So how did An Inconvenient Truth become required classroom viewing?

[Azure]

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/n...3-c904feb71047

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."

[Flame On]

Um maybe it's topical and current?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Maybe because it is an extremely important issue that kids in high school need to be exposed to as they will likely inherit the crap world we leave them? I think it's a great thing that they get kids thinking about important issues like this at any time. Beats showing them Romeo and Juliet for the nth time.

[Juventus3]

Originally Posted by Flame On

Um maybe it's topical and current?

It's propaganda and truth twisting.

[J pold]

The youth needs to embrace the idea of global warming and more importantly what they need to do to correct it…they are the ones that are going to inherit a damaged earth after generations and generations of ignoring the environment

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Juventus3

It's propaganda and truth twisting.

How so? That's an awful strong charge, and extremely inaccurate. Explain please.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

How so? That's an awful strong charge, and extremely inaccurate. Explain please.

I agree its a strong accusation...but it isn't without precedent.

Here is one article i was sent some time ago from a friend who had seen the movie and whom works in the field, he was beside himself about some of the claims in the movie.

Just to add...i have not seen it myself.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

[Devils'Advocate]

I agree. Global Warming is only a theory. It has not been proven. It should be nowhere near a high school classroom. Like evolution.

I liked the "Daily Show" spin on this. First he showed a university student on FOX NEWS complaining that he was taught something that he didn't believe in - Global Warming. To which Jon stated "That is what university is all about - professors presenting ideas and points of view that you already agree with."

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I agree. Global Warming is only a theory. It has not been proven. It should be nowhere near a high school classroom. Like evolution.

But wait... I'm on the other side.

[Azure]

Did anyone say Global warming isn't true? Or that it is only a theory?

Why must you show this in a world history class?

And considering the debate over some of the science that Gore presented...how is it the 'best' way to present this message?

[Juventus3]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

How so? That's an awful strong charge, and extremely inaccurate. Explain please.

explain how it's inaccurate...

The science behind the thoeries used in this film are questionable, and very much up for debate. Gore is a genius for jumping on the environmental bandwagon. His timing was a bulls-eye. The issue is very important and it's a positive sign to see it at the forefront of American culture right now. However, the underlying purpose of the film was to use scare tactics to jolt Americans into the reality of the situation. Why else would they invite a politcal figure such as Al Gore to narrate and be a spokesperson?

Scare tactics are not useful educational tools.

The interesting part about this films (and the science presented) critics are that they are not Americans, but rather Europeans, Asians, etc.

....and if the shoe fits...

Propaganda is a specific type of message presentation aimed at serving an agenda. At its root, the denotation of propaganda is 'to propagate (actively spread) a philosophy or point of view'. The most common use of the term (historically) is in political contexts; in particular to refer to certain efforts sponsored by governments or political groups.

- from wikipedia.

[tanguay'sstillgood]

ok, fair enough to show this thing in a classroom, but if you are going to bring it in as a teacher, you damn well better present other points of view on the issue, as the film itself is very one sided (obviously). teachers using this need to do something with it that will actually encourage some critical thinking on the issue, not just use it to indoctrinate the kids with Mr Gore's views on the topic. a debate is one way to do this, but to have a debate in a high school classroom, the students need to be given both sides of it to work from. you also need to consider if there is a better way to bring the issue up in a classroom, and if so, why are teachers using this film? is it just because it's so well known? yes, global warming is an important issue to have students discussing, but there is more than one way to bring it into the classroom.

[CaramonLS]

What agenda is Gore pushing and what does he hope to gain from it?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Juventus3

explain how it's inaccurate...

The science behind the thoeries used in this film are questionable, and very much up for debate. Gore is a genius for jumping on the environmental bandwagon. His timing was a bulls-eye. The issue is very important and it's a positive sign to see it at the forefront of American culture right now. However, the underlying purpose of the film was to use scare tactics to jolt Americans into the reality of the situation.

Scare tactics are not useful educational tools.

The interesting part about this films (and the science presented) critics are that they are not Americans, but rather Europeans, Asians, etc.

....and if the shoe fits...
- from wikipedia.

And just to add to this.....

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

I dont know who is right and who is wrong on the overall topic of global warming, but I do know that false and misleading information helps no one to come to an agreement.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

What agenda is Gore pushing and what does he hope to gain from it?

Are you kidding me?

How about...oh I dont know....money perhaps?

Domestic Total Gross: $24,146,161

as of November 06.

[CaptainCrunch]

Ah movies the last bastien of the lazy teacher, especially having it shown in 4 different classes.

We used to call movies hangover days, because the teacher that we had would be completely hungover, he would grab one of those really bad educational movies, turn out the lights and take a nap.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by fotze

Our math teacher Mr Weselak used to show us Fat Albert on those days.

Stunningly we always used to get the most ######ed sex ed movies ever.

Fun fact, girls can indeed get pregnant after having sex in a standing up position in the shower.

News to me.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Juventus3

explain how it's inaccurate...

The science behind the thoeries used in this film are questionable, and very much up for debate. Gore is a genius for jumping on the environmental bandwagon. His timing was a bulls-eye. The issue is very important and it's a positive sign to see it at the forefront of American culture right now. However, the underlying purpose of the film was to use scare tactics to jolt Americans into the reality of the situation. Why else would they invite a politcal figure such as Al Gore to narrate and be a spokesperson?

Scare tactics are not useful educational tools.

The interesting part about this films (and the science presented) critics are that they are not Americans, but rather Europeans, Asians, etc.

....and if the shoe fits...
- from wikipedia.

so which science from the movie is inaccurate?

just saying it's propoganda or scare tactics is not a rebuttle. how about actually looking at the science and demonstrating why it's innaccurate.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Juventus3

explain how it's inaccurate...

The science behind the thoeries used in this film are questionable, and very much up for debate. Gore is a genius for jumping on the environmental bandwagon. His timing was a bulls-eye. The issue is very important and it's a positive sign to see it at the forefront of American culture right now. However, the underlying purpose of the film was to use scare tactics to jolt Americans into the reality of the situation. Why else would they invite a politcal figure such as Al Gore to narrate and be a spokesperson?

Scare tactics are not useful educational tools.

The interesting part about this films (and the science presented) critics are that they are not Americans, but rather Europeans, Asians, etc.

....and if the shoe fits...
- from wikipedia.

Too bad that Gore has been on this environmental bandwagon since he was in university. He is no "johnny come lately" to this subject. So you're dead wrong there. Also, for something to be propaganda you must be able to gain benefit from the "propaganda" you spread. What is Gore's motivation? Does he own companies that manufacture solar panels? Is he backed by an ultra-powerful lobby that guarantees him a huge salary? Does he have political ambitions and is running for office on this platform? You have no motive, so there is no crime. So far, Gore's only crime has been trying to show people that we need to be more responsible about what we do to the planet we live on and make sure the biosphere remains capable of sustaining life. Ooooh, what a nasty fellow!

[transplant99]

so which science from the movie is inaccurate?

just saying it's propoganda or scare tactics is not a rebuttle. how about actually looking at the science and demonstrating why it's innaccurate

From the posted link

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."

Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."
But Karlen clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," KarlÈn concludes.

Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."
Karlen explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says KarlÈn

Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."