So how did An Inconvenient Truth become required classroom viewing?

[ikaris]

Originally Posted by transplant99

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

Interesting information about the author of this article (Tom Harris)

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006...australian.php

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by ikaris

Interesting information about the author of this article (Tom Harris)

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006...australian.php

cool Tim Lambert the computer scientist ways in on the subject.
________
N02 Vaporizer

[jonesy]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Good post, Lanny.

This is one of those areas where people feel entitled to appoint themselves armchair scientists for some reason--personally, I'm going to trust the reputable scientists over a few think-tank bozos and one or two washed up, aging, tenure-system parasites at third rate schools. Maybe that's just me.

Your comments are extremely arrogant and unfounded. Anyone one who doesn't agree with you is suddenly ######ed?

Here is a list of people who don't agree with you. I asure you that they are not all washed up, aging, parasites. And, there are more than one or two. Your post is completely hypocritical, apparently you reserve the right to trust who you want, and no one else can?

Claude Allegre, top French geophysicist and an origninator of global warming theory, has changed his opinion
Geologist Bruno Wiskel, UofA
Nir Shaviv, Israeli astrophysicist
David Evans, studied carbon's enviornmental influence for Aus. govt. for 6 years
Tad Murty, Cdn Research former scientist for Fisheries Canada
David Bellamy, British botanist
Chirs de Feitas, New Zealand climatologist
Zbignew Jaworowski, of the UN body responsible for global warming studies
blah blah, there are many others.

But, I guess it doesn't matter, they are all ######s, and there is only one side to the story, yours.

[jonesy]

To address the original point of this thread, I can't believe all the people that think it is ok to show only one side of a major current issue. Whatever happened to showing both sides and letting all the intelligent people form their own opinion?

What is the worry? If it is so obvious, they will all make the right choice.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by jonesy

To address the original point of this thread, I can't believe all the people that think it is ok to show only one side of a major current issue. Whatever happened to showing both sides and letting all the intelligent people form their own opinion?

What is the worry? If it is so obvious, they will all make the right choice.

Indeed. That's the point the guy in Discover magazine was making. Science is supposed to take into account all data and right now his (and others) data is simply being ignored when it probably shouldn't be. Most scientists are willing to be proven wrong. They aren't willing to simply be ignored because he/she may not support the politically correct viewpoint.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by jonesy

To address the original point of this thread, I can't believe all the people that think it is ok to show only one side of a major current issue. Whatever happened to showing both sides and letting all the intelligent people form their own opinion?

What is the worry? If it is so obvious, they will all make the right choice.

But in a class room setting what video shows the other side? There isn't anything, that I am aware of, that is in opposition to An Inconvenient Truth. I mean you can't show An Inconvenient Truth for one side and then read scientific journals for the other side. Or show some propaganda video funded by the oil and gas industry. I'm not saying showing An Inconvenient Truth is the only way or even the right way to go about things. But I definitely see a lack of an alternative.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Burninator

But in a class room setting what video shows the other side? There isn't anything, that I am aware of, that is in opposition to An Inconvenient Truth. I mean you can't show An Inconvenient Truth for one side and then read scientific journals for the other side. Or show some propaganda video funded by the oil and gas industry. I'm not saying showing An Inconvenient Truth is the only way or even the right way to go about things. But I definitely see a lack of an alternative.

Well there is always the The Great Global Warming Swindle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gre...arming_Swindle
________
Ferrari 288 gto specifications

[Rockin' Flames]

Originally Posted by Burninator

But in a class room setting what video shows the other side? There isn't anything, that I am aware of, that is in opposition to An Inconvenient Truth. I mean you can't show An Inconvenient Truth for one side and then read scientific journals for the other side. Or show some propaganda video funded by the oil and gas industry. I'm not saying showing An Inconvenient Truth is the only way or even the right way to go about things. But I definitely see a lack of an alternative.

The only video that I know of that has been produced that shows the other side is the British Video that is available on the internet "The Great Global Warming Swindle". I also think that if you are going to show a video show both sides and I think this is the best video at the moment that would show the other side of the argument.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Well there is always the The Great Global Warming Swindle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gre...arming_Swindle

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

The only video that I know of that has been produced that shows the other side is the British Video that is available on the internet "The Great Global Warming Swindle". I also think that if you are going to show a video show both sides and I think this is the best video at the moment that would show the other side of the argument.

Oh I am aware of that video.
http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...arming+Swindle
It has many more problems than An Inconvenient Truth does. Take a look at Lanny's posts about half way down the page. That video is teetering on the edge of completely misleading. Of course some will argue saying that Al Gores movie is as well. But in regards to showing both sides of the debate I would rather see a better movie than the swindle one.

[Rockin' Flames]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Oh I am aware of that video.
http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...arming+Swindle
It has many more problems than An Inconvenient Truth does. Take a look at Lanny's posts about half way down the page. That video is teetering on the edge of completely misleading. Of course some will argue saying that Al Gores movie is as well. But in regards to showing both sides of the debate I would rather see a better movie than the swindle one.

Like I had said at the current point in time I believe this is the best video that shows the other side of the debate. The bottom line is if someone doesn't want to show the other side of the debate using another video such as this one then maybe "An Inconvenient Truth" shouldn't be required to be shown in the classroom.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

Like I had said at the current point in time I believe this is the best video that shows the other side of the debate. The bottom line is if someone doesn't want to show the other side of the debate using another video such as this one then maybe "An Inconvenient Truth" shouldn't be required to be shown in the classroom.

The other side are those scientists that remain skeptical about what causes global warming.

Not some two-bit film trying to dictate public opinion.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by jonesy

To address the original point of this thread, I can't believe all the people that think it is ok to show only one side of a major current issue. Whatever happened to showing both sides and letting all the intelligent people form their own opinion?

What is the worry? If it is so obvious, they will all make the right choice.

It's definetly not ok to only show one side of a contentious issue. I can't believe that the movie is even allowed to be shown in schools except as an example of a political movie.

Where did people get the ideas that documentaries are meant to promote unbiased, critical analyses of subject matter? Documentaries are meant to argue a specific viewpoint. It's like a video argumentative essay. Though some can merely explore an issue without coming to a point I suppose. Gore's film is not of that type.

The science behind it may have a lot of evidentiary support, but the movie is arguably persuasive in nature. Exposing younger children to that type of medium is dangerous if not handled properly.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by jonesy

Your comments are extremely arrogant and unfounded. Anyone one who doesn't agree with you is suddenly ######ed?

Right. Because that's EXACTLY what I said.

Happy Overreaction Day, though. It's a fun holiday.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by llama64

It's definetly not ok to only show one side of a contentious issue. I can't believe that the movie is even allowed to be shown in schools except as an example of a political movie.

Bull. Schools do it all the time. Heck, you've just finished arguing that it's okay for a public insitiution to promote what ever position they like, even if the evidence to support it is non-existent.

Where did people get the ideas that documentaries are meant to promote unbiased, critical analyses of subject matter? Documentaries are meant to argue a specific viewpoint. It's like a video argumentative essay. Though some can merely explore an issue without coming to a point I suppose. Gore's film is not of that type.

In your highly biased and uneducated opinion.

The science behind it may have a lot of evidentiary support, but the movie is arguably persuasive in nature. Exposing younger children to that type of medium is dangerous if not handled properly.

Yet you think religious indoctrination is a good thing. Which is more dangerous again? Exposing children to something that has tangible evidence to support it, or exposing children to a fanciful story that has no evidence to support it?

[Rockin' Flames]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Bull. Schools do it all the time. Heck, you've just finished arguing that it's okay for a public insitiution to promote what ever position they like, even if the evidence to support it is non-existent.

How do schools do this all the time?

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

In your highly biased and uneducated opinion.

Are you saying that you don't think that documentaries are unbiased? Do you honestly think that Gore does not have a bias in his documentary? Just as a side how do you know how educated llama64 is and why do you feel a need to resort to personal attacks?

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Yet you think religious indoctrination is a good thing. Which is more dangerous again? Exposing children to something that has tangible evidence to support it, or exposing children to a fanciful story that has no evidence to support it?

Interesting how you bring up religious indoctronation as global warming being defined as a religion is being discussed in this thread:

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=43556

Aside from that though how are children exposed to religious indoctrination in a public school? Global warming has opponents to it and they have evidence supporting their arguments as well (Even though you may not agree with their evidence and arguments). The bottom line is if videos that are biased such as "An Inconvenient Truth" are shown in a public school the opposing view should also be presented to the students so that they can make their own choice of what they believe.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

How do schools do this all the time?

Schools routinely show "documentaries" in classes. The only thing that makes this one worthy of attention is the fact that it is a politically charged subject. If the documentary in question was "The Real Eve" we would not be having this discussion at all, because the content is not presented by a politcal figure.

Are you saying that you don't think that documentaries are unbiased? Do you honestly think that Gore does not have a bias in his documentary? Just as a side how do you know how educated llama64 is and why do you feel a need to resort to personal attacks?

ALL information is biased. It is created through the lense of a few and presented only in their context. THAT is bias.

On to llama64, that was a shot from a few other threads that he has been involved in recently.

Interesting how you bring up religious indoctronation as global warming being defined as a religion is being discussed in this thread:

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=43556

Wow, thanks for pointing out a thread I am already participating in. Really on top of things.

Aside from that though how are children exposed to religious indoctrination in a public school? Global warming has opponents to it and they have evidence supporting their arguments as well (Even though you may not agree with their evidence and arguments). The bottom line is if videos that are biased such as "An Inconvenient Truth" are shown in a public school the opposing view should also be presented to the students so that they can make their own choice of what they believe.

Again, you miss the point because you're new and haven't been involved in other threads where these issues have been discussed.

I see no reason to NOT show the documentary. It is supported by a majority of scientists in the world and the UN's body on this research. I would have no problem with a counter production being shown as well, as long as the information on the individuals who produced and appeared in the documentary are disclosed in the same fashion that the Gore movie is subject to. All information needs to be out there. If you're going to rip Gore for his political position, then the political position of all involved with all productions must be known as well. That seems to be a point that falls through the cracks with those who are critics of the Global Warming theory.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by llama64

It's definetly not ok to only show one side of a contentious issue. I can't believe that the movie is even allowed to be shown in schools except as an example of a political movie.

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

How do schools do this all the time?

When do schools (post secondary aside, as this thread is concerning a high school) show both sides of things concerning science? Honestly. Unless we are talking about some of the advanced theories in Physics which we have yet to find an explanation for, I don't rememeber getting both sides of things. Typically schools are pretty slow in getting the topics that they are teaching. They teach the science that is popular and relevant in the scientific community.

This whole "teach both sides and they can decide for themselves" talk doesn't work a lot of the time for science. There is a reason that schools don't teach both sides of the science concerning evolution versus creationism. Science is not opinion. High school kids are hardly capable of determining which research is relevant and worthy enough to consider. That work needs to be done by someone else and then passed down to the school level.

I don't really see the harm in showing Al Gore's movie to high school students. What's the worse that could happen? Students could come aware of the environment and take steps in their own lives to lessen the impact? Al Gore isn't telling them to lock themselves to oil drills or change their name to Whisper and go be one with nature. He is promoting awareness of the environment. And if someone of the kids can take that away after watching the movie I see nothing wrong with that.

[worth]

what happens when the government starts taxing you because of the type of car you drive, or you drive to many miles in a given week? There's no harm in people becoming less dependent on oil or other energies, and begin to take responsibility for their actions, but to think that governments and corporations won't jump on the bandwagon is a bit niave in my opinion. Kids are seeing a movie that is extremly debatable at the moment, and it is most likley being presented as fact. It affects their opinions and others can take advantage of that I have no doubt.

[Rockin' Flames]

Originally Posted by Burninator

When do schools (post secondary aside, as this thread is concerning a high school) show both sides of things concerning science? Honestly. Unless we are talking about some of the advanced theories in Physics which we have yet to find an explanation for, I don't rememeber getting both sides of things. Typically schools are pretty slow in getting the topics that they are teaching. They teach the science that is popular and relevant in the scientific community.

This whole "teach both sides and they can decide for themselves" talk doesn't work a lot of the time for science. There is a reason that schools don't teach both sides of the science concerning evolution versus creationism. Science is not opinion. High school kids are hardly capable of determining which research is relevant and worthy enough to consider. That work needs to be done by someone else and then passed down to the school level.

I don't really see the harm in showing Al Gore's movie to high school students. What's the worse that could happen? Students could come aware of the environment and take steps in their own lives to lessen the impact? Al Gore isn't telling them to lock themselves to oil drills or change their name to Whisper and go be one with nature. He is promoting awareness of the environment. And if someone of the kids can take that away after watching the movie I see nothing wrong with that.

I would have no problem if they discussed the science of it in a science class. The interesting thing is, going back to the original start of this thread, the video wasn't shown in a science class. In addition this is a more politically charged topic than just any science topic. So if you are going to show propaganda explaining one side of such a highly debated issue or science you should be obligated to show an opposing view. This is not some regular science topic as you are trying to make this out to be. Based upon this being shown in history class shows that people are treating this more like a fact and a settled issue instead of like an actual science. If there is one thing that I do know about science is that it is never conclusive and settled.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

I would have no problem if they discussed the science of it in a science class. The interesting thing is, going back to the original start of this thread, the video wasn't shown in a science class. In addition this is a more politically charged topic than just any science topic. So if you are going to show propaganda explaining one side of such a highly debated issue or science you should be obligated to show an opposing view. This is not some regular science topic as you are trying to make this out to be. Based upon this being shown in history class shows that people are treating this more like a fact and a settled issue instead of like an actual science. If there is one thing that I do know about science is that it is never conclusive and settled.

Using your logic we should give holocaust deniers equal time too. We have an obligation to show both sides of a contentious issue. Afterall, one man's history is another man's propaganda campaign.