Another inconvience
This from England:
A judge on Wednesday ruled that Al Gore's award winning climate change documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" should only be shown in schools with guidance notes to prevent political indoctrination.Seems like a reasonable ruling to me.
High Court judge Michael Burton's decision follows legal action brought by a father of two last month claiming the former US vice-president's film contained "serious scientific inaccuracies, political propaganda and sentimental mush". Breibart.com
UPDATE: Make that 9 inconviences.
9 comments:
Are you a global warming denialist educator?
I remain unconvinced that the perceived warming of the Earth is the direct result of industrialization.
I'm concerned that much of what passes for scientific fact is more like religious dogma.
However, don't take that to mean I don't take my responsibility as a steward of the Earth seriously. I dare say this family of six's carbon footprint is smaller than Al & Tipper's. He's making progress though.
Well then, I'd suggest educating yourself on the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and warming. The war on Gore is a GOP kool-aide drink that attempts to politicize this issue. I would urge you to seperate the issue from politics. This talk of a 'global warming religion' is more GOP kool-aide. It is a scientific issue.
The characteristic of religion is that beliefs are based, not on fact but on faith and assumption. When you see that the advent of fossil fuel burning, the rise in CO2 and the rise in earth/ocean temperature are exactly correlated, it takes much less assumption to believe what the science is saying than what the politically motivated denialist counter arguments (Exxon/GOP funded junk science)are saying.
Where I differ from Gore is that I'm skeptical that any significant measures can be taken to stem the trend and to reverse global warming. With countries like China that pollute without conscience, there will likely not be the type of world wide cooperation necessary, and the 'tipping point' has likely already been reached.
That being said, it's troubling to see an educator whose views on a scientific topic are tainted by politics.
From the article you linked:
Despite finding nine significant errors the judge said many of the claims made by the film were fully backed up by the weight of science. He identified "four main scientific 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".
In particular, he agreed with the main thrust of Mr Gore’s arguments: "That climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (‘greenhouse gases’)."
You believe the GOP politicized this issue? Educators have been feeding this 'tainted by politics' issue to students since I was in junior high and Earth Day was born. I don't recall any of them leaning right at all.
Your disconnect is apparent as the science has definitely changed since you were in Jr. High, probably during a time they were talking about 'global cooling.'
Since then, super computer climate models, ice core sample analysis and a host of other factors have given science a more accurate outlook. Your apparent deep rooted suspicion of environmental causes as being 'liberal' or 'left leaning' does not bode well for those who wish to receive a science education untainted by politics.
Your comment: "I don't recall any of them leaning right at all." - Is troubling. You seem to judge information on whether it leans left or right. Pure science is not political unless produced as part of a political agenda (i.e. Corporate supported thinktanks, etc..)
YOU brought politics into the conversation. I was just rebutting your insistence that it was the GOP that was passing out Kool-Aid when I had witnessed its making long before Jonestown.
AND you're exactly correct. "The science" has changed since I was in junior high. It's not possible that it will change again?
"That being said, it's troubling to see an educator whose views on a scientific topic are tainted by politics"
It would seem that this political "tainting" might have some effect on a "scientist" like Gore who is no more than a lifelong politician.
"AND you're exactly correct. "The science" has changed since I was in junior high. It's not possible that it will change again?"
Yes, likely it will. Now, we are able to get ice core samples to look at climate changes over 600,000 years, perhaps we will be able to look back even further. Supercomputer models will improve. Use common sense. But we will never return to the precomputer days, or the days where people believed the planets revolved around the earth.
Your comment implies a denial of the best science available. Skepticism is fine and healthy for science, denial is based on ignorance. I certainly hope you're not a science teacher!
Post a Comment