The film 'An Inconvenient Truth' to be sent to all secondary schools.

[worldgonewild]

Announced here on David Miliband's blog . Good idea or not, you can let him know direct!

The only inconvienant truth in it is that it is an ill informed documentary.

How Paulaplumpbottom is it ill informed?

I think it's 'fine' so to speak. It's probably quite a god thing that they know how the environment is being damaged and how they can help against that. Don't know from what age - hopefully it will be teens as it may scare the pants off anyone younger thinking the world is going to end. I've not seen it myself but have seen a preview and read things about it. I try my best to be environmentally friendly etc. But I feel that the UK is being made to feel like we are going to have to save the world on our own as it seems that the big boys like china, usa, India etc are not following the same principles and so little tiny old us are trying to do our bit bt nobody else is that bothered.

It's going to secondary schools.

Yes, the UK does seem to be leading the pack on the world stage regards CC awareness because of Blair speeches. Most recently at Davos.

London has the new EU 'carbon market' (eg. off-setting) so once again 'the city' is looking to profit from new trends. The UK started the industrial revolution & looks now to be positioning itself to profit from its pollution.

I think if they want to talk about the environment, they need to put forward both views, like this one:

"The only inconvenience to this administration is the true facts about so called global warming. I have heard tonight the arrogance of statements on the BBC from Gavin Essler claiming the "science is now fixed" and this is from groups of people [scientists] who change their views on a regular basis. The only thing that is fixed is the lies regarding global warming. Man made CO2 emissions represent 3.5% of the world total emissions. The car worldwide represents one seventh of that total. If all cars were removed tomorrow the total impact on world emissions would not register -it is irrelevant.If scientists are predicting global warming then they should be able to accurately predict temperatures for the next 10 years. As we all know they cannot do that even for a rainy weekend in England. The truth according to Al Gore is that the sea will rise 20 feet - when ? it has risen, according to the IPCC, by 6 inches in the last 100 years but hey, lets ignore the facts and go with the spin. Typical green myths.

Get real -please !!"

Um, of course scientists change their views regularly. That's how science works.

Also, man-made C02 isn't 3.5% of total emissions, it's 3.5% of the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Which is a slightly different thing.

I'm just saying that both sides of the debate should be presented. Al Gore is hardly middle of the road. I'm not saying I think global warming is a myth. Just that students should make up their own minds after being presented with all of the facts.

uwila

Your quoted piece is doing the rounds all over. If that's the only defence that the opposition can come up with then it really isn't worth showing secondary school students.

What I find ironic is that GB and the US and other developed nations were made great by coal and other high pollutant means - the industrial revolutions infact.
Just what India and China are experiencing now.
China has already experienced some negative effects of high polluting power plants near it's rivers, one waterway was so affected it almost dried up and put 25,000 fishermens livelihoods and hundreds of villages only source of meat out of reach.

So only if the developed nations use their technology and advances and freely share them with emerging nations can you prevent a much greater load of emissions being tossed into the atmosphere over the next 50 years.

I must say I remain ignorant of many of the scientfic facts, I know several eminent scientists who disagree entirely with GW as a concept.
Personally I can safely take it as far as keeping the air that I and others breathe clean and the mess I leave to a minimum.

Uwila,
As the Earth warms up - and it IS warming up, lots of 'natural' processes seem to be increasing both CO2 emissions, and worse, methane emissions.
For instance there is evidence to show that naturally occurring methane hydrates on the sea-bed will break down as sea temperatures increase, releasing methane.
And as rain patterns change, and tundra/permafrost thaws and dries out, large amounts of CO2 are/will be emitted.....
These are 'natural' - triggered as far as scientists can tell by man-made emissions causing the initial warming.
But just because they are 'natural' won't make them any less damaging....

Donk, well said.

Regards transferring cleaner technologies to developing countries; it's a useful mechanism but, countries like China can afford to pay for it themselves. They have had double digit growth for 10-15 years & even run many of the factories making the renewable technologies. They know their pollution is out of control. They also have recently set aside part of their budget to deal with it (eg. new water & sewage treatment plants).

The countries that need our help are in the Horn of Africa and any little island sitting out there in the oceans. If we don't help them, they'll only come knocking at our door. Taking up your cherished school, hospital & housing funding as they enter.

I know enough to know that there are credible scientists on both sides of the debate. And to be perfectly honest, I know little more than that. I am not qualified to defend eaither side of the debate. And I daresay neither is Al ("I invented the internet") Gore. I know he takes a great interest in the environment, but he is a politician with a political agenda and not a scientist.

I am not by any means trying to suggest that we should not study our environment and alter our human behaviour in an effort to preserve it. Of course we should do these things. But, I think secondary school children would be better served by being engaged in a two sided debate rather than Al Gore alleged propoganda.

By all means, get the scientists together and engage the students that way.

Oh, and places like china have perfect access to newer and cleaner technologies. They choose not to use them because they are more expensive. The high prices of oil and gas have made coal more attractive economically.

Achim Steiner, exec director of the UN Environment programme said 'February 2nd 2007 may be remembered as the day the question mark was removed from whether people are to blame for climate change.' The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change leaves no room for any of these ridiculous counter claims any more.

I think Uwila is right. I am all for clean air and a clean enviroment. If people want to work twords that I think thats great. I'm right there, but don't tell me about global warming. Whats with the scare mongering?Scientist , the ones without a political agenda, will tell you that we are coming out of a mini ice age. Its normal.

Sorry but that is absolute rubbish.

When I read messages like yours, uwila and paula I just think - we're going to hell in a handcart .

Dinosaur - I weep too. I just want my kids to have a chance of some life as we have enjoyed it, and I fear that time is running out fast.

Uwila - 15% of China's energy is coming from renewable sources - a far greater percentage than ours. Their economy is growing fast and they are using fossil fuels too, but they are investing far more than we are in developing clean technologies for the future.

If you don't like Al Gore, take a look at what Arnold Schwarzenegger has said. No he's not a scientist either, but he has listened to them.

There are now no credible scientists arguing that Global Warming is not the most serious danger ever faced by humankind. I believe that there are some very eminent scientists who have chosen to work on projects sponsored by oil companies, but that rather undermines their credibility.

Okay, I thought this thread was weather or not the video was a good idea. And because I think the video is a bad idea (which admittedy is partly because I detest Al Gore) you think I don't car about the environments??? I'm not sure how you drew that conclusion... or how I convinced Dinosaur that we are are all Hell bound.

I just don't think the video is a good approach.

What I was a teenager we dicussed the environment in chemistry class. The class was split and we were sent off to resear it and come back to the debate. It was about whether we as a world should use nuclear energy. It was very educational. And funny enough I remember in the same class discussing how we were headed into an ice age and what were we going to do about that. Some ice age!

Remembering that the 2000 scientists contributing to the UN run IPCC reports are not getting paid to do so. Their only agenda is for the survival of future generations.

Am I the only one who thinks it's all too little, too late?

I actually agree with Uwil and paulaplumpbottom. In particular, paulaplumpbottom makes the point about scaremongering. my fear is that if we shout too long and too hard too soon, people will have stopped listening when it gets reall yimportant.

My dh has a geography degree and had a particular interest in climatology (and glacial geomorphology). He is still not convinced about the evidence - purely because the earth works on such long cycles, we still don't full understand the mechanisms that make it heat up and warm down.

I can still remember about 20 years ago the scaremongers telling us all that we were doomed as we were about to enter another Ice Age. Apparently, some of the same people who argued that are now arguing the case for global warming. Such inconcisitency allows those with vested interests to choose not to listen to them.

The report that was issued with such a fanfare last week was a summary of a draft report by a working group (the first of three) which has not even been issued yet! . Changes are now only allowed to that report will now be written to "fit" with what the summary says. That is just bad science.

From IPCC procedures in section 4:

"Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter. "

So the purpose of the three-month delay between the publication of the Summary for Policy-Makers and the release of the actual WG1 is to enable them to make any necessary adjustments to the technical report to match the policy summary. Unbelievable. Go read for yourselves.

And before anyoone asks, no I haven't read the summary myself - but my dh has - and has also read an embargoed version the second draft of the report (which was much more equivocal).

FWIW, I happen to agree that Man probably is having an impact and that we should do what we can do minimise that.

But if governemnts really were serious about it, they would
a) tax aviation fuel (at present untaxed in the UK - not sure about elsewhere), which gives flying an unfair advantage
b) be more suportive about nuclear power ( - but at least it doens't emit CO2)
c) be serious about public transport: trains in this country are exptritionate, whereas in France the public rail system is cheap and easy to use (we are flying to Paris from Glasgow and then getting the train to the Alps: to do it all by train would have been extortionate). Peak time train fare between Glasgow and Edinburgh is just crazy.

It probably is but, human beings aren't exactly known for giving up & I'd rather not tell my kids 'forget it, the planet's fcuked'.

BTW - I do do my own bit, like cycling to work, composting, recycling, taking the train where possible, teaching ds that walking to school is better than taking the car. I do need to get a few more energy saving bulbs - although dh hates the murky light they emit until that are warmed up.

I'm not totally sticking my head in the sand: but like Uwila, I think a message is more powerful if it is properly debated.

Good point on C, Prettybird. I totally agree. Who is going to get on the train when it's more expensive than a car?

Why oh why does Red Ken not take his congestion charge profit and put it into making the train cheaper for people who are otherwise driving around. Does he or doesn't he want people out of their cars and onto the train?

Actually Uwila - I think the congestion charge is a good thing and wouldn't be against a similar thing happening eslewhere, provided that there was a viable alternative (and in London, in most places there is).

Wasn't Ken stopped from "improperly" subsidising London Tranport a number of years ago?

But in essence you are right - even accounting for full depreciation (whcih in practice is unrealsistc, as once you have bought a car, a certain amount of the dpereciation is "fixed" anyway), why would you get a train between Glasgow and Edinburgh when it is chepaer to drive, even there isonly one of you?