An Inconvenient Truth can still be shown in schools, but only on the condition that teachers make sure the students are aware that it does contain several misleading statements and inaccurate facts. That's a polite way of saying glaring omissions and lies.
I was so irritated while watching that film, because it was clear to me that Al Gore was speaking untruths for so much of the time. Without dealing with the value of his overall case, I was particularly irritated by the assertion that polar bears were drowning thanks to man made global warning. They're not - Polar Bear populations, according to the Polar Bear conservation charity website I looked at, are generally on the rise - and their greatest threat comes from unlawful hunting. The site made no mention of them drowning due to global warming.
There were at least 9 points in that film that had me screaming at my TV set and the miniature version of Mr Gore that it was displaying. Probably more. It's nice to see this recognised by the courts.
BTW, I'd rather this topic didn't turn into a heated (if you'll forgive the unintended pun) debate over the various for and against arguments about MMGW. It's simply the veracity and reliability of Al Gore's movie that I'm starting this thread about...
I agree with your assessment of the film, its factual inaccuracies and the way Gore exaggerated the issue.
He not only made me squirm - he made me cross.
But it is typical of the misrepresentation that the green activists employ.
This film certainly should not be used as propaganda to mislead children.
I believe the government has commanded that it must be shown in all schools.
I'm not sure that the Courts conditions are enough - The way these constraints will be presented to the children, will depend on the individual teachers personal view and bias.
I would like to see the ruling challenged.
The whole tenor of the film presented as fact, is designed to provoke an emotional response - Not a good way to get Kids to form a balanced judgement.
It worries me that on the basis of this sort of science and scaremongering, governments are making major decisions that affect us all.
If you want a clear picture of the case this link link sets out NZCPR News24Seven.tv report and is a pretty good overview of the case.
Suggest this link to wikipedia's summary of the work of Bjorn Lomborg will give another side of the global warming argument.
Perhaps Bjorns careful assessment should be taught in schools.
I very much agree with Peter Ainsworth's comment (in the media) that:
"Instead of grabbing the first thing they could think of and then shooting it out to schools, the Government should put together a proper, up to-date, education pack about climate change - based on current evidence."
If they don't want to leave it to schools to deal with I think that's quite right. I think it would also be useful if children could at the same time be taught to debate the issues and think for themselves based on real evidence not appeals to emotion (as per "Inconvenient Truth" or from the other side Ch4's "Great Global Warming Swindle"). I think both sides of the debate should encourage that because teaching our kids to respond to emotional manipulation through use of films like these will not help them or anyone when they grow up to be the policy makers of tomorrow.
Before even giving the evidence we need to know what research has actually been done on quantifying the natural sources of co2 equivalent gasses and the neutralising sinks. Any data I have managed to trace only refers to the natural net levels of CO2 which is not valid to compare with the CO2 equivalent derived from the use of fossil fuel which is a gross figure.
I would be glad if anyone can point me to as many references to data collection projects on natural CO2 equivalent sources and sinks as they can find.
Supporters of the eco policies will say it is not relevant but that is precisely why the current ideas are mistaken even if they are supported by 100% of scientists. Till last year they were ridiculing the amateur who said the cloud formations could predict earthquakes even though the Romans knew that it was true. The scientists are ridiculing the idea that the same underground activities are affecting cloud formation and causing climate change in favour of CO2 obsessions for exactly the same reasons. How long will it take for them to at least look elsewhere as long as this CO2 mindset persists?
Surely the point here is - that the government is ordering, highly emotive, inaccurate, political, propaganda, is used to brainwash our children.
The constraint, imposed by the court, to provide balance would require an equally emotional, but "accurate", rebuttal of Gore's fiction - I don't think that exists.
Also - I'm sure there are many teachers out there, who are so convinced of the accuracy of Gore's presentation, that they would find it difficult to give a balanced appraisal.
I have a concern that the green advisers (Zac et al) to DC see this brain washing as a good thing - it plays to the drumbeat of policies they are pushing.
Roverdc, kozmicstu started this thread specifically asking that it not be turned into a MMGW vs not debate so I think your comment is slightly misplaced here. But to cover it very briefly as best I can: I think the pro MMGW thinking is that your question is irrelevant because:
a) We know CO2 is increasing. This would suggest that the natural sinks are not coping with the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere wherever it comes from.
b) We know the TYPE of CO2 that is increasing is from fossil fuels. How do we know this? The carbon portion of CO2 can be analyzed for isotopic composition. There are three types of Carbon isotopes: C12, C13 and C14. Plants (and hence fossil fuels since they are derived from plants) have a specific C12/C13 isotope mix in the carbon portion of the CO2 emitted when they are burned. We can show that the type of CO2 that is increasing most rapidly is that containing that specific isotopic mix. Hence it's possible to show that the increase in CO2 is from the burning of plants or fossil fuels derived from them. Natural sources of plant CO2 such as forest fires do not account for the levels of this type of CO2 increase we are seeing. Hence it's not unreasonable to assume the increase of this type of CO2 comes from our use of fossil fuels.
As such I think your argument that we need to be able to measure quantities of natural CO2 being produced is mute since we can measure the plant based CO2 (so it's possible to assume the remainder is what you are after the natural quantities of CO2 not produced from burning plants or fuel). Natural levels of non plant originated CO2 are not increasing (to the best of my knowledge).
That's the way I understand the argument anyway. If I'm wrong I'm sure half a dozen people will step in and correct. Hope that helps and apologies to kozmicstu for covering this here.
I agree with you Glynne. The thing that is wrong whichever side of the argument you believe (GW Or not) is the use of emotional political propaganda in the classroom. In a way it's not too different from the creationism vs ID vs evolution argument. Only one of those is scientific fact - the remainder are religious propaganda. Anything not based on scientific facts does not belong in the classroom. IMO global warming ought only to be taught to the degree where there is scientific certainty. Where there is doubt it should be left for open debate which should be encouraged among our kids.
Far more useful that they be taught in the art of proper debate and be taught to recognize false arguments (i.e. formally taught critical thinking) rather then they be fed propaganda - whether it's well meant or not.
The problem is if we teach them critical thinking they may become rather TOO skeptical of politicians which is probably not seen as a good thing :)
Some questions I posted last night on Lizabeth's thread:
Quote:
Has this film been distributed free of charge to state schools, or all schools?
Does this film form part of the National Curriculum, and in what subjects eg politics, environment, science?
Are there any figures for how many UK adults bought the film, with free will, compared to how many UK children have been required to watch it in schools?
Why has this film been distributed by DEFRA rather than DoE?
Who made the decision that this film was fit to show the 11-14 age group who are less likely to see political motivation rather than 'pure' education?
Also, I've just caught up with last night's Newnight, where Paxman rather puts the boot into a Friends of the Earth rep on this issue.
Tizzy
Trying to check whether it is state schools only as I think it is.
Yes it is free in the sense schools do not pay
Defra because Milliband was in charge at the time and was determined to do this,send to all secondary schools.
My concern has always been the lack of a balanced argument and it is educationally unsound to not give pupils both sides of any argument
I bought a copy,reduced in price, as the take up was less than expected.It came with a choice of 2 wrappings one £10 more than the other was recyclable!!!
Foe invited me to a viewing at £3 or so a ticket.They were in raptures over it and that is why I bought a copy to look and listen again as I had some concerns
Not sure if you know how it came to be shown in Scotland in the first place but I have already posted that information. A wind farm developer in Scotland whom I seem to remember was to pay for all secondary schools in Scotland to have a copy
My concern has always been the lack of a balanced argument and it is educationally unsound to not give pupils both sides of any argument
I agree with that - but the problem is, that the film is not a cool dispassionate laying out of the green position.
It is more an alarmist, almost hysterical, outpouring, purporting to be an accurate assessment of what is happening.
When it has been proven in court that the film is full of inaccuracies.
Obviously the government is trying to brainwash our children into believing the film is portraying the truth.
What is DC & the Tory parties position in this deception.
...the High Court ruled that David Miliband and Alan Johnson had acted unlawfully in distributing the Al Gore film, An Inconvenient Truth to secondary schools in England.
The Court found that the film was misleading in 11 respects and that the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisors served only to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.
In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that 1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3.) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.
In a massive blow to their credibility the Government were also required to delete parts of the Guidance Notes which said that guest speakers could be allowed into school from political organisations such as “local green action groups” to debate how pupils could place pressure on their local politicians.
That's a polite way of saying glaring omissions and lies.
Glynne:
Quote:
it has been proven in court that the film is full of inaccuracies.
I humbly suggest that before we all jump to too many conclusions as to what the judge said and what the court found, we wait until the full details are available.
I still haven't found a full text of the judgement, but the most comprehensive news report I've seen so far is in today's Guardian. This paints a rather different picture of the judge's opinion of the film - whilst he clearly felt that it is alarmist, one-sided and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change, he also apparently said:
Quote:
"the film was "broadly accurate" in its presentation of climate change"
and
Quote:
"many of the claims made by the film were supported by the weight of scientific evidence and he identified four main hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC"
As for the nine errors:
- "there was no evidence of low-lying Pacific islands being evacuated because of sea level rise". Well maybe not, but sea level is rising.
- "there is no evidence of polar bears drowning because of receding sea-ice". Again, maybe not, but there is absolutely no doubt that Arctic sea-ice is receding at an alarming rate, much faster than predicted by the climate models.
- "there is insufficient evidence to ascribe hurricane Katrina to global warming". Of course there isn't, and I didn't draw that inference from the film. I thought Gore used Katrina and Lake Chad as examples of the type of extreme events that are predicted to become more common as GW progresses, rather than explicitly blaming them on GW. But I only saw the film once, quite a while ago, so I might be wrong about that.
- Gore was foolish to use Kilimanjaro as his "poster child", because there are hundreds of pictures of midlatitude glaciers he could have shown where there is absolutely no question that they are declining in response to GW.
- "shutting down the ocean conveyor" and "20 foot sea level rise". As I said on the other thread, at the time AIT was filmed, Gore was pushing his luck on these, but more recent research hints that the IPCC and the judge may yet be wrong. We don't yet understand ice-sheet dynamics well enough to rule out a relatively rapid dumping of a lot of Greenland's ice into the North Atlantic, which, as well as causing a big increase in sea level, could seriously disrupt the ocean circulation.
- "CO2 and temperature graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts". No they don't, but the existence of a lag between CO2 increase and temperature increase (which Gore ignored) does not mean that CO2 cannot drive temperature, as the denialists repeatedly claim.
- "coral reef bleaching not due to GW". According to the Guardian report, what the judge actually said was that "separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing, and pollution, was difficult". Which doesn't let Gore off the hook, but neither does it rule out the possibility that GW has some part to play in coral bleaching.
As ever, the devil is in the detail, but sadly a lot people are just going to see the headlines and conclude, as some here seem to have done, that "Gore's film is just overhyped rubbish" or "it has been proven in court that the film is full of inaccuracies".
sorry provider but i stick by what i said - Al Gore's film contains serious errors in factual detail which are crucial to his argument. Whether or not his overall point is valid is not what's at issue. The problem is that his use of emotive language and his glossing over of serious counter-arguments make his film unsuitable to be shown to naive school children without a disclaimer making clear that his film is politically motivated and only shows one side of an ongoing emotive argument.
For heaven's sake won't you think of the children?!
- "CO2 and temperature graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts". No they don't, but the existence of a lag between CO2 increase and temperature increase (which Gore ignored) does not mean that CO2 cannot drive temperature, as the denialists repeatedly claim.
Surely this is one of the exact reasons we should not be misleading the children of this country.
Gore surely intends to make it seem that temperature is the cause of increased co2 but neither can this be proving from graphs due to the timelags but there must also be a primary reason why temperature increases prior to co2.
as yet this has yet to be investigated in enough detail as there are many theories.
i don't know if anyones seen the graph of temperaturte to co2 (i can't remember the site i got it from but type co2 and temperature into google and its there). Of you lok at the current situation the temperature appears to move in line with prior trends though co2 is through the roof. yet we have not seen the great leap in temperature. interesting!!
surely this is something we should also be teaching our children
- "CO2 and temperature graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts". No they don't, but the existence of a lag between CO2 increase and temperature increase (which Gore ignored) does not mean that CO2 cannot drive temperature, as the denialists repeatedly claim.
But it does mean it is NOT the cause and to even assert that it is contributary means that we should have measured data on all natural causes of CO2 equivalent generation and counteracting factors to prove they are not to blame. That any factor that lags can be even remotely considered to be the cause, has to be rigorously proved or any reasonable unbiased person should be very sceptical of the assertion.
Every time anyone says otherwise drives me further from the sceptical into the outright denialist camp. Providor has given me many references that show a sloppy or outright bigoted pro AGW mentality by the scientists and nothing showing any serious attempt at quantifying natural emissions.
The money currently spent of fatuous computer models would be better spent on getting some information from the real world.
Providor is spot on as usual. The media misrepresentation of the case is as irresponsible as the Channel 4 showing the Great Global Warming Swindle. What have been labelled as errors or inaccuracies are merely unverified implications. Nearly all the media have implied that the film is largely inaccurate - implications which, unlike the film, are quite immoral IMHO.
An Inconvenient Truth remains the most important film of the decade. I suspect that most people in this thread haven't seen it.
Also, is it "propaganda" to teach children to be nice to each other?
DG I have to disagree with your assessment of Gore's overhyped opus.
It could have been "the most important film of the decade" if it had actually stuck to facts and not impulsively overstated the case and sprinkled the narrative with inaccuracies.
The sad thing is he didn't need to.
It would have made a far better impression on me if I could have left feeling less of been sold a pup and been snowballed and more of feeling informed by a balanced and factual argument.
And despite Providor's pleas the damage is immense....
I think it appropriate to quote Pratchett here.. 'A lie gets round the world before truth has had a chance to put it's boots on' (Or words to that effect..from "Truth")
Well so many people so intensely dislike Gore (I am one of them) that the good in his message was damaged by his smarm and has now been destroyed by this Judgement.
No this judgement vindicates the many like me in our discomfort with the man... and he can never get it back even if Burton is overturned on appeal, which I doupt will happen.
But the message should be about the tale and not the teller... the sad thing is the tale has been shown to be flawed and it matters not that it was hyperbole that made it so it is flawed and the whole credibility will not stand up anymore.
That any factor that lags can be even remotely considered to be the cause
Roverdc, if you're going to keep on saying that, can you please give some justification? I have repeatedly said that it is well known and not disputed that CO2 is not the cause of the initial interglacial temperature rise, but that during most of the cycle it is likely that rising CO2 is one of the feedbacks that amplifies the initial (Milankovitch) forcing. This is a sound and well-accepted theory and you have so far simply rubbished it without suggesting a credible alternative. That's just poor debating, and doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.
Quote:
nothing showing any serious attempt at quantifying natural emissions.
Have you read and understood lukas' post above, on isotopic fingerprinting?
Hi All
An aside;
The GW debate starts all over again - and its essentially pointless, because the protagonists are unlikely to agree until long after the time to do something has passed.
So its more important to resolve what we prudently need to do, & why.
To the Question
There are two main issues here;
1/ Is it right to show this highly emotive alarming film to naive children;
Probably inducing horrible anxiety, stress, and despair.
With the aim of turning the children into supporters of Green Activist Political movements.
Quote:
In a massive blow to their credibility the Government were also required to delete parts of the Guidance Notes which said that guest speakers could be allowed into school from political organisations such as “local green action groups” to debate how pupils could place pressure on their local politicians.
Is it right to attempt to condition kids to support draconian government action without criticism.
2/ We have a major problem, Globaly, where the green lobby has raised awareness of the environmental problem - and are now trying to impose solutions.
Those solutions are constrained by the Greens, to only those ideas that they think are acceptable. Whether or not they are workable. The Greens have become part of the problem.
This film is part of that agenda.
Showing this alarmist film to children as if it was absolute fact is I think totally unacceptable.
There are other better ways of introducing the environmental issues the planet is facing to children.
Ways that will help them properly evaluate the issues and make reasonable value judgements about proposed actions.
The problem is that his use of emotive language...
For heaven's sake won't you think of the children?!
Does this make anybody think of pots and black kettles, or is it just me?
No children are going to be harmed by seeing this film, and if it and the other materials in the schools pack are presented by good science teachers in accordance with the guidance notes, they will come away not only with a better understanding of climate change, but also better equipped to view other documentaries on this or any other subject with intelligent scepticism. As a matter of fact, I'm beginning to think that it would be a good idea to include "The Great Global Warming Swindle" in the pack, after it has been subjected to a similar judicial process to expose its almost complete lack of balance and scientific accuracy, and had appropriate guidance notes attached. It would be a good opportunity to teach them how to rationally appraise the evidence and evaluate the validity or otherwise of the conflicting claims. Then let the kids decide who's telling the biggest porkies and which camp best represents their interests.
Incidentally, does anybody know who paid Mr Dimmock's £66,000 share of the legal costs? I hear that when he was asked on Radio 4 who was funding him, he admitted getting backing but refused to say who from. I think it is in the public interest for this information to be revealed.
Have you read and understood lukas' post above, on isotopic fingerprinting?
After starting to read roverdc's latest post I was about to ask the same question but then on finishing realized he's not really interested in the science.
Your idea of showing both IT and TGGWS to kids with proper scientific scrutiny might work... but I just worry about showing anything that's laced with emotion/sentiment and propaganda to convey any subject. The two are interesting documentaries when studying audience manipulation - and could perhaps be useful to 16 year olds and above in that context. I think the assumed mental age of the audience in IT is about 14 though TGGWS seems to be aimed more at male 10 year olds. Personally I think Gore's intent is reasonable (though may be self-promoting as well). Durkin's in TGGWS is simply sensationalist (just like his previous documentaries - I particularly liked the one which he did about boob jobs for women being actually healthier then leaving them as nature intended).
Incidentally anyone interested should search for TGGWS on Australian TV on YouTube - they had a much better screening of it there in that they had a proper debate after showing it and also investigated Durkin's background and interviewed him asking some no holds barred questions which of course he struggled rather feebly to answer (entertainment in itself). Pity our broadcasters lack the same quality in their approach just milking it for it's sensationalism.
There are other better ways of introducing the environmental issues the planet is facing to children.
Ways that will help them properly evaluate the issues and make reasonable value judgements about proposed actions.
There is no need to scare the pants off them.
I fully agree with this. We could use IT to introduce children to the idea of GW but why should we? It's a very poor quality introduction with inaccuracies and a political undertone. Far better to create something of quality based 100% on scientific fact and which stops at the point where there is any doubt - or at least clearly marks that point and from then onwards shows both sides of the argument.
I also don't think it should be presented as a scare either - it should presented as a challenge. i.e. "how can we overcome this challenge" rather then "we're doomed unless we return to the stone age and pay huge taxes now!!!". We need stuff to motivate children - to make them think that they want to grow up and become the scientists that will find the answers. Not that they may as well give up now. From the other perspective we also don't want to tell them there is no problem - as there clearly is.
No children are going to be harmed by seeing this film,
I think you are wrong, the vision the film portrays is one of global disaster - Gore admits that he overplayed and misrepresented the case to emphasise that effect.
Quote:
As a matter of fact, I'm beginning to think that it would be a good idea to include "The Great Global Warming Swindle" in the pack,
I would not support that either - for similar reasons, there are significant errors in this documentary too.
Quote:
It would be a good opportunity to teach them how to rationally appraise the evidence and evaluate the validity or otherwise of the conflicting claims.
This seems to have merit - my concern is that what the children may be judging is the singer not the song.
We certainly are not in a position where the guidance notes can take an unbiased position.
I certainly agree with Lucas's view.
Quote:
but I just worry about showing anything that's laced with emotion/sentiment and propaganda to convey any subject. The two are interesting documentaries when studying audience manipulation - and could perhaps be useful to 16 year olds and above in that context.
But Providor
Quote:
Incidentally, does anybody know who paid Mr Dimmock's £66,000 share of the legal costs? I hear that when he was asked on Radio 4 who was funding him, he admitted getting backing but refused to say who from. I think it is in the public interest for this information to be revealed.
Does it really matter I'm sure many cases brought in Green interests can be shown to have a shadowy backer.
The Judges findings suggest that the case was in the public interest.
Lastly
Providor, I believe that global environmental issues should be taught in schools - we do have a problem.
Scare mongering has gone too far, forced people to take sides, and is not going to help solve the problem.
There is an awful lot of emotion out there - we need to cool it and start working out exactly how we can deal with the problem, both on a global and UK scale.
Current ideas are not showing much promise.
Far better to create something of quality based 100% on scientific fact and which stops at the point where there is any doubt - or at least clearly marks that point and from then onwards shows both sides of the argument.
"That point" would be right at the beginning of the film then. There is no such thing in science as 100% certainty. The science we teach in schools (all science, not just climate change) represents what is currently held to be "true", with the recognition that it's always possible that new discoveries can overturn current thinking. What's more, at school level, all science teaching is of necessity riddled with approximations and simplifications. The skill of science teaching is to give the students the knowledge and confidence to challenge those approximations and simplifications and in so doing begin to learn how science really works.
Quote:
it should presented as a challenge. i.e. "how can we overcome this challenge" rather then "we're doomed unless we return to the stone age and pay huge taxes now!!!"
That challenge is exactly what Gore's film presents. His message is essentially optimistic, and certainly doesn't threaten a "return to the stone age". And nor does any other credible climate change commentator or policy maker. That sort of hyperbole is straight out of the denialist mantra.
"That point" would be right at the beginning of the film then. There is no such thing in science as 100% certainty.
Did I say anything about "certainty" anywhere in my post?
I said: "Far better to create something of quality based 100% on scientific fact" - in other words materials based on aspects of the problem that have been studied, have been peer reviewed and are well understood to accepted degrees of credibility. In other words "polar bears are drowning" is an inappropriate statement and not a fact. Whereas "CO2 levels are rising and may be causing the climate to change" is completely appropriate and is a fact.
Quote:
That challenge is exactly what Gore's film presents. His message is essentially optimistic,
I don't agree with that. His message is essentially optimistic but I didn't find it motivational. More importantly I felt it skimmed the science rather then presented it properly. For that reason alone I feel it's inappropriate in a classroom setting.
Quote:
and certainly doesn't threaten a "return to the stone age".
I said: "I also don't think it should be presented as a scare either - it should presented as a challenge. i.e. "how can we overcome this challenge" rather then "we're doomed unless we return to the stone age and pay huge taxes now!!!".
What I meant was to show the two extremes that could be taken in a presentation about GW - I was not talking about IT in the two examples in this paragraph. IT lies somewhere in the middle of those two extremes. But can be seen as scary if you fall for it's emotional manipulation.
The skill of science teaching is to give the students the knowledge and confidence to challenge those approximations and simplifications and in so doing begin to learn how science really works.
Agree with this.
But this
Quote:
His message is essentially optimistic, and certainly doesn't threaten a "return to the stone age".
I don't think his message is optimistic - its a threat take action - my way - or else,
The threat of the return to the stone age is not out of the film, or from the denialist mantra.
It is an assessment of the most probable result of following the green ideal solution.
This ideal solution simply does not recognise;
The importance of cheap available energy.
The issue of overpopulation.
The need to feed the World
It also excludes the only technology likely to be of real help in the short term!
But this is off subject.
I have just watched the midday news;
Concern about anxiety and loss of hope by school children, while there are several causes climate change is certainly one of the issues.
Teaching climate change on the basis of Gores film will not help.
Our challenge is as Lucas puts it;
Quote:
I also don't think it should be presented as a scare either - it should presented as a challenge. i.e. "how can we overcome this challenge" rather then "we're doomed unless we return to the stone age and pay huge taxes now!!!". We need stuff to motivate children - to make them think that they want to grow up and become the scientists that will find the answers. Not that they may as well give up now. From the other perspective we also don't want to tell them there is no problem - as there clearly is.
I agree with your comment;
Quote:
There is no such thing in science as 100% certainty. The science we teach in schools (all science, not just climate change) represents what is currently held to be "true", with the recognition that it's always possible that new discoveries can overturn current thinking.
We need to (as Lucas puts it) Motivate Children - they need to see the challenge, realise they can, if they work to get the necessary skills, play a part in solving this problem.
We need to recognise as the Judge said.
Quote:
that school children need protecting from political propaganda like Al Gore's creative film making.
We should not be indoctrinating children - we should be educating them - after all they have to solve the problems we leave behind
Warning: long and detailed posting coming up - if you're already losing interest in this thread, move along now.
The truth is beginning to trickle out. We have been misled by some sloppy reporting of what Mr Justice Burton actually said. Here is a flavour: (I'm not sure who all the named people are, but I assume that Mr Downes is the claimant's counsel)
Quote:
"Mr Downes produced a long schedule of such alleged errors or exaggerations and waxed lyrical in that regard. It was obviously helpful for me to look at the film with his critique in hand.
In the event I was persuaded that only some of them were sufficiently persuasive to be relevant for the purposes of his argument, and it was those matters - 9 in all - upon which I invited Mr Chamberlain to concentrate. It was essential to appreciate that the hearing before me did not relate to an analysis of the scientific questions, but to an assessment of whether the 'errors' in question, set out in the context of a political film, informed the argument on ss406 and 407. All these 9 'errors' that I now address are not put in the context of the evidence of Professor Carter and the Claimant's case, but by reference to the IPCC report and the evidence of Dr Stott."
Note that whenever he says "errors" he puts it in quotes. He is not saying that they are errors, he's simply referring to the things that the claimant alleges are errors. Apparently the judge puts quotes around the word "error" 19 times in his judgement.
Note also that he says that "the hearing before me did not relate to an analysis of the scientific questions". In other words he is not even trying to determine whether they were errors or not, merely whether they "informed the argument on sections 406 and 407". He also uses the phrase "errors or departures from the mainstream", so contrary to the reports telling us that the judge found that there were "nine scientific errors", what he actually found was that there were 9 points that might be errors, or where, in the context of s407, differing views should be presented for balance.
And finally note that out of a "long schedule of alleged errors" he only found 9 that were relevant for the purposes of the claimant's argument.
I've also come across some (partial) rebuttals of the judge's findings.
Ice sheet collapse - Burton said:
Quote:
"It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and over, millennia, so that the Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus."
The IPCC does indeed say that melting will happen if GW goes on for millennia, but they also acknowledge that it might happen much faster:
Quote:
...it is currently unknown whether a reduction or failure of this buttressing of relatively limited areas of the ice sheet could actually trigger a widespread discharge of many ice streams and hence a destabilisation of the entire West Antarctic Ice Sheet ... no quantitative information is available from the current generation of ice sheet models as to the likelihood or timing of such an event.
Evacuation of Pacific islands - Burton said:
Quote:
"There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened."
There is - right here. In case you don't have time to wade through the whole script, the key part says:
Quote:
Seeing themselves as climate refuges some Tuvalans are already leaving their islands, moving their communities to higher ground in a new land. ... New Zealand did agree to take 75 Tuvaluans a year as part of its Pacific Access Category
Drowning Polar bears - Burton said:
Quote:
"The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm."
If you read this report of the drownings, you can see that Burton is wrong. The immediate cause of death was the storm, but the only reason they were caught so far offshore in that storm was that, most likely because of global warming, the ice had retreated much further than it used to. So Gore was not wrong to say that the bears drowned because of GW.
Burton criticises Gore's assertion that GW is already causing coral bleaching, saying:
Quote:
"The actual scientific view, as recorded in the IPCC report, is that, if the temperature were to rise by 1-3 degrees Centigrade, there would be increased coral bleaching and widespread coral mortality, unless corals could adapt or acclimatise, but that separating the impacts of climate change-related stresses from other stresses, such as over-fishing and polluting, is difficult."
Late 20th century effects of rising temperature include loss of sea ice, thawing of permafrost and associated coastal retreat, and more frequent coral bleaching and mortality
And finally, some background on the "Kent school governor" who brought the case. He is a member of the "New Party", about whom it is reported here that:
Quote:
The founder and chair of the New Party is Robert Durward, whose party is so right-wing it has been labeled “fascist” by the Scottish Tories. More importantly, there is a cross-fertilisation between the New Party and Durward’s other pet project - he is the founder of the anti-environmental Scientific Alliance.
Read all about The Scientific Alliance.
Remember "The Great Global Warming Swindle"? It says here that:
Quote:
There was only one scientific advisor on the programme, Martin Livermore, whose sole scientific qualification is that he is the Director of a web-based think tank, The Scientific Alliance.
and
Quote:
The Scientific Alliance has no affiliation with any recognised scientific body but, like most of the contributors to the programme, it does have very strong links with the US public relations and lobbying organisations that have been so effective in setting the Bush agenda on climate change.
Mr Dimmock's justification for bringing this case is that "I wish my children to have the best education possible, free from bias and political spin...". One wonders if he considers that TGGWS contains any bias or political spin, and if he has allowed his children to watch it?
If we forget Gore for a moment and look at why we are supposed to be building wind 'farms'...
Quote:
to reduce carbon emissions to meet the Government targets relating to Climate Change
We in the North East have responded to several applications where we have questioned the exaggerated amount of CO2 said to be saved.
We in Durham did make representations to the examination in public (EiP) concerning the renewable energy proposals within the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS), particularly in respect of wind power. These concern the effectiveness of wind power in tackling problems associated with climate change (in particular cutting CO2 emissions) and that wind power will also not produce the amount of electricity claimed. The Representations were based on a large number of sources, including Reports such as the E.ON Netz Wind Reports of 2004 and 2005 and the National Audit Office Report on Renewable Energy of February 2005 Despite the sources of material cited in the
Quote:
Representations, we note they have been ignored. We consider our Representations will in due course be found to be correct in that the proposals in the RSS, as approved by the Panel and the Government's proposals, will not lead to the cuts in emissions claimed and indeed may well lead to significant problems with transmission of electricity. We believe that evidence from wind turbines already operating in County Durham firmly help to establish our Representation
The Fullabrook Down wind farm (consented) press release states with Ministerial authority,from BERR, that the
"66 MW Fullabrook Down wind project when fully operational the 22 turbine scheme will ... save almost 65,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions annually."
Comment
This is half the developer's figure estimated at 133000 tonnes This agrees with our claim that the increasing use of Gas in the UK energy mix merits a lower conversion factor than is being used by most developers and the savings are being overestimated
Did I say anything about "certainty" anywhere in my post?
Sorry, no you didn't. We could have an interesting debate as to whether something has to be "certain" to be considered a "fact", but it wouldn't really serve any useful purpose!
However, as regards your differentiation between "polar bears are drowning" as an "inappropriate statement and not a fact", and "CO2 levels are rising and may be causing the climate to change" as a "fact", I'm not so sure. It turns out (see above) that Gore wasn't so far out in blaming GW for the death of those bears, and whilst "CO2 levels are rising" is undoubtedly a fact, "may be causing the climate to change" sounds a bit too qualified to be a "fact" in the strict sense of the word!
Providor your academic diligence and effort, in pursuit of truth, is impressive - but just what we have come to expect!
I need to read it all through again, including the links.
Do you have a link to the full transcript of the trial, and importantly the judgement.
However as discussed above (albeit with perhaps some misunderstanding from media spin) I still don't think this sort of emotive documentary should be shown to Kids.
We could have an interesting debate as to whether something has to be "certain" to be considered a "fact", but it wouldn't really serve any useful purpose!
That turns into a semantic argument. There are no certainties about anything in life (especially not in science). Your second paragraph about polar bears vs CO2 also seems to me to resolve down to differences in semantics.
Would it make you feel better if I replace the word "fact" with the sentence "evidence based peer reviewed research". I mean the latter by the former but you seem to be taking "fact" to mean something other then I intended. Writing "fact" seems shorter then writing "evidence based peer reviewed research" but essentially my meaning is that science should be taught based on 100% evidence based peer reviewed research - not on emotions, suppositions, guesses, or plausible ideas. The latter can be included in science classes but only if they are presented as uncertainties and debated - not if they are presented as literal truth.
Does that explanation work better for you? I am merely seeking to avoid a meaningless debate about semantics.
My beef with IT is not so much about it's accuracy as it's style of presentation. I think the way it's made is appropriate for a mainstream film of the Michael Moore variety. I do not think that style is appropriate in a science classroom or if someone is seeking serious information about GW. In other words I view it more as a personal opinion piece by Gore rather then something to go to to discover the science.
That said I don't have an objection to it being shown if the class is made to debate it properly afterwards.
But for example if I were to talk to someone who knows nothing about global warming and wants to find out the truth - I would feel VERY uncomfortable telling them to watch Gore. I would much rather direct them to New Scientist which is more akin what I'd like to see in terms of an approach in science classes (not that New Scientist is perfect but it's much more along the right lines then Gore).
Bottom line, a High Court judge ruled that this film should not be shown to kids who are unlikely to have the skills to distinguish the arguments above. End of.
As such I think your argument that we need to be able to measure quantities of natural CO2 being produced is mute since we can measure the plant based CO2 (so it's possible to assume the remainder is what you are after the natural quantities of CO2 not produced from burning plants or fuel). Natural levels of non plant originated CO2 are not increasing (to the best of my knowledge).
This is the implicit assumption being made in just about every model used by the scientists but it to put it bluntly totally ridiculous. A slight temperature change does for example vastly increase the ant population which are great co2 emitters for their size by virtue of their numbers. Unless this sort of factor has been thoroughly quantified the research being done is worthless.
As to peer review this is being controlled by a small group of scientists with a vested interest in the status quo. Discrediting CO2 as the source of the world's problems writes off their careers.
Gore's prize proves that the ECO lobby has become powerful and corrupt and needs controlling. That a swindler should be awarded this prize is an insult to those holders that earned it.
Until the research itself is unbiased then no education based on it can be. Two and two only automatically makes four to the blinkered. If you don't understand the system used you will get an invalid answer and no attempt is being made to understand the natural system that I can find out.
Bottom line, a High Court judge ruled that this film should not be shown to kids
No Tizzy, that's a complete inversion of the ruling. The judge ruled that (a) "Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate" but that (b) there are nine points where the film errs or departs from mainstream opinion, in respect of which there should be "a balanced presentation of opposing views" otherwise showing the film in schools would be a breach of Section 407.
He did not rule that "this film should not be shown to kids", he said it can be shown provided it is accompanied by guidance notes which point out where mainstream opinion differs from the views expressed. Appropriate guidance notes have already been published, and the film will be distributed to schools.
Do you have a link to the full transcript of the trial, and importantly the judgement.
Sadly not, still looking for those. They're obviously out there, since bits are appearing on the web. Most of my comments on this are a distillation of news reports and other blogs. There are criticisms of all of the judge's "nine errors", but I didn't put some of them in last night because I'd already mentioned them earlier. The principal "effort" comes in checking all the references - I never post a reference from another source without reading it first to get the full context, and when it's something like an IPCC report that can take time!
No I'm sorry lukas, it doesn't, it actually makes matters worse.You cannot use "fact" as a synonym for "evidence based peer reviewed research"! Passing peer review does not establish a piece of research as "fact", it merely indicates that the work has been carried out and reported to accepted standards and that the evidence presented can reasonably be said to support the conclusions drawn. There are often competing papers which look at the same data from different viewpoints and come to radically different conclusions, yet they can both legitimately and quite correctly pass peer review. It's then up to other scientists with the necessary expertise to analyse and either verify or modify or reject the findings, and eventually we get to a position where we can claim to have a "well-established theory".
Let's look at the polar bear thing in more detail.
Fact: Polar bears regularly swim up to 15 miles, and have been observed to swim up to 100 miles on rare occasions.
Fact: A polar bear attempting a long swim in a rough sea is more likely to get into difficulty than one on a short swim.
Fact: A study carried out off the Alaskan coast found that in the 20 years up to 2005 only 4% of polar bears were swimming in open waters, and no drownings were reported.
Fact: In September 2006, the ice had retreated a record 160 miles north, and 20% of the bears spotted were in the open sea, up to 60 miles offshore.
Fact: There was a fierce storm in September 2006, after which 4 bears were found dead in the water.
Fact: There were fierce storms before 2006, but no drowned bears were found.
Theory: The bears drowned because they were forced by the effects of climate change to swim further offshore in greater numbers, thereby putting themselves at greater risk of getting caught in a storm.
Al Gore's statement in his film: "A new scientific study shows that for the first time they are finding polar bears that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice. They did not find that before."
You make up your own mind as to whether the judge was right or wrong to say that this part of the film should not be shown to students without "a balanced presentation of opposing views".
It now seems pretty obvious to me that as with much media presentation of climate change, the reporting of this case has been poor. All the reports I have seen make a big deal of "nine scientific errors" which the High Court is supposed to have exposed in the film, but in fact, the phrase "scientific errors" appears nowhere in the judgement.
None of the reports I have seen mention the fact that the judge agrees that the four main scientific hypotheses of the film "are supported by a vast quantity of research published in peer-reviewed journals worldwide and by the great majority of the world's climate scientists", or that he says "I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant's expert, is right when he says that Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate."
I have not seen a report which reveals that the claimant alleged at least 18 "errors or exaggerations", yet the judge found that only nine were relevant, and he only continued to call them "errors" as a convenient way of referring to the claimants allegations, and that in any case the hearing "did not relate to an analysis of the scientific questions."
Nor has anybody pointed out that the judge was measuring the film against the 2007 IPCC report, even though the film was released in 2006.
A careful reading of the jugde's ruling, and a critical analysis of the so-called "errors", and the fact that the claimant, although he technically "substantially won" his case, has failed in his primary aim of banning the showing of this film in schools, makes this whole thing look like yet another case of headline-grabbing media hype.
although he technically "substantially won" his case, has failed in his primary aim of banning the showing of this film in schools, makes this whole thing look like yet another case of headline-grabbing media hype.
I don't think this is simply media hype, a great many people are seriously concerned by;
The effect this deliberately emotive "the world is in desperate trouble" Hype has on children. Anxiety is the least of the results.
The way children are being indoctrinated with a politically biased view and encouraged to take sides with Green Activists. (That thank goodness has been banned by the judgement) has to be fundamentally wrong.
I strongly believe:-"We should not be indoctrinating children - we should be educating them - after all they have to solve the problems we leave behind"
Tissy - while her facts were slightly wrong (the film wasn't banned it can only be shown with balancing information) hit the nail on the head.
Quote:
shown to kids who are unlikely to have the skills to distinguish the arguments above.
There are some important lessons here;
The impact of the intense anti nuclear propaganda disseminated in schools in the 60's 70's, is now a major obstacle to dealing effectively with a major cause of climate change.
Those children so carefully indoctrinated are now in their 40's, have a fixed emotional stance, which goes beyond reason, and reject Nuclear.
Significant resources, expense and intellectual brainpower is being expended on climate change research.
Great quantities of emotional energy, time, paper, and research, are going into what are essentially circular arguments.
Careers are being made and destroyed - even Nobel Prizes awarded.
All to prove a point. That the Greens have a case!
If the same amount of resources and effort, was expended on research into mitigating measures - finding a solution to the energy conundrum - Sorting out global good housekeeping measures - Fusion research - etc.
Maybe we wouldn't have to stare down the barrel of the gun.
Glynne, you're missing my point. The effect of this judgement in terms of the exposure that children will get to Gore's film is negligible - there was already guidance in place which warned teachers to be careful how they used the film. The new guidance is just more specific about the nine issues where the judge ruled that the film may be in error or departs from the IPCC view.
However public are being misled by the way that the media have mis-reported this case. It will leave people with the impression that there is more uncertainty amongst the scientists than actually exists, and that Gore's film contains more "scientific errors" than it actually does, whereas if the facts had been properly and fully reported the opposite might have been the case.
The way that the story should have been told was:
- The claimant failed to get the film banned in schools
- The judge was in no doubt that the film gives a broadly accurate account of the science
- The judge found that there were nine specific points in the film which departed from the IPCC view, which unless balanced in the guidance, would mean that showing the film in schools would be illegal under s407
- The guidance has been amended to take account of this judgement, and the film can now be shown to students.
But of course that wouldn't have made a very good news story, would it, so instead the media mis-reported it for dramatic effect, with little concern for the adverse effect that they might have on the public understanding of the issues.
Once again Providor, you seem absolutely determined to have a semantic argument. Oh well...
Quote:
No I'm sorry lukas, it doesn't, it actually makes matters worse.You cannot use "fact" as a synonym for "evidence based peer reviewed research"!
Did I say anywhere in my post that "fact" was a synonym for "evidence based peer reviewed research"? I don't think I did. I think I said I wanted to replace the word "fact" with "evidence based peer reviewed research". In the original post I used "fact" as informal shorthand not as a synonym. Perhaps an inaccurate shorthand given what I meant but one might hope (perhaps mistakenly) that expressing ideas here might not be subject to such fine scrutiny.
I agree with your cautions about the peer review process. Nevertheless "evidence based peer reviewed research" is the way that science is done and therefore is appropriate material in a science classroom for discussion/study.
Regarding the polar bears which you seem to be making a big issue of. I think the debate on this is irrelevant since:
FACT: We know Arctic ice is receeding. If Polar Bears are not drowned then they will likely start to die of starvation unless they adapt in some way. It's difficult to see how they could adapt at this time.
FACT: The use of polar bears as an example is likely to appeal to the publics emotions. It illustrates one emotional aspect of Gore's film WHETHER IT IS AN ACCURATE STATEMENT OR NOT.
The above are examples of what I think could be safely said about polar bears in a science class on this issue. Anything else is conjecture/anecdote and debate unless you know of research I haven't seen. I am quite willing to concede that such research may exist. If it does then discussion of that research would also be appropriate in which case if I were aware of it I would switch to a different example of something that is not appropriate for discussion in a science class from the film.
Let's cut to the chase here to try and avoid more debate about semantics:
Do you think IT is the best material we have for teaching global warming in a classroom? Do you think it should be used that way and is appropriate?
Do you think IT is 100% accurate and contains no mistakes?
Personally, I think if it's accompanied with a proper debate it's probably ok for children of 14 or up. But I also think we could do better in terms of finding or creating materials that are better suited to the task. If IT could be shown with specific focus / debate on it's emotional content so that children could become aware of how it uses emotion to make it's point that could also be very useful though not necessarily in a scientific context.
As for it's accuracy I would hesitate to jump to say it's 100% accurate. But I do think it's broadly speaking accurate but has room for improvement.
I agree with your further points elsewhere that the media has misreported this case. But then the media has a sensationalist bias. The following are things they will report:
a) Doom and Gloom predictions about global warming - e.g. it's the end of the world we're all going to drown or be burnt to a crisp as everywhere becomes a desert.
b) It's all a hoax.
They aren't much interested in anything in between. Hence when a story such as this one emerges they need to shoe horn it and spin it into one of the above two categories.
The effect of this judgement in terms of the exposure that children will get to Gore's film is negligible
I think this is very very wrong.
Children tend to be critical of media stories - they are being brought up to question the veracity of journalists.
And as you point out at the end of your post rightly so, media spin is certainly playing a part here.
But what they are shown in school is given much more credibility - so when presented with this sort of material it produces an emotional response which fixes their position for the rest of their lives.
(Nice if a suitably qualified psychologist would comment on this)
Quote:
It will leave people with the impression that there is more uncertainty amongst the scientists than actually exists
There is uncertainty about the science - it is all down to probability, the science shows that it is "likely" that man is the cause of GW (I happen to agree), but there is no consensus that we can do anything to reverse GW by our actions, we may be able to mitigate it.
I am becoming intrigued by the work of Bjorn Lomborg he seems to make a lot of sense.
The fact he is Damned as a heretic by the Greens makes him worthy of attention.
What if he is right - then all the Gore film will have done to our children, is give them a lifetime emotional block to what should be done.
Much the same as the anti nuclear campaign has done to large sections of the population.
We have to avoid the temptation - no matter how well meaning, or for whatever reason - to indoctrinate our children.
We have to motivate them to learn, see the world and future with optimism, and give them the curiosity, and intellectual tools, to rationally find solutions to tomorrow's problems.
Political activists of whatever colour have no place brainwashing children in school.
I'm not clear what it is that you think is wrong Glynne. Do you mean that my analysis that the judgement will have negligible impact on what happens in schools is wrong, or that the showing of the film in schools is wrong regardless of the judgement?
Glynne
I believe more people are listening to Lomborg as his ideas do make sense. It is about prioritising and which issues we try to solve first
I will try to find a link to a video which explains this.
My issue with Gore' film is the same as with any material put into schools, it should be balanced not biased,
Glynne
I believe more people are listening to Lomborg as his ideas do make sense. It is about priorities and if we have to prioritise which issues we try to solve firstted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/62 - 69k
Danish political scientist Bjorn Lomborg heads the Copenhagen Consensus, which has prioritized the world's greatest problems -- global warming, world poverty, disease -- based on how effective our solutions might be. It's a thought-provoking, even provocative list.
Why you should listen to him: Bjorn Lomborg isn't afraid to voice an unpopular opinion. He was named one of the 100 Most Influential People by Time magazine after the publication of his controversial book The Skeptical Environmentalist, which challenged widely held beliefs that the environment is getting worse.
Now the Danish political scientist is taking on the world's biggest problems. In 2004, he convened the Copenhagen Consensus, which tries to prioritize the world's greatest challenges based on the impact we can make, a sort of bang-for-the-buck breakdown for attacking problems such as global warming, world poverty and disease.
It begins from the premise that we can't solve every problem in the world, and asks: Which ones should we fix first? The Copenhagen Consensus 2004 tapped the expertise of world-leading economists, as well as a diverse forum of young participants; collectively, they determined that control of HIV/AIDS was the best investment -- and mitigating global warming was the worst.
Quote:
Lomborg summarized these findings in How to Spend $50 Billion to Make the World a Better Place. The next Copenhagen Consensus is scheduled for spring 2008
Comment Should this not be added to David's Mentoring scheme for candidates!
I think it is wrong to show this film in schools.
For the reasons I give above - Children are easily mislead, and what they are taught in school is accepted as fact.
Maybe Gores film tells the story - but it stretches the truth and uses emotion (polar bears) to fix ideas.
We should not use these techniques in school to sway children to our personal viewpoint.
Quote:
the Court heard that Al Gore's film contained serious scientific inaccuracies, that it was 'politically partisan', and that it contained 'sentimental mush'. The Government was accused of backing the film as a way of 'brainwashing' pupils on global warming.
As part of the evidence, it was pointed out that Al Gore himself has gone on record saying that it was appropriate to over-represent the facts on global warming in his film 'An Inconvenient Truth' in order to get the message across: "I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is".
OK newspaper spin - but the general gist of the thing is correct - the facts are over-represented, there is also no doubt there are substantial errors of science, presented as substantiated fact, there as well - put in simply to convert the masses.
Interested if anyone out there has a story or concern over the impact this abominable overemotional film has had on their children.
