent 30,000 generations close to the soil and living with nature, that we're not meant to live in cities and generally advising their readers that we all need to get back to living with bare feet in the grass amongst all the pretty flowers. Obviously these are people who live in cities with all the comforts doing so provides and have not really experienced what it's actually like to live in a 'natural state'. There's a reason people throughout history have gradually become more and more urbanized. Nature is NOT friendly to us; it is positively full of all sorts of creatures, bugs and plants that in one way or another want to eat us. At the very least nature is terribly itchy!
Maurice Strong, the Canadian millionaire (kind of like Canada's answer to George Soros) and chief-architect of the Kyoto Protocol, is quoted as saying that his dream would be fulfilled if the population of the Earth were to be reduced to about 100 million people. Himself being among that population of 100 million, I presume.

I also read one scientist who said that if today we stopped ALL man-made carbon dioxide output, it would take 100 years to see a difference.

It's exactly the all-too short collective memory of the general public that these scare-mongers are counting on. Heck, it was only around 30 years ago that these people--and in several instances, the exact same people--were telling us that unless we took action "NOW!" we were all going to be devastated by global cooling. My goodness, as late as 1992 Gregg Easterbrook wrote: "The advent of a new ice age, scientists say, appears to be guaranteed. The devastation will be astonishing" ("Return of the Glaciers," Newsweek, Nov. 23, 1992). And these same people were also claiming the authority of "scientific consensus" then, too.

I think that fact alone demands that we use some responsibility to determine the cause and not go rushing headlong into things.

I'm sure someone will ask me for some resources.
Hopefully, I kept the links.
I will get them for you.

Even if you didn't keep the links, I wouldn't worry too much about it; environmental extremists have taken on the worst aspects of a religion in that it doesn't matter what facts they're presented with, their minds are made up and simply will not be changed.

 

[Ringo84]

I'm sure that some people will pull out the "indoctrination" card, since they claim that the facts found in "Inconvenient Truth" have been disproven, but I beg to differ.

I haven't actually seen the movie, and I don't claim to be any authority on climatology at all. My major is IT-Computer programming. I do know, however, that this isn't indoctrination.

Even if the facts in "Inconvenient Truth" are eventually shown to be completely false, I don't think it's a bad idea at all to at least show the movie in a classroom.

Whether or not the data is accurate, this film is educational because it provokes thought (critical thinking) and debate. The class can watch the movie and then decide for themselves whether they believe it or not. That's what education is all about: critical thinking that leads one to form their own beliefs.

I remember learning about an 18th century (I think) scientific theory that maggots were spontaneously created from rotten meat. Then my class learned that the theory was wrong, and we were taught about the experiment that disproved it. By presenting facts that way, our teacher showed us the way scientific thinking had progressed and why it was wrong.

Not everything in a classroom must be taught as absolute fact. Education isn't about indoctrination or shielding kids from untrue facts. That's not critical thinking. Go ahead and show the film in classrooms.
Ringo

 

[FallingWaters]

I'm sure that some people will pull out the "indoctrination" card, since they claim that the facts found in "Inconvenient Truth" have been disproven, but I beg to differ.

I haven't actually seen the movie, and I don't claim to be any authority on climatology at all. My major is IT-Computer programming. I do know, however, that this isn't indoctrination.

Even if the facts in "Inconvenient Truth" are eventually shown to be completely false, I don't think it's a bad idea at all to at least show the movie in a classroom.

Whether or not the data is accurate, this film is educational because it provokes thought (critical thinking) and debate. The class can watch the movie and then decide for themselves whether they believe it or not. That's what education is all about: critical thinking that leads one to form their own beliefs.

I remember learning about an 18th century (I think) scientific theory that maggots were spontaneously created from rotten meat. Then my class learned that the theory was wrong, and we were taught about the experiment that disproved it. By presenting facts that way, our teacher showed us the way scientific thinking had progressed and why it was wrong.

Not everything in a classroom must be taught as absolute fact. Education isn't about indoctrination or shielding kids from untrue facts. That's not critical thinking. Go ahead and show the film in classrooms.
Ringo

I agree with your assertion that learning to think critically for yourself is important,
but did you not read the personal experience of one poster who said that
other points of view were squelched in the classroom?
That is not a healthy debate.

Additionally, I am not a child psychologist,
but I have raised 3 children
and I happen to know that the synapses of their brains are not fully connected enough
to let them cross a road by themselves until they are about 8 years old.
Who knows how much longer it takes before they are physically capable of critical thinking.
They have to be around 11 or 12 before a parent can reason with their child.

Anyway, I'm just saying,
in a perfect world I agree with you,
but I think some people, in their zeal,
are taking advantage of their captive audience.

My 13 year old child was frightened by the movie,
and I had to reassure him that our home is not
going to get washed away by rising sea levels.

 

[Hunterkirk]

Yet another example of using the public school system to force a political goal upon the people. I am really sick of people thinking the schools are a political tool to alter society in a direction of their chooseing.

 

[Kristos]

I haven't seen this film - maybe I should.

You are mistaken if you think that that the scientific community is still debating this issue of Global Warming and it's cause. It's not. Global Warming is REAL and WE are the cause.

I wouldn't go to a religous website to get factual data about science.

From "Over the Hedge"
- Humans are slowing losing their ability to walk, so they drive SUVs everywhere.
- Wow! That is huge. Many fit in one?
- Usually, just one.

 

[FallingWaters]

You are mistaken if you think that that the scientific community is still debating this issue of Global Warming and it's cause. It's not. Global Warming is REAL and WE are the cause.

I realize they are not debating the issue anymore.
I realize they think they know the cause.
I believe they are wrong about the cause- AND
wrong about the cure.

I despise "cures" that do not address the harm at all,
and end up causing more harm than good.

 

[Kristos]

I realize they are not debating the issue anymore.
I realize they think they know the cause.
I believe they are wrong about the cause- AND
wrong about the cure.

I despise "cures" that do not address the harm at all,
and end up causing more harm than good.

Actaully, no. If you get your information from a purely academic source - not from a website with an agenda you will see that the scientic community is in agreement that greenhouse gasses are contributing to global warming.

Facts:

• Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.
• The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.
• A warming trend of about 0.7 to 1.5°F occurred during the 20th century. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans (NRC, 2001).
• The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.
• Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet.

 

[Kristos]

I realize they are not debating the issue anymore.
I realize they think they know the cause.
I believe they are wrong about the cause- AND
wrong about the cure.

I despise "cures" that do not address the harm at all,
and end up causing more harm than good.

Why does the cure cause more harm than good?

Driving less is bad? Because...?

Saving energy is bad? Because...?

Regardless, being good stewards of the planet that has been given to our care, we would, of course, embrace conservation. No?

 

[Servant222]

Got me. I have no idea except there might be the idea that the publicity will goad Gore into running for president - but why would Canada care except that they hate the Republicans like the Democrats do.

Oversimplification- after all, Canadians did elect a Conservative Party government which is the equivalent of a low "r" Republican and seems to be doing a pretty good job.