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!

years

on msn you bat

Sophable,
I think you'll find I agree with you:

"Actually, I think the oil issue is still an issue if if you don't believe in global warming. The population is growing and the supplies are limited. So, absolutely we should learn to live on less foccil fuel consumption. "

No, I don't think the company for which I work, or even the idustry, has clouded my view. I do support efforts to find alternative sources of energy. I also have not said I don't believe in global warming, just that I believe in a school that both sides should put up scientists to present the debate to children.

Furthermore, I believe that Engineering and Construction companies will gladly jump ship for another industry when and if it becomes profitable to do so. I don't think we are bound to constructing offshore platforms. We would be just as happy to design windfarms or even trifid farms. It is the people who own the resources who are tied to the product. In most cases, this means the countries where the reserves exist (Russia, Saudi, Iraq, Iran, Nigeria, Venezuela, Kazakhstan, the UK, the USA and so on...) Although this is much less so in the UK and the USA because our oil industries are not nationalised.

given that climate change is such a NO win for polititians (anything they do will involve loads of money, raising taxes and longtermism....political arsenic) they why on earth are they convinced other than by the scientific evidence?

I really don't get the motivation of the scientists saying it or the polititians (painfully) slowly reacting to it.

What about the UN report last week? All crooked deluded scientists???? How much evidence, how many leading scientists does it take for people to start doing something about this rather than putting hands over ears 'lalalalalala, ice ages have happened before there is no point doing anything'

I should also mention that the film should be sent out, because its important to present children with all views if you want them to make a balanced opinion on the subject.

I think the point is vq that Al Gore's film isn't balanced?

What do politicians get out of this? PR, kudos and VOTES! And they get it much more cheaply and easily than actually doing anything concrete.

Oh, and if they can persuade us that we need to be taxed and taxed but that's OK because it's green...then they also get MONEY. And they love that.

They arent crooked or deluded!!! They have just come to a different conclusion based on their own research. Although most scientists do like to get their papers published.....

Its one of those subjects that are very grey. The Big Bang Theory is just that...a theory. What the scientists are doing is making predictions based on what they have guestimated through history. Well, as you know, predictions arent fact. Their hypothesis is not unreasonable. Neither is the hypothesis of those that think that the impact of emissions etc is not that great.

Yes Jools. But, it doesnt mean that it shouldnt be presented along with other research and hypothesis on the subject. Its not balanced learning otherwise.

If for nothing else than as an exercise in picking apart a theory/hypothesis.

It's a good learning process to take various opinions and work out whether they work or not.

I'm just not sure that emotive propaganda films (no matter how well intentioned etc) are the right teaching tools to use with children, especially when it comes to science. This is not simply a matter of ethics and is very complex. As I said, I have not seen the film, so I could be wrong and it could be highly scientific and present the sceptics' views too, but am very, very sceptical about the government's desire to be seen to do something (rather than doing anything) about education, green issues, all the fashionable and hopefully vote-winning topics of the day, and using children to achieve this. I am not saying the human beings are not contributing to climate change btw, though I do think there is a good deal of debate as to how much human beings are contributing, and the best way to deal with it.

Al Gore has been nominated for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his work on heightening public awareness of climate change. (reported from another thread)

Nominated by whom?

The council of the most eminent vikings I guess ... a very public spirited bunch these days Or, maybe it was Bush

I feel the same as NQC - in other words, I'd be a lot happier if I could convince myself to be sceptical...

Sophable - I (and Aloha and Uwila) have always argued that we should be doing things - that our way of life is unsustainable. I've even put forward a few of things that we could do (and which I am doing myself - although I'm not personally doing the wind and renewable energy! ).

I am just not convinced that hanging it all on global warming is the right way about it. I have a fear that that approach could backfire.

We should be changing our lifestules, and teaching our kids to use resources resonsible because not being prfligate is the right thing to do.

John Simpson recently wrote a lovely article about a couple who recycled everything, didn't have a car, walked or used public transport, only bought something new when the old thing was worn out, put jumpers on when it got cold rather than turned up the heating, grew vegetables.... in short, had a tiny "carbon footprint". Turned out he was talking about his own parents.

I'm not suggesting we turn back the clock to the mid 50s or whenever - rather it is our general attidudes to consumption that need to change.

If it weren't global warming, we'd be f*cking up the planet in some other way.

I actually have a sneaking admiration for the Gaia Principle - that the Earth is a self regulating organism, that will tend towards balance - over timescales we can't imagine. If Man threatens it, well, she'll just "shrug" us off.

i just find it so weird that in any other topic people would be ridiculed for not believing an internationally united consensus of eminent scientists and thinking they personally know better. Yet in this instance it seems different.

At the end of the day if the film gets a bunch of kids to think about the world they live in then it can only be a good thing.
I don't think that they will all suddenly stop wasting water etc and the world will be saved, but if it makes a small percentage of them sit up and think how is that a bad thing?

I really believe that schools are there to teach our children and help them develop the skills to think for themselves, not to indoctrinate them, even with ideas that are generally accepted to be good ones.
I, personally, do get a bit hacked off at being lectured about profligacy by the Blairs, whose greed and profligacy takes some beating.

I second that Ruty.

But how on earth can our children dispute the conclusions of an international group of eminent scientists?

You'll be telling me next that you support the teaching of Creationism, in the interests of giving a balanced view!

Then get the science teacher to teach them about the evidence! No problems with this. Just don't approve of this film being - it seems - compulsory for children.

Ruty - you miss my point. The tihng is that it is not "an internationally united consensus of eminent scientists". It is being presented as such, which is what bugs us (or at least me).

According to my dh, who has done the main research (he actaully recentyl had to do an essay on the "impact of global warming" on something to do with the wine industry), there are many respectable scientists who are not yet convinced. Amongst them are heads of climatology deprtmants that are recognised as world ranking. He has an understadning of the respect with which they are held from his geography student days

Even the little research I have done as a result of the debate here has shown me that there is serious debate going on.

What also concerns me is the methodology that is being used: that conclusions are being made and then the evidence being found to fit it. For example: the report of IPCC Working Group 1 has not yet been issued, although the summary conclusions was issued on Friday. The only alterations that are now allowed to be made to that report are those that will make it fit better to the summary. That is just bad science.

I hope that the kids who get presented with this film are affored the opportunity of going away and checking it out for themsleves and don't just to what my parents did, which is accept every word as gospel truth.

Sorry, prettybird, but I can't see the relevance of the fact that your DH had to write an essay.

Creationism is hardly science is it!!??

Science isnt about bunsen burners, testubes and distilled water. It's important to see all aspects of a subject, a theory, and the history behind it.

Like TeeCee said; if it gets the children thinking for themselves then that can only be a good thing. As far as simply accepting what we are told by a group of eminent scientists; Yes, we have to trust that they do have our best interests at heart. Of course we do.

But, the very nature of science is to question facts and evidence and to find more facts and evidence. If we dont encourage children to do so then there wont be many eminent scientists in the future to protect our, and their childrens interests, will there? As I said, whilst I dont feel the evidence is strong enough to be proof positive, there is absolute no harm in preserving our environment anyway. Now, that, is no bad thing, surely?