Calling All Science Teachers
"An Inconvenient Truth," the Davis Guggenheim documentary on global warming starring Al Gore's presentation on the subject, provides an accurate, engaging, accessible, thought-provoking and (at times) even humorous introduction to one of the most important scientific issues of our time ( see our review of the movie). In some countries, viewing "An Inconvenient Truth" has actually become a required part of the science curriculum, and with good justification, we think. Given that the DVD is currently selling for $19.99 through Amazon.com, you'd think that the National Science Teachers' Association ( NSTA) would jump at the chance to quickly get 50,000 free copies quickly into the hands of their members. Yet, when Laurie David, one of the producers of the film, made this offer to NSTA last November, it was summarily turned down on the grounds that the NSTA has a 2001 policy against "product endorsement" (as if Laurie David were trying to shop some new deodorant to high school science teachers). What in the world is going on here?
Before continuing with the history of NSTA's bizarre decision, let us provide you with the most important information: Up to 50,000 US science teachers can receive a free copy of the DVD by filling out a simple request form here . The deadline for requesting your copy is January 18, so if you want a copy, take a few minutes to put in your request right away.
Laurie David described her correspondence with the NSTA in a Washington Post Op-Ed, where she notes that an email sent to her by NSTA invoked not only the product endorsement issue, but also a fear that distributing the film would place "unnecessary risk upon the [NSTA] capital campaign, especially certain targeted supporters." David goes on to point out that one of these supporters is in fact ExxonMobil (whose efforts to spread confusion about climate change are described in a recent report by the Union of Concerned Scientists.) Is NSTA for sale? Did concern about losing ExxonMobil funding lead to NSTA's timidity about accepting the donation of the DVDs?
The NSTA responds to David's charges here , pointing out among other things that they offered to sell David the NSTA's commercial mailing list and that the email to her regarding the fundraising issue was unauthorized. We ourselves find the NSTA's defense unconvincing. While it is impossible for us to know the extent to which ExxonMobil funding has compromised NSTA's objectivity on global warming, a perusal of the NSTA web site shows that their teacher resources are rather short on support for teaching about the fundamental science of global warming. This contrasts strongly with their in-depth support for the teaching of Evolution. Indeed, the NSTA's "compromise" of providing a link on their homepage to the independent DVD giveaway strikes us as uncomfortably similar to placing a sticker on a biology textbook disclaiming Evolution as "Theory, not Fact." Their willingness to link to the giveaway without providing it directly to their members conveys a distinct impression that the film is somehow tainted.
Doing a search on "Global Warming" on the NSTA site turns up only a paltry supply of useful educational material. It is also illuminating to go into their "recommendations" section and type in "global warming." That will turn up this recommended book by Kenneth Green, a fellow of the American Enterprise Institute whose article Clouds of Global-Warming Hysteria in the National Review endorsed Michael Crichton's view of global warming and called supporters of climate change action "One-worlders and other socialist sorts." Needless to say, the NSTA recommendations (as of today) did not turn up "An Inconvenient Truth" either in its DVD or book form. Nor did it turn up Revkin's book directed at juveniles "The North Pole Was Here," nor any of the other scientifically respectable introductions of which we are aware
Perhaps the NSTA policy has not been compromised by its funding sources, but it will have to work a lot harder to convince us. The best way it could do that would be to bring their support for teaching about global warming up to the same standards as their support for teaching about Evolution.
Meanwhile, there have been scattered reports of outright censorship of "An Inconvenient Truth" in the classroom. In a widely reported case, one Seattle school district has essentially banned the film. We have also heard from a science teacher in a populous East Coast state, who was forbidden from showing the film after some parents complained that in fact the earth was "cooling, not warming." (We have been asked to keep this teacher's identity confidential so as to prevent reprisals). Hopefully these are isolated instances. We are eager to hear from our readers, not only on the issue of censorship of the film, but also with regard to their experiences with teaching about human-caused climate change in the K-12 classroom (and the extent to which "An Inconvenient Truth" has proved a useful tool).
15 January 2007 at 11:28 AM
Had the film kept politics and the dramatization out, there would have been a far greater acceptance by the masses. I can’t blame NSTA for refusing to endorse what could have been a true documentary To get the point across, release an edited version and get the reaction you are seeking. Politics should stay out of scientific research and the reporting of results.
[Response: I don’t know who these “masses” are you’re referring to, but the film seems to have pretty good acceptance. There is very little politics in the film (basically just an oblique reference to Gore’s pain over the Presidential election, leading into “And so I started giving the slide show again…”). As for dramatization, if that gets people into the theater and helps keep them awake long enough to pay attention to the science, so much the bettter. Most of the film is about science, and it does a good job of that. –raypierre]
15 January 2007 at 11:45 AM
It’s a great idea to provide this link for science teachers to get a free copy of An Inconvenient Truth. Since the deadline is very soon, it’s important to get the word to as many K-12 science teachers as possible, as quickly as possible. I plan to contact the science coordinator for my local school district to see if he or she can pass the message along to science teachers in the district; others might want to do the same.
15 January 2007 at 12:07 PM
Canadian teachers would almost certainly like to take advantage of an offer like this if US teachers don’t know on what side their bread is buttered, but the application form for a “free” copy ( who actually pays for these reproductions?) is designed to apparently preclude any out of USA teachers from applying and this is short-sighted.
[Response: As I understand it, these are the same 50,000 DVDs that producer Laurie David originally offered to NSTA. The physical cost of a DVD is trivial, but I don’t know if David had to pay anything to Paramount for rights. It could be that the implied cost of rights (a true opportunity cost, so far as Paramount is concerned) were donated, but I haven’t been able to find any details about the financial arrangement. I absolutely agree with you that Canadian teachers need this film every bit as much as American ones. Hopefully, there will be a second round if this one gets a good response. –raypierre]
15 January 2007 at 12:09 PM
I wrote a comment some months ago, calling attention to this absurdity. I’m pleased to see you highlight it, and I hope your readership includes many science teachers. Hopefully, in addition to taking advantage of the link you provide for a free copy of the DVD, these teachers will, enmass, challenge the leadership of their professional organization.
[Response: Indeed, I noticed and appreciated your comment when I was catching up on the comments of the past few weeks. We ought to have publicized the DVD giveaway earlier, but better late than never. –raypierre]
15 January 2007 at 12:19 PM
The Federal Way School District Board of Directors in Federal Way, Washington, has acted to curtail showing of this film. Technically, the Board decreed that in order to get permission to show it, teachers must also have someone provide opposing viewpoints to the film. However, I think anyone can see that this will effectively prevent it from being shown in anything like a fair light, if it is shown at all.
I am happy to report that in my own school district, Northshore School District (Bothell, Kenmore, Woodinville, WA) that with the consent of a school principal, the film can be shown.
Whatever the shortcomings of An Inconvenient Truth, it deserves a viewing by students. Yes, the film appears to be accurate. It shortcomings come in the area of policy prescriptions. No mention is made of the benefits of nuclear power to reducing green-house gas emissions, and no mention is made of the future need for people living in places like Bangladesh to be able to migrate freely as their country is inundated. The film seems to say that if we act quickly, we can prevent the worst effects of global warming. However, it is clear to me that such action will not be soon enough to prevent significant rise in sea level as the ice cap of Greenland and Antarctica melt. We must plan for rising sea levels, not keep pretending that we can still prevent it.
[Response: Should “An Inconvenient Truth” have done more to indicate the nature of the changes in our economy that would be needed in order to head off the worst effects of climate change? This is an interesting and valid question, as is the question about whether the film should have talked about the need (or possibility) to adapt to that part of climate change which is already inevitable. I myself don’t see any part of the film that could be cut out without compromising the presentation of the science, or the essential drama of the presentation. So should the film have been made longer? Or was it wise to just concentrate on the science, which, in comparison to the wealth of possible different policy alternatives to solve the problem, is relatively settled? Without having an answer in hand, I’d hope we could all agree that if everybody at least understood the science underpinning the forecasts of global warming, we’d all be ahead of the game. –raypierre]
15 January 2007 at 12:21 PM
The article in the Seattle Post is very disturbing.
15 January 2007 at 12:37 PM
This film is as much political and biographical in nature as it is scientific. Though I agree that we need educational materials to illustrate climate change, this isn’t it. This film, thought its conclusions are essentially correct, treats science the same way that people who believe in Bigfoot do.
Though I firmly advocate educating the public on anthropogenic global warming (see links to my newspaper articles elsewhere on this site)I do not recommend this film to do it.
15 January 2007 at 12:43 PM
I would think an Inconvenient Truth has made 90% of the money it will make. Maybe instead of giving away 50,000 copies to teachers it might be a better idea to wave restrictions on copying the movie. The original goal of the movie was to educate as many people as possible about global warming wasn’t it? Heck why not post it on YouTube.
[Response: The financial aspects of the film industry are a mystery to me, but while Gore and the director may be in it for education, Paramount is definitely in it for the money, at least in part. The film appeared briefly on YouTube in an unauthorized posting, but was removed at the request of Paramount. Usually film companies count on eking out a second wave of profit from the DVD release, then go on to deeper discounting. My hope is that after the first wave, the discounting will be deep and fast on this one, but that’s in the hands of the beancounters at Paramount Note that I’m not against profit. It cost money to produce and distribute a film like this, and there’s considerable financial risk involved. In the spirit of free markets and capitalism, if there’s money to be made by making films that educate the public, it increases the pool of capital available to make such films. That shouldn’t be the only way to produce educational materials, but it does open up an additional avenue. –raypierre]
15 January 2007 at 12:48 PM
There’s nothing wrong with controversy in science, and political disagreements are inevitable and complicated when political decisions must be made about issues with scientific and technical content. Citizen-scientists don’t have more or less right than any other citizens to express their political views, but as scientists, we hold a responsibility to clearly and forthrightly identify the limits of the science we describe. Perhaps this film can provide an example — both good and bad — of how to do this.
One would hope that these incidents may further provide an opportunity to discuss both the need and limitations of scientific discussion of policy issues, clearly exposing the damaging nature of the “war on science” of recent years.
Yes there is controversy about global warming, but the legitimate controversy is over what to do about it rather than whether it exists. Focusing the debate where it belongs would be an extremely beneficial outcome.
15 January 2007 at 12:59 PM
When you talk to average Republicans, they equate it with Michael Moore’s films. That’s going to affect half the country. Since they don’t and refuse to understand the issue, it’s easy to make this claim. It’s also difficult selling my novel “Warm Front” that answers Crichton. “Global warming is an issue. Where is the plot?” one agent said. Yet Crichton, albeit a famous novelist could sell the “greedy NGO eco-terrorist hype” plot effortlessly in New York. It’s very telling.
15 January 2007 at 1:22 PM
Censorship of any kind is ridiculous. Thanks for the blog and for alerting us to the 50,000 free DVDs.
15 January 2007 at 1:26 PM
I have to disagree with the basic thrust here. I don’t approve why you, as a scientist, readily ignore the non-scientific sidebars and the scientific errors in Algore’s partisan movie so it can/should be shown as “objective scientific truth” in a high school science class. It seems compromising the science is no big deal as long as the political bent is in the right direction and more converts can be gained.
At the same token, I would be willing to show it (I’m a teacher pro tem) along with counter arguments (or at least pointing out the deficiencies and uncertainties) as a decent, if less than perfect, representation. Arm the students with the facts, not necessarily evenly balanced, and let them decide. (btw, I fall on the same fence over the evolution, creationism, intelligent design stuff, although I’m not sure what this has to do with anything.)
On the other side of the coin I agree that NSTA shouldn’t be so paranoid and insecure to not allow or even support its use, done appropriately. Outright censoring of the film seems pretty stupid. NSTA’s support of “Clouds of Global-Warming Hysteria” does seem hypocritical, and their motives seem a bit murky — I don’t like that either. Though I doubt Exxon-Mobil is anywhere near the boogyman implied…
[Response: Your reference to “Algore” is a red flag right up front with regard to your objectivity. Care to tell us precisely what “scientific errors” exist in the movie (other than the minor issues already pointed out by us?) –mike]
15 January 2007 at 1:46 PM
The US education system is being increasingly run as a corporation, at least here in California, and it should come as no surprise whatever that the NSTA comes down on the side of a large corporation with regards to this issue. I’m surprised that anyone is surprised actually.
Likewise, I think it should come as no surprise when parents demand that this film not be shown in schools. My wife and I are raising our children to fully understand the impending catastrophe (we are homeschooling and have a strong natural science core) and have made significant reductions in our (already tiny) carbon foot print. But my wife was just the other day discussing AGW with a neighboring mother of school-age children, who said that she herself was terrified at the prospects for AGW and was concerned about what discussion of this future would have on her children, so she didn’t mention it.
There are MANY families in the country doing exactly the same thing, which is a combination of anxiety management and steadfast denial. In part this is “spare the children” thinking. Also in part it is not wanting to accept that a way of life is ending and that the future for our children, how (or even if) they will live and work as adults, is unclear. Likewise there is an element of intellectual laziness born of too much TV and not enough critical thinking. And I suppose another element is guilt, because if parents found the need to explain all this to their children then they will likewise have to admit to having played their part in the run-up to the disaster, and then have to explain why they aren’t changing how they conduct themselves, and then have to explain how these realities play against “I would gladly entertain any sacrifice for my children” when it appears increasingly likely that the world these children will inherit from their parents is, for all practical purposes, laid waste by greed, laziness, galloping indifference and callousness.
So, indeed, let’s not talk about it. Better to just go ahead with what one knows and imagine that it will all “work itself out”. What is less clear is what impact this attitude will have on kids who are certainly picking up on what is happening. If they fail to accept that inaction was a good approach then the anger and disappointment they will harbor may itself become a national phenomenon. How they will act on those feelings is anyone’s guess. I hope they willingly become the change we need in the world and work to undo the sins of their fathers, and no doubt many will. But I fear too that many will break along with the shattering of their dreams and turn upon their surviving elders and their grand schemes with the fury of those that are shorn of all hope, and lost.
I’m fairly certain few in the denialist camp have thought that far ahead.
15 January 2007 at 2:01 PM
In the USA there really is a issue with regard to climate change and the political right. As the USA consumes 25 % of all fossil fuel resources with 3% of the worlds population and the American way of life is non negotiable or so the politicians tell then I would deduce that a certain amount of vested interest is being leveraged in this arena although I have read that a lot of people in the USA want somehing done about climate change but enough people in power see it as a threat of some kind to the american way of life.
15 January 2007 at 2:33 PM
Amazing discussion for me. RC baseline : “Climate science from climate scientists”. RC new policy : “Climate science from Al Gore”.
I understand the net gain for Al Gore. Not for RC.
15 January 2007 at 2:39 PM
I teach physics at an independent school and have been informally talking to my students about climate change for years. Often there will be a student who tries to politicize the discussion, but I won’t go there during class time. Outside of class anything goes if the student starts the discussion.
Our science department did get a copy of the movie, and I bought my own copy. I’ve now seen it three times with different groups.
Recently, at the request of one of my students, I wrote an article that should be in a student publication next month on basic points of climate change driven by increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. At the end of the article I offered to discuss the issues further with anyone interested. The article is really in response to a previous article written by a student that got absolutely every factual point about climate change wrong. In a bit of web searching I found a website that seemed to be the source of all of the misinformation. I talked to the student about the lack or references and the generally poor scholarship. Now our students will get another set of information with citations.
Last year our Environmental Science teacher asked me for a good source of information on climate science that students could readily follow. I told him about RealClimate.org, along with a few other sources. I’ve been reading journal articles on this topic for about 10 years, and RealClimate is a great resource for filling in the gaps that I can’t otherwise bridge.
Thanks!
15 January 2007 at 2:49 PM
I find it very enlightening to read the broad spectrum of opinion on this subject and as a layman with little scientific background. However I think that I have a reasonable grasp of what is happening to the globe climate wise. I recently visited the Athabasca Glacier in the Rocky Mountains between Banff and Jasper in Canada, I live within a few hundred miles of the place. I was absolutly astounded by how much retreat this glacier has made since I last saw it ten years ago. Thousands of feet in ten years.
The education we receive as adults is just as critical in my view as it is when we are children. because as adults who believe we are responsible for our own behaviour, it behooves us to be open and to continue learning about what is going on around us, I realize this is probably sounding a little like “preaching to the converted”. but I think that the tool that we are currently using “the internet” might just help those few who lead the many,(just look at any government in the world)to gain a broader perspective as well.
One source of knowledge is a very dangerous thing in my opinion, and the role that “Media” plays could really help! When the mindset finally kicks in that we are all members of a spieces co habit a rather small spot in the universe. The earth is the only one we have for the foseeable near future, I seems that preparing for worste case is better that pretending that all is well. or that the observable sign are nothing to worry about.
regards Michael Mott
15 January 2007 at 2:52 PM
Rod B: Your comment highlights the problem. You feel that there are counter arguments out there that should be highlighted so I would request that you point them out.
I am afraid that in the rush to present “balanced” arguments the media has given the impression that “the truth is out there” - i.e. there exists a solid counter argument that, for whatever reason, has not been brought to light. However I have never seen such an argument (and I have spent quite a while tracking down various ones).
15 January 2007 at 3:08 PM
I couldn’t get their search to find anything if I designated “global warming” specifically. Maybe they removed it?
[Response: I think I also tried some searches under things like “climate change,” but it also depends on which search box you are using. The NSTA site seems to have different search engines for different parts of their site, which don’t share a general search space. There actually is some useful information buried in some of the Earth Science material, and some of the joint workshops between NSTA and NASA have touched on what look to be worthwhile subjects regarding climate change (notably on arctic ice). But the main problem is that whatever climate change information there may be on the site is disorganized and hard to find. It really needs to be improved and collected under a single rubric, rather like they do with evolution. Perfectly aside from whatever is going on with regard to the ExxonMobil funding issue, the second-rate coverage of Earth Science on the site is generally consistent with my impression that modern Earth Science is not well understood or held in particularly high regard by much of the K-12 education community. It’s often viewed as a poor cousin to physics, centered more on weather and rocks than physics of climate, and a kind of ghetto for the math-challenged student. NSTA should be leading the charge to change that, and global warming provides an excellent focal point for introducing quantitative physical concepts governing climate of planets. –raypierre]
15 January 2007 at 3:36 PM
I was surprised that there was little, if any, content on AGW as a likely cause of some of the problems that are shown in the archived PowerPoint presentations from the NSTA web seminars on such provocative topics as “The Ocean�s Role in Weather and Climate”, “Hurricanes”, and “Coral Ecosystems” from people who, I would think, have impeccable credentials (e.g. from NOAA). see http://institute.nsta.org/web_seminars.asp and http://institute.nsta.org/web_seminars_archive.asp
15 January 2007 at 3:39 PM
We are screwed. The Artic ice is melting and all we can come up with is 50,000 free copies of An Inconvenient Truth? Does anyone else besides myself see the absurdity in this whole thread? God forbid Paramount release the rights. I know the situation is serious, but this thread gave me a good laugh. If mankind had even small chance of saving ourselves this video would be free on YouTube.
15 January 2007 at 4:10 PM
Dear RC
Maybe all of the worlds meetings on climate change, the stern report and an inconvenient truth and the rest of it has led to this:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1989997,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1#article_continue
Maybe the current US administration might cut some CO2 after all nationally.
15 January 2007 at 4:14 PM
This is a fascinating, albeit sometimes depressing, discussion. I’ve begun giving talks to local schools (7th and 8th graders, Rochester, NY area) about energy issues, and the teachers I’ve spoken/worked with have no problem with using An Inconvenient Truth as a resource.
When I talk about the future of electricity generation, all I have to do is show them the presentation slide that details how much CO2 is emitted by coal plants and I instantly have their attention. They find it inconceivable that we adults could do something so obviously boneheaded as generate 50% of our electricity that way (a view I share most days). I usually wind up issuing a generational apology by the end of my presentation.
And I always make sure to point them and their teachers to to RC for all their climate science needs.
15 January 2007 at 4:28 PM
Fifty years ago I never believed the end of the world theories. The mercury levels in fish and the near extinction of polar bears, among other things have convinced me. The human race is in a whole lot of trouble.
15 January 2007 at 4:35 PM
Unfortunately, the 50,000 DVD giveaway is restricted to certain states, including Florida.
As for the NSTA, I am not renewing my membership! Get Exxon out of Education!
15 January 2007 at 5:02 PM
Maybe we just need to all understand that different groups endorse different understandings of science. Real Climate and other science groups endorse Al Gore’s movie, National Review endorses Michael Crichton, and a writer for Reason Magazine, with no training in science, endorses Roger Pielke Jr in today’s Boston Globe.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/
Sometimes we have to just agree that there are many ways of knowing.
15 January 2007 at 5:05 PM
The biggest scientific problem I found
with AIT is the continued use of the
paleoclimatic correlation between
CO2 and proxy temperature.
Since there is now consensus that
temperature led CO2, and since there is
good evidence that the increased
windiness of glacials caused the
drops in CO2, the correlation
is irrelevant to industrial age CO2.
Ignoring this fact is dishonestly
misleading the public.
[Response: If the argument was simply that CO2 and temp are correlated in the past and therefore that temperatures will rise if CO2 does, you would be correct. However, this is not what is claimed by either the scientific community nor Al Gore. The statements in AIT are that the CO2 and temperature curves ‘fit’ and that the relationship is complex, but causal in both directions. This is based not just on Vostok curves themselves, but from tons of ancilliary evidence that demonstrates that CO2 (and methane and N2O) changes explain just under half the temperature changes seen in the glacial records. The pacemaker for the ice ages is the insolation variability due to orbital forcings, which are amplified by GHG feedbacks. Thus good correlations are to be expected, as are slight lags in CO2. -gavin]
[Response:Look here for another way to say the same thing. David]
15 January 2007 at 5:59 PM
I am in the wine business. Many of RC’s readers may have seen the story in USA Today about the PNAS paper by White, Diffenbaugh, Jones, Pal and Giorgi about the implications of climate change for premium winemaking in western North America. I get lots of questions about AGW and wine. So, in relation to #15 by Charles Muller, I would observe that the way into the science of the AGW discussion for many lay people *is* AIC. I would ask Mr. Muller to 1)propose another means of putting the discussion at the fore and 2)other than what loyal RC readers already know about ways AIC may have “pushed” the science, what about the basic argument is fundamentally flawed? (see Andrew Dessler’s blog for a report about AIC training in Nashville. Worth a read.) The only better thing I can think of as a means to communicate to a large cross section of America is primetime combination of Americam Idol and Survivor. mike, gavin and raypierre on one team would compete with s. fred, Pat Michaels and Richard Lindzen. I want to sign up to be Simon Cowell, and I suggest that by the next AGU meeting, we can have all the details worked out.
15 January 2007 at 6:43 PM
It’s a good film but it is not the only game in town. Tom Brokaw’s show on the Discovery Channel was far more appropriate for the science classroom.
[Response: The Brokaw/Discovery Channel documentary was excellent, and would be very useful in the classroom. Perhaps someone in this forum can provide a link to where this can be purchased. -mike]
15 January 2007 at 7:13 PM
re #26 [different views] People don’t really have “different views of science” like they might have different views regarding — oh, say– race horses. Either the data and sound scientific theory are there, or they ain’t. And if it’s there and you have another view about reality, then you’re not a scientist. Rather you’re a kook, like those people who come up with perpetual motion machines all the time despite the laws of thermodynamics. Wacky science isn’t real science. And lumping bonafides like Jim Hansen and the folk behind RC into the same category as Michael Crichton is way more than I can take.
[Response: Reminds me of the famous quote by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, “Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.” -mike]
15 January 2007 at 7:17 PM
re my #12 and its response, and #18
Isn’t Algore a term of endearment?? No, I am not a fan of Mr. Gore in a number of areas and don’t try to hide it, but that doesn’t mean I can’t objectively assess his movie or anything else he professes or does. One counterpoint: I think he got a sound bite bum wrap over his “invention of the internet” thing. While, true, he didn’t invent it, he was in fact extremely influential and supportive in making what the internet is today, back then as a Senator driving the White House’s Office of Telecommunications Policy and the National Science Foundation.
I am satisfied with the “anamolies” in Al Gore’s movie that RC pointed out. There’s likely more, but aren’t these enough? I simply think an educator ought to point out the chinks, counterpoints, and slight discrepancies, not just espouse the unmitigated dogma. Now it doesn’t have to be a 50-50 balance. I don’t even know how to figure the balance arithmetic — what is it if 1) “most scientists say this” and 2) “some [equally capable even if secular] scientists say otherwise”? It is pure religious fervor to deny, or not even be able to find… for heaven’s sake!, credible opposition. The only way not to be able to find counter arguments out there is to dumb them down and classify them as sinful and therefore without merit where ever seen. Maybe censor them if we can. A scientist who permits no iota or vestige of contrary analysis is mis-titled. And, btw, I see a preponderance of distinctly unbalanced reporting of GW in the media.
re #14 by pete: It astounds me how climate science and global warming can be either a right- or a left-defined issue. Though I have to admit that it seems to be. Likewise I fail to see the connection between climate science and the “3% of the people using 25% of the resources” so-called issue. Maybe the left wants us to get down to 3% resource use (then we’ll all be equal and all will be fair, I guess) and think GW is a nice fitting means to the end. Though that also strikes me as an odd non sequitur.
I whole-heartedly support the notion that NSTA do a significantly better job of arranging and providing climate/global warming science. If Exxon fights them (which I intuitively doubt, as opposed to NSTA’s paranoia maybe) they just have to stand their ground and maybe lose some funding or otherwise change their name and/or mission.
15 January 2007 at 7:35 PM
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/horsey/viewbydate.asp?id=1529
Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist David Horsey’s take on the Federal Way school district board’s decision.
15 January 2007 at 9:56 PM
I feel like showing the Al Gore movie is not at all the best way to teach a science class. If it were there would not be education degrees simply DVD players with all the best science movies cued up to play. Obviously people teach and don’t show movies because it is better. Discussions, experiments, etc. are better ways to learn. Of course sometimes movies are good usually because you have a supply teacher coming in or you and and the students just need an hour with the lights off to seperate yourselves from the hectic environment created by 35 students being forced to learn. Also I don’t think this movie would be the one I would show, a more concise shorter film would be better suited for a classroom.
This very generous offer, should be taken, but the movie should be available in the library or the student body adminstration could show it after school on a movie night. If one of my classes asked to watch it I would probably show snippits or show it at lunch hour.
Another problem is the controversy, regular schools try to stay away from any controversy because it gets you fired. You said it was similar to the Darwin vs. ID debate which most schools still try to steer clear of. The theory of evolution is still in debate after about 140 yrs and they have so much supporting evidence it can’t compare to anything Real Climate or the IPCC could come up with in our lifetimes.
[Response: A science teacher who had taken, say, Dave Archer’s global warming class at U. of Chicago wouldn’t need “An Inconvenient Truth”. He or she could present the same material in a way that was much better integrated into the curriculum. The world is not ideal, though, and there are plenty of science teachers out there (esp. in middle schools) who don’t have science degrees in the areas they are teaching in, or at least are not as current on the science as Gore is in the film. It is for these that the film would be most valuable. Even for completely savvy teachers, the engaging style of presentation in the film might be an aid to getting discussion going. On the subject of controversy and evidence for evolution vs. evidence for CO2-induced global warming, I’d say both are well supported but that in some ways the case for anthropogenic global warming is a bit more straightforward. That’s because its mostly physical science rather than biology. We have quantitative mathematical representations of far more of the process, and ways of testing individual bits in a more straightforward way (as in laboratory measurements of infrared absorption by CO2). Evolution proceeds slowly, and while there are definitely cases where it can be observed in action, reading the fossil record presents difficulties that are in some ways more challenging than reading the paleoclimate record. There are cases where the difficulties are comparable (e.g. figuring out Cretaceous CO2 levels, or making sense of satellite measurements of tropical lapse rate trends) but on the whole, we know how to take a reductionist approach to climate better than we know how to take a reductionist approach to biology. –raypierre]
15 January 2007 at 10:35 PM
Re 18:
>…there exists a solid counter argument that, for whatever reason, has not been brought to light. However I have never seen such an argument (and I have spent quite a while tracking down various ones).
Try looking here:
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/WE-STERN.pdf
for a well documented summary (of the climate science and economics) of why warming may be much smaller than some estimates, and why moderate warming is not likely to be especially serious.
[Response: In the present context, we’re discussing the scientific validity of the link between likely CO2 increases and substantial warming, so it’s just the “scientific” (and not the economic) parts of the above linked article that are on the table. With regard to that, one should note that this article appeared in an economics journal not a science journal, and I seriously doubt whether the supposedly scientific section of this article would have passed muster in a peer reviewed scientific journal, where it would have been read by atmospheric scientists. Among other things the article complains about are that cosmic rays aren’t taken into account in models, and that nobody has yet “solved” the Navier-Stokes equation. Smoke and mirrors. I have approved this post not because it has any useful information, but so that readers can amuse themselves by shooting down the errors in the reasoning. Note also that a statement like “warming may be much smaller than some estimates,” even if true, doesn’t address the basic issue on the table. The question isn’t whether we might get lucky and duck a bullet, but whether there is a significant chance that the more dire predictions might come to pass. –raypierre]
15 January 2007 at 10:54 PM
In looking over the blog responses, I came across an excellent and detailed discussion of the circumstances surrounding NSTA and the attempted DVD donation at http://udoj.wordpress.com/2006/12/10/the-nsta-is-feeding-us-a-line/ . This is particularly illuminating with regard to the analysis of the flaws in NSTA’s response to Laurie David’s Op-Ed. What is particularly telling is that in 2003 — fully two years after the policy supposedly went into effect regarding product endorsements and distributing unsolicited material — NSTA distributed 20,000 copies of a Conoco/Phillips video. That’s pretty damning in itself, but according the the above referenced write-up, the video quotes at least one well-known global warming skeptic.
15 January 2007 at 10:58 PM
Someone in this thread placed a link to Cathy Young’s article in “Reason”. I quote the following:
“Similarly, those on the left who embrace environmentalism as their substitute religion don’t want to hear about scientific and technological solutions to climate change — from nuclear power to geoengineering, the artificial manipulation of the global environment — that do not include stepping up regulation and curbing consumption.”
I’m not sure who these people are who “embrace environmentalism as their substitute religion”. I’ve been teaching ecology courses for several years and have yet to run into a student who regards environmentalism as a substitute religion. Most of the students, who might be construed as “those on the left”, are eager to hear of possible “technological solutions”. I detect a growing bitterness among students concerning, not only the misinformation presented in the media in the interests of balance, but the discouraging environmental legacy being left them. They ask serious questions about “technological solutions” and whether these will result in contributing to the serious environmental problems they will be facing.
15 January 2007 at 11:15 PM
Unfortunately, regardless of the merit of the film’s content, the presenter is a former politician who a substantial portion of the politically active American population voted against not that long ago.
Given this, it’s not surprising that many people consider the film and the choice to screen it as being political.
I think that there is room for someone to make another film on the same topic that is explicitly designed for the classroom and using a presenter who is less likely to get political hackles up.
Of course this is a monumental duplication of effort. But in reality it may be the only effective way to get such a product into the education system. Or for the information to be made available to the wider right-wing public.
[Response:As noted above, the US population is only ~4% of the worlds estimated people count, and consumes 25% of the energy. Also, in other countries, the DVD is distributed to schools (politics is not an issue, as far as I know). So in the future, Americans may risk bumping into people from outside the US who know much more about Al Gore’s view and about climate change, but I suppose that will only be embarrassing for the person… In addition to conveying scientific messages, the film may also assist shaping our world view and affect modern culture(?). It’s a good starting point for discussion, and prompts people to start to think. Isn’t that what we want to happen in schools? -rasmus]
15 January 2007 at 11:43 PM
I’m a biologist and journalist by profession and training, albeit not at the Ph.D level by any means. Al Gore is a professor at the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism as well as a former Senator and Vice-President. He’s a forward thinker, but alas much reviled in a large political camp.
Did anyone catch the key quote in the SP-I Federal Way story?
Here’s what I chose to portray the so-called argument in my blog post.
“Condoms don’t belong in school, and neither does Al Gore. He’s not a schoolteacher,” said Frosty Hardison, a parent of seven who also said that he believes the Earth is 14,000 years old. “The information that’s being presented is a very cockeyed view of what the truth is. … The Bible says that in the end times everything will burn up, but that perspective isn’t in the DVD.”
NASA versus the Raelians shouldn’t be a choice at this stage of the game but sadly it is.
15 January 2007 at 11:45 PM
>a substantial portion … voted against
Hey, the majority of voters that year preferred Bush or Nader to Gore.
Makes no never mind.
The film isn’t an icon, Gore isn’t a founder,
and this http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:fpNpXMe3rBl_QM:http://i23.ebayimg.com/02/i/07/fc/5e/dd_2.JPG
isn’t a hockey stick.
15 January 2007 at 11:48 PM
Ray,
“Earth Science is not well understood or held in particularly high regard by much of the K-12 education community. It’s often viewed as a poor cousin to physics, centered more on weather and rocks than physics of climate, and a kind of ghetto for the math-challenged student.”
Certainly. It was in my day too, and that was back in the temporary “cooling” period. Too dumb for Physics general ed. I’m seeing specific faces from 1970 as I write this. Dead on.
15 January 2007 at 11:51 PM
For those in the Bay Area, there will be a session on learning how to communicate about climate change on Feb 18 at the AAAS National meeting. With video….:)
16 January 2007 at 1:06 AM
Science films are great for getting students interested in science - everything from Stephen Hawkings’s “Brief History of Time” to the film on insect life, “Microcosmos” and the close relative, “Winged Migration”, as well as “An Inconvenient Truth” are worth showing as introductions in science classes. Films help to get students interested in the material, after which they will be willing to put in the long hours of effort needed to become familiar with complex topics - so there’s no reason at all that NSTA should have refused to distribute this film.
Perhaps this NSTA press release is relevant: Oct, 2002 � The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) and ExxonMobil Foundation announced today the funding of a new program in Arizona, �Building a Presence for Science�. ExxonMobil also has a member on the group’s corporate advisory board… no special interests allowed?
After looking up some of the other ‘educational materials’ offered through NSTA and following their web support links, I came across this ‘teaching scenario’ on oil spills:
“Two days later, there is a loud group working at the back of the room. It’s the economists. As they approach, the teacher observes that they are not a happy bunch. “There is too much writing to this job, and statistics are boring! We are stuck trying to write an Environmental Impact statement. There are too many regulations.”"
Really, the more I look the worse it gets. “NSTA Recommends: Ice Ages of the Future!”… and on and on. They also recommend a book by Kenneth Green, “Global Warming: Understanding the Debate”; he’s cited by Senator Inhofe (along with Pat Michaels) as a signatory of this statement:
“”There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
As the tobacco industry says, “You’ve got to get to them when they’re young.”
16 January 2007 at 1:13 AM
Continuing my thoughts in #35, and the sentiment in #28 …
Climate change is the ultimate theme in terms of reality drama, so how about this concept:
A five episode series, designed for TV screening and to be remade every year. It would cover the science, the politics, the economics, the personalities involved, the behind-the-scenes cloak and dagger, and the real world impacts on environment, communities and society. Enough happens with this juggernaught in each and every year to keep us all gripping our seats in anticipation of each exciting annual instalment. How will it end? Will we wake up in time to turn it around? Is it going to be the catastrophe that some predict? Or does it turn out to all be a big beat-up after all and destined to be assigned to the science scrap-heap along with phlogiston and Piltdown man.
It would be a kind of popular version of the IPCC report only delivered more regularly, more digestibly and without all the watering down.
And the denialists would make for great comic relief!
Mr Gore what do you think? You could sponsor it, but then let it be made independently.
16 January 2007 at 1:32 AM
I’m not cynical enough yet. Good finds, those. So that’s — education, they call it?
http://ed.fnal.gov/linc/fall96/projects/jmueller/scen.htm
“… The first two days of this unit are spent gathering background information on oil spill disasters by investigating the Exxon Valdez spill … it is not a current event, it has the advantage of being well documented and the results of clean up efforts can be evaluated. Some mistakes were made ….Amy wants more information about how many birds were lost and what the cost per bird was.”
Well, the above is snipped from the info our teachers get provided for free.
It’s as bogus as the stuff we were being fed in the 1950s, on its face.
And scientific info? Available to those with paid subscriptions or a better library.
Let kids look at current sources instead of the old news? Not the way to raise them Right.
Long-Term Ecosystem Response to the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill -
CH Peterson, SD Rice, JW Short, D Esler, JL Bodkin � - Science, 2003
Exxon Valdez: The Disaster Continues — Unger, ScienceNOW 16 May 2006
16 January 2007 at 2:49 AM
If I were a science teacher, I would not show the film to my students unless it was part of a wider debate. A principal reason is that Al Gore is a politician and not a scientist. Whether or not you agree with what he says in the film, you have to question his own motives. Politicians are generally more interested in saving their own careers rather than the world, and for Gore I believe the subject is a convenient emotive hobby horse.
In addition, the bias in the film is shocking. There are quite a few examples. The most significant is during the most dramatic part of the film - the graph of historic CO2 variations against temperature changes. You have to ask why Gore ‘forgot’ to mention that historically, temperature rises have preceded CO2 rises. This is just one example. As a scientist, I can not accept this type of economy with the truth as a way to teach science.
[Response:This is a non issue. All the record tells us is that warming started without CO2 as a cause, but once CO2 started rising, it amplified the initial warming. The climate sensitivity to CO2, as deduced from the glacial climate and CO2 levels, is consistent with all the rest of the estimates. You need lower CO2 in order to create an ice age, and you need it to rise in order to get out of it. David]
In fact, you devalue the quality and credibility of Realclimate by supporting the film. It is apparent to me that the reason you support it is because it provides the conclusions you want, irrespective of the credibiity of the presenter or the quality of the arguments.
[Response:As to credibility and self-interest, I’d say there’s more self-interest on the denial side of the global warming argument. If there were a way to get rich by advocating cuts in CO2 emissions, State of Fear would have had a more believable plot. As it was, the eco-terrorists were reduced to generating a tsunami, although I can’t remember exactly how Crichton spun that as to their advantage. As to the quality of the arguments, I’d say they’re better than the quality of many of the “despise Al Gore” comments to this post. David]
16 January 2007 at 5:29 AM
Rasmus, Regarding your response to my #37 post.
Clearly we do need this to be discussed in schools and throughout the wider community. I just don’t think that AIT has the capacity to do this in the US to anywhere near the extent necessary. We can poke fun at a few schools that ban it, and we can wring our hands over the motives of the NSTA. But the fact is that a documentary presented by a former Democratic Presidential candidate was always going to be seen as political and will not be readily accepted by people on the right of politics. It doesn’t matter that the science is pretty good, or that it is well made, or that the message is important. If a substantial proportion of the most sceptical segment of the population refuses to watch it, that reality has to be faced. It doesn’t matter if scientists and environmentalists think this is an sad state of affairs. It just is. That fact needs to be taken on board and addressed in future attempts to get the message across, whether by Mr Gore or anyone else.
The seemingly compromised nature of the NSTA is an issue unto itself and should be pursued as a separate although obviously interlinked issue. But don’t let that be an excuse to ignore the inability of the AIT format to get market share with the global warming message.
16 January 2007 at 6:25 AM
RE: 22 “Dear RC
Maybe all of the worlds meetings on climate change, the stern report and an inconvenient truth and the rest of it has led to this:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1989997,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1#article_continue
Maybe the current US administration might cut some CO2 after all nationally.
Comment by pete best — 15 Jan 2007 @ 4:10 pm ”
Pete, your URL is messed up, but by going to
http://observer.guardian.co.uk
I eventually got to a recent British Treasury report on the cost of global warming by Sir Nicholas Stern. The report says that says that doing nothing will eventually prove more costly than trying to avert catastrophe. The report is available at:
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm
PS: I am not the same person as Ed G.
16 January 2007 at 6:35 AM
Well i’m no science teacher, but i am a science graduate which is just as good and an industrial analyst (mining, don’t stone me yet!). I agree with what y’all are doing here, but Al Gore’s movie is a dogs breakfast. Greenhouse thugs beating up mister sun rays, fun, but “lets skip over the science” as Al says. Glaciers retreating?, well how bad was the industrial revolution in 1900, bad, maybe but if the shit has been hitting the fan since 1850 we are screwed because there were so many less people then than there are now. Hell glaciers have been retreating in New Zealand since 1750, of course it is a shame about those other glaciers around the world…
[Response:Glaciers have been retreating, at least in the north, since the end of the little ice age, but the accelerated retreat in recent decades is due to warming in recent decades, which is due to greenhouse gases. ]
Kilimanjaro suffers from lack of ice (deforestation?), lake chad dissapears, a shallow lake to start with, but now surrounded by an exponentially increasing population of ‘peasant’ farmers draining it for irrgation etc.
[Response:Kilimanjaro is melting, as are almost all of the rest of the glaciers of the world. Good evidence for warming on a global scale. There may be other factors involved at Kilimanjaro but the larger truth remains. No problem there. ]
Tuvaluans feeing to New Zealand, rubbish, we get less tuvaluans every year than fijians or samoans, yet Gore says they all fled over here relying on American lack of knowledge of the pacific region. How about this for a poll, a TV straw poll (not very scientific granted) showed many Americans thought New Zealand was in the mediterranean, ha!
[Response:Tuvaluans are evacuating because of rising sea levels. What does it matter about Fijians and Samoans?]
The real problem with Global warming is this. We have a lot of people, too many in fact and they are draining the worlds resources, the only country taking action on this is China, go figure.
Anyway to cut a long story short, there are enough falsehoods in Gore’s movie to make it unworthy of viewing by learning students, it doesn’t mention the absorbtion qualities of carbon dioxide or what makes it special compared with other atmospheric constituents.
[Response:To cut a long response short, What falsehoods?]
Oh yeah the Kyoto protocol is a load of junk. Growing trees to offset carbon dioxide production. Only works if you cut them down and make them nto furniture and houses, otherwise you just make it worse. Everyone knows the ocean is the only carbon sink worth it’s salt and it’s reacting big time as anyone who knows the “red tide” off florida will tell you.
[Response:I agree that reforestation is a dicey way to offset carbon emissions. That doesn’t make Kyoto junk. Also, red tide has nothing to do with ocean absorption of CO2. ]
Keep up the good work but when it comes to the Al Gore movie turn off those blinkers, I don’t think you were looking hard enough for the errors you claim aren’t there.
[Response:My opinion is that poor Al just can’t get an even break. Even people like you who seem to share his basic perspective have this need to swift-boat the guy with confusion and obfuscation. David]
Anyway, keep up the good work
16 January 2007 at 6:48 AM
To those who don’t get the whole carbon dioxide following the raising temperature trend I think there is a really easy explanation for it.
Once there was a dinosaur and his loving partner. They loved the warmth. the world warmed up and hey produced lots of little babies. So did all the other dinosaurs and the trees flourished and rotted and created massive plumes of methane.
The dinosaurs replicated in the favourable conditions until they overwhelmed their environment and then the carbon levels spiked. Gradually natural cooling conditions reduced the favourable breeding conditions and the dinosaurs faded, yippee all was well again and millions of years later i made them into a sculpture.
Anyway, it is perfectly logical for a carbon spike to follow a temperature increase, because in the past many creatures found the temperature increase to be a favourable situation to increase population and reduce sinks by way of foraging. We really don’t know what the population on the earth was say a million years ago so the logic can be maintained.
However this is bad for us because the same logic would show that we have a lot of carbon increase, due to increasing population, to come due to technological favourible conditions for breeding. Like I say, too many humans and no sane answer to the problem.
16 January 2007 at 6:50 AM
Re “Response:As noted above, the US population is only ~4% of the worlds estimated people count, and consumes 25% of the energy.”
The United States also produces 25% of the world’s goods and services. Concentrating only on US resource use gives a distorted picture.
[Response: But, given that we have a monster trade DEFICIT, we also consume more than 25% of the worlds goods and services. Your argument would be relevant only if we were exporting a substantial part of that 25% of the worlds’ production. Which raises the interesting carbon-accounting question: If we import a few megatons of rubber duckies from China, and China has burned coal to manufacture them, whom should the carbon emissions be credited against? –raypierre]
16 January 2007 at 6:53 AM
#48, yeah but that 25% includes a lot of services which is just a dude sitting in front of a computer or something which contributes greatly to GDP but not to pollution perse, it is the other industries and cars etc that are the problem. Sometimes you get more for less and less for more, the US gets both and has the most opportunity to decrease pollution regardless
16 January 2007 at 7:09 AM
Can’t help but agree with Number 45. You guys have real science and real useful data not to mention some awesome links(although some of them are restricted to non affiliates such as myself), but instead you seem to rely on something which dusts over the truth because you have to rely on the opinions of everyone to be changed by media to get what you (we?) want. The truth is that far too many sites have been able too take global warming to task due to this movie. However, on balance I think the movie helped more than hindered the ‘fight’ against global warming, that is assuming we can fix it of course.
16 January 2007 at 7:16 AM
Re: #47
“Everyone knows the ocean is the only carbon sink worth it’s salt and it’s reacting big time as anyone who knows the “red tide” off florida will tell you.”
Not quite sure what the ocean as a carbon sink has to do with this.
It seems that phytoplankton blooms are mostly the consequence of adding large amounts of nutrients to the water, often the result of a natural upwelling, as seems to be the case of the Floridian red tides.
Though pollution runoff probably aggravates the problem.
http://www.start1.com/redtide/default.aspx
16 January 2007 at 7:22 AM
PS As a disclaimer i am a hypocrite just like Gore. He flies everywhere to do his silly slide show, well one digger at the minesite i work at consumes over 1000000 litres of diesel (yes that is 1 million) per annum. I love that machine, it fills a 150 ton truck in 1 or 2 scoops and my friend who is six feet 3 inches doesn’t have to bend over when he stands in the bucket. Just beautiful.
Anywhoo Do you see what we are up against in the fight against global warming, that is one machine feeding approximately 80000 trees with carbon dioxide (pretty rough estimate)
16 January 2007 at 7:53 AM
Re #48, thats not really a fair perspective is it. On average the USA per head of capita consume some 20 tonnes per head of capita.
http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file32554.pdf
France,UK,Germany only consume around 9 to 10 tonnes per head of capita and they are trying to curb their emissions further. All we are saying is that the USA should do the same as they are the most technologically advanced nation on the earth. Maybe some R&D dollars should be spent on new technology research and maybe energy efficiency. It cannot do any harm can it as Oil and Gas are scheduled to run out this century and this sort of thing can only mitigate problems on both fronts, energy security and climate change.
Win win is it not ?
16 January 2007 at 10:13 AM
re: #12. If the use of a widely-used word like ‘Algore’ is a red flag relative to objectivity how does this Web site fit into that scheme of things? http:// [edited]
ps
I fully expect to make some easy money from this post as I’ve bet a friend that RC will not post it.
[Response: That would seem to have been a good bet on your part, since you are probably aware that you have been flagged for ‘trolling’ at RC and most of your comments have been eliminated based on the rules clearly spelled out in our comments policy. In this case, both items #5 and #8 would be relevant. -mike]
[Response: This might have been overly strong. I don’t believe it is the case that the poster has been flagged for ‘trolling’, but he has had a number of comments, such as this one, caught in our moderation queue because of language used. He, as anyone, is welcome to comment as long as it fits with our comments policy. Commenting on one of my RC colleague’s political leanings based on unrelated, off-site material is not fair game. That’s why this one was edited. We’ll leave it at that. -mike]
16 January 2007 at 10:44 AM
As this discussion shows, even for the more attentive than average person, ideas about climate change are a random collections of truths, half truths, and outright wrong stuff covered with mush. The issue, in schools and in the public arena is to teach a relatively simple, first order, picture of what has happened, is happening and will happen in a malestrom of mis-information, cheerfully spread by the Exxon elf core.
Good luck.
16 January 2007 at 11:12 AM
Matt,
I don’t know how to put the correlation between temperature and CO2 convincingly enough for you stop believing misinformation about it, but it is a strong supporting measurement not a theory. The case is not that a single correlation between CO2 and explains global warming. The physics of greenhouse gases are so well established as to be essentially indisputable, and the correlation is a demonstration of that effect that, along with other measurements, helps set parameter values for the physics.
You may be alluding to the question of how quickly and strongly greenhouse gases affect temperature; this is so-called “climate sensitivity”, and there’s plenty of posts on this site about it and research elsewhere. That is not an open-and-shut question, and is in fact why the climate science community is certain that we are contributing strongly to warming, but is not exactly sure the path warming will take or magnitude of the warming by 2100 (2C to 10C is nearly an order of magnitude!).
Al Gore did adopt a dramatic tone in the movie - and it made the movie entertaining. He (or the director) also cast himself as a lonely crusader for the truth, which I found annoying and did not think added much to the drama of the story. Certainly he’s not a scientist, and that’s worth taking into account. But if you look at any of the claims the movie is making, they are either unanimously supported (melting of icecaps, retreat of glaciers, 2C to 10C of warming) or at least plausible (e.g. rapid melting of Greenland ice sheet - note that there have been several papers recently observing that the ice sheet is melting faster than any models would predict). That’s what the review here on RealClimate says - the facts are correct. It’s one thing to claim that the movie takes an overly dramatic tone or too much sense of doom and gloom - that’s an opinion, and you’re as entitled to yours as anyone else. But to say it’s full of lies and distortions is to claim that scientists are lying and distorting.
16 January 2007 at 12:32 PM
The “swiftboating” of Al Gore is an interesting story. There were Republicans at work, of course, but what made the smears work were the bloc of liberal reporters who simply decided that Gore was corny, stiff, and outré and who repeated the made up and distorted stories about him without checking or publicly correcting the stories once they’d been disproved. And it was fashionable among some on the left in 2000 to pretend that there were no differences betweeb the major party candidates. As the saying goes, “Thanks, Ralph”.
Even though his climate views have been vetted and re-vetted, it’s still fashionable to put him down. Old habits die hard.
16 January 2007 at 12:42 PM
I think the global warming controversy is all about fear. Many teachers, I think, would be reluctant to show this film to their students because the idea of AGW is pretty damn scary to them. The film scared the hell out of me even though very little was new to me. The film somehow made it all real and immediate. The idea of showing it to their students, especially to those who haven’t yet amored themselves with the idea that it can’t possibly be all that bad (younger children), is probably out of the question for many teachers.
Yet, I think either the various scientists involved in this blog underestimate the problems AGW will cause or you are a hell of a lot braver than I (or are really good at keeping any hint of panic out of your public correspondence). Paul Hirt wrote a great book about the U.S. Forest Service’s failure, while working within the relatively simple (sorry to any of my profs who may read this post) science of forest management, to maintain the health the U.S.’s national forests. The title is even better than the book itself. “A Conspiracy of Optimism”. I’m sure the assurances many of the NFS scientists told themselves are repeated among climate modelers over a beer at conference socials. But I’m not sure society will be able to put enough good ideas together to avoid some of the really bad effects of AGW (wars over water and ag lands, increased classism in many countries, etc.).
So, in the end, if we are to accomplish avoiding the worst; the only hope is to make the hard decision and assure that our kids realize their generation has been given this one task above all others. Show’em the movie. They’ve got to reduce AGW as much as possible.
16 January 2007 at 1:42 PM
I for one will not be showing this movie in a Science clasroom. While one could say I can use it as a bad example of how partisanship can influence science, I just don’t think it’s even a good example for that.
It is frightening to see things like Eric E and his the “science is settled” statement above. I am not sure such a statement is ever valid, and it certainly isn’t in this instance. None the less I have seen people make this knid of a statement on both sides of the issue. The people who say carbon dioxide definitely is the cause of warming in the atmosphere have an awful tough time explaining the Paleo climate record; indeed they can’t do it. While the people who say carbon dioxide is an effect of warming not the cause can explain the record but don’t have a decent theoreticl explanation of why this should be so. If you want handle this issue using science, you really better be a whole lot less certain than you are now.
Astronomers right now also seem to be attributing the climate changes on earth very differently than climate modelers, some one must be wrong here, but if history is any indication it is almost certainly… everyone.
16 January 2007 at 2:04 PM
Good pointer to Paul Hirt’s “A Conspiracy of Optimism” — thanks!
It’s available online from the publisher at 10% of original price: http://unp2.unl.edu/bookinfo/3182.html
Which law describes our risk — Occam’s, or Murphy’s?
16 January 2007 at 2:19 PM
Hello, Did my previous comment not get through. Because comments about dinosaurs and babies seem to be making it through
16 January 2007 at 2:50 PM
Paul N wrote in #61: “It is frightening to see things like Eric E and his the ’science is settled’ statement above. I am not sure such a statement is ever valid, and it certainly isn’t in this instance.”
The science is settled. There is no scientific doubt whatsoever that human activities, principally the burning of fossil fuels, are increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO2, methane, and other so-called greenhouse gases. There is also no scientific doubt whatsoever that the anthropogenic increase in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases is causing the Earth’s atmosphere/biosphere to warm. There is also no scientific doubt whatsoever that this anthropogenic warming of the Earth is already causing observable changes to the Earth’s climate and biosphere.
This is not only the “consensus” of the world’s scientific community, it is the essentially unanimous agreement of the world’s scientific community.
This is, to use Al Gore’s word, the truth.
16 January 2007 at 3:32 PM
Raypeirre,
In comment 33, you do a disservice to both evolution and AGW by comparing the quality of the evidence supporting each. Their only similarity is the false controversy which in both cases stands outside their respective sciences.
The fact of evolution (as opposed to theories like natural selection or hypotheses concerning mechanisms) is as fundamental to biology as any physical law. There is plenty of very good quantitative biology, but it is used to understand evolution not as proof of it. The fossil record is the product of evolution and lends insight as to how it operated. The difficulties lie in the incompleteness of the record and the complexity of life, not in evolution. That life has evolved permeates all of biology and helps make it comprehensible. Although evolution stands on a foundation of 150+ years of scientific activity that we do not fully comprehend it should be no surprise.
AGW is another kettle of fish altogether. How is human civilization changing the earth’s climate? That is a focused question that can be answered through earth science and the study of climate. In the last 10 years the data has moved consistently towards greater certainty that AGW is occurring. In that context, the deniers at least do not challenge the fact that climate changes over time.
16 January 2007 at 3:43 PM
I am an English teacher in the UK, but was trained in the United States, having just recently moved over here last summer. I have been following the threads posted here, and wanted to make a comment regarding the way climate change is presented, both in the classroom, and at home.
In the UK, it has been my observation, that children, families, parents, educators, and the rest of the public at large, have a much larger understanding of what climate change is. The BBC has spent vast amounts of time/energy/money on the topic of climate change, produced some amazing documentaries regarding the way animals and plants are having to die or adapt to these changes, and the link below will take you to their climate change site (where, by the way, RC is mentioned as a weblink).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/
Upon asking my students, year seven (age 11), what they knew about climate change, I was both amazed and impressed. What they have to look forward to in the future, with all the known and unknown effects of climate change, is part of their curriculum, and on a grander scale, is part of the culture (at least as far as I can tell). There is something to say for a government who gets on the “We’ve got to get our heads ’round this climate change issue” bandwagon, and one who has dragged it’s feet.
Leaving politics aside, however, it has been my experience, in a rural high school in New England, where I was a teacher trainee, that students deserve, as preparation for the adult world, to know what lies ahead of them. Far too many of the students I taught in the States were not quite sure what climate change meant to them. They, of any generation, should know what lies ahead for them.
Yes, there is politics in this video. Yes, there will probably be parents who are against showing the video. However, discussions around the evening dinner table (or in the car on the way to another team sporting event, the drive-thru, what-have-you) that focus on climate change could be just what the US, the UK, and the rest of the developed/developing world need. We’ve got to get our heads ’round this topic, put energy/time/money/peoplepower into coming up with solutions. We’ve got to prepare our students for what seems like an inevitable future. I’m doing my part, as are every teacher worth their salt. We could use a little support from the community, our leaders in government, and those in the sciences.
Every day, I look at my students, and wonder what the future holds for them. In between grammar lessons, checking homework, and trying to get them to actually understand some Shakespeare, I find myself, as an educator, worried about what lies ahead for them.
I say, show the video (with parental approval, if necessary), and let the discussion/debates begin! Fear of the unknown, and not being willing to accept the challenges that Climate Change will bring, really shouldn’t get in the way of educating our children. It is their right to know, and our duty to accept our responsibilities to them.
Now..back to my never-ending stack of marking..
16 January 2007 at 3:49 PM
Re #61: “The people who say carbon dioxide definitely is the cause of warming in the atmosphere have an awful tough time explaining…”
Your problem, I think, is with the words “the cause”, as if there were, in the entire 4 billion year history of the Earth, one and only one cause of warming. That’s simply not so: there are a many things that potentially affect the climate - everything from variations in the Earth’s orbit to continents moving around - and in prehistory quite a few of them have happened. Some (maybe all) of those have in turn changed the CO2, which through feedback has amplified the effects of the original change.
All that’s pretty well understood, I think. The uncertainty about the details of paleoclimates seems to owe much more to the lack of preserved evidence (”fossils” in the largest sense) than to inadequacies in theory. When science doesn’t know for sure what may have changed, it’s hard to pin down definite causes.
The case is different today. We know beyond any doubt that atmospheric CO2 has increased due to human activity, and just need to figure out exactly what the effects of this _known_ change will be.
16 January 2007 at 4:29 PM
As a piece od science education, AIT is not particularly valueable. I watched it in the company of intelligent and educated (but not in science) adults. They all have troubles telling the difference between the established scientific facts, assumptions, exaggerations and errors. About a dozen times I had to stop the film and answer questions, mostly “Is this really true?!” (BTW, my answers were mostly affirmative.)
Unfortunately, there’s often more to the story than just that. E.g. “Is it true that 6 meters sea level rise will submerge a third of Florida?” I didn’t check but I would assume it is. This would be a perfectly useless piece of information until we knew, with some precision, when we should expect such a disaster. We don’t really know but the goal (to scare the viewer) is achieved.
So, if one is looking for a way to raise the level of awareness by mixing together the truth (which is most of the film) with everything else then that’s the way to go. Ideally I would have someone in the class to provide a critical view on the film. That would move the presentation closer to the realm of science per se.
[Response: It would certainly be useful to have a study guide, as an aid to teachers using the film in class. For examples, we at RC basically think Gore’s use of the Pleistocene ice ages to document the effect of CO2 on climate is fair, but there’s a lot more to delve into there, given that CO2 is in some sense an amplifier of the ice age cycles, rather than the sole cause. Many things in the film provide good motivation for deeper study. –raypierre]
16 January 2007 at 5:06 PM
Re: 45 (comment)
David, with all respect, I believe there are issues.
First of all, an issue of integrity. Al Gore probably knows more than he says but he chooses to say only what suits his purpose. I call it selective truth because the truth that was inconvenient to him he chose to omit. In my mind, the difference between selective truth and a lie is mostly in sematics.
Second, there is a scientific issue. The scale of the chart has been mentioned in RC’s review. As I said before, I’m firmly on the side of Eric’s colleagues who thought the chart was very misleading.
[Response:If a temperature / CO2 plot showed no correlation, then it would be damning for the global warming forecast. There are very few phenomena in nature that are as well-behaved as the ice core CO2 / temperature record. I find it very compelling evidence for a role for CO2 in climate. Every wiggle lines up nearly perfectly. I’m reminded of the Rodney King trial in L.A. He was beaten by a gang of police, and it was all captured on a horrifying videotape. The strategy for the defence (of the policemen) was to show the video to the jury over and over, and analyse it frame by frame, until the jury became sort of numb to the essential bottom line, that these police were stomping this helpless man lying on the pavement. David]
Third, you write All the record tells us is that warming started without CO2 as a cause, but once CO2 started rising, it amplified the initial warming. Could you clarify how does the record tells us that? I thought all the recod tells us is that CO2 lags behind the temps. The conclusion about amplification we pull out of the models, not from the record. Am I wrong? If I’m right, I’ll have to say that models are not to be trusted in this case especially and refer to Wally’s paper for the reasoning.
[Response:Models can calculate the observed (inferred from proxies) temperature change LGM to present, if they account for the lowered CO2 concentration, and the albedo of the ice sheets, with about the same climate sensitivity as is inferred from present-day climate change. If the climate sensitivity were zero, the hindcast glacial climate would not be cold enough. David]
16 January 2007 at 5:17 PM
The British Treasury report on the cost of global warming again: This report puts it into terms that everybody can clearly understand, namely dollars. I haven’t read much of it yet, but so far I have read that AGW will cost 5% to 20% of GDP if we do nothing, but fixing it now will cost only 1% of GDP. I haven’t read far enough to find out how they figured that yet. I recommend that we all read the report.
The report is available at:
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm
16 January 2007 at 6:04 PM
Hello again everyone,
I also enjoyed Al Gore’s film, and thought it was, generally, an excellent review of the matter. The only note of caution was that there was a tendency to overdramatise, for instance, seeing New York flooded, whilst this is not impossible over a long time frame, several hundred or a thousand years, the impression that it might just be around the corner was a bit misleading. It was obvious from talking to others though how little people really understood about this issue, as much of the information contained in the film was completely new to them. Of course, I live in a country where the last 10,000 hours of peak hour broadcasting on our two major television channels (the last three years) , has had absolutely no information on global warming at all, it might as well not exist as an issue (could it be that about one third of all advertising revenue in these hours is car or oil related?)
But whatever the flaws in the film they were vastly outweighed by the good information. It was entertaining as it needed to be to attract a large and possibly disinterested audience and Al Gore came over as a personable, intelligent, humane and liberal human being, which of course, automatically disqualifies him from being President of the USA. As a point of departure for discussion, surely this film can be seen as nothing but fair? But really, chaps, isn’t there something wrong, and sinister, in your society, that schools cannot take up an offer to have free copies of this film for school science and discussion, without seeing it as a threat? From these shores, the concerns of the NSTA appear absurd, but worse than this, illiberal and form of intellectual censorship - it reeks of political expediency. Having said that, my children are no longer at school, and what discussion or information our New Zealand children have had in their schools, I don’t know. If our TV is any indication, it might be just as bad as in the US.
The American nation has, along with this nation and all the others in the world (you are not unique, but the problems are rather more exaggerated in the US), a lot of growing up to do, and fast. This inability of our social structures, including your schools apparently, to debate in a knowledgable way this matter with the urgency it demands, is the wonder of our age. When we, humanity, have had more means of communication, more resources and more means of understanding than ever in our entire history of civilisation to deal with the problems that beset us, yet refuse to use them, then our children, and grandchildren, will just shake their heads in utter bewilderment “Just what were they thinking?” - the answer being of course, not much.
Don’t forget though there are other resources. David Attenborough produced an excellent BBC documentary “Are we changing the planet Earth?” and a subsequent follow-up, which I haven’t seen. This documentary certainly wasn’t shown on our TV, see above, but I saw it at a special screening in Wellington on Climate Change Day. I don’t suppose there are free DVDs, but it has been posted to the web, such as here http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4t7z_part-1-are-we-changing-planet-earth . Perhaps this would seem a more politically acceptable resource. I can’t really see anyone accusing David Attenborough of political bias, but possibly some will try. Perhaps his being a Brit might make it seem like foreign propaganda?
16 January 2007 at 6:08 PM
Sashka, you write:
> I’m firmly on the side of Eric’s colleagues who thought
> the chart was very misleading.
That’s not what Eric wrote, and you can check it. Your beliefs are strong but your references are missing.
[Response:OK, I’ll come clean, there is a dicey aspect to the CO2 / temperature plot from ice cores which is that temperature is not linear in CO2, but goes as the log of the CO2 concentration (so that each doubling leads to the same temperature change). Showing both variables on linear scales sort of implies that the future will follow the same linear relationship as looks to the eye to be the case in the past. Also, the changes in climate over the ice ages were driven primarily by ice albedo, with CO2 contributing a bit less than half of the radiative forcing. Still and all, in spite of the fact that the world is complicated, I maintain that the plot is a convincing demonstration of the importance of CO2 in climate. And, I say, there is nothing in that plot, leads, lags, or whatever, to cast any doubt on the global warming forecast. I think showing it is fair and reasonable. David]
16 January 2007 at 7:06 PM
For information: the following appeared in the Scotsman newspaper, 4th Dec 2006
(http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm)
“EVERY schoolchild in Scotland is to be offered the chance to see former US vice-president Al Gore’s film about the dangers of global warming under a scheme by energy company ScottishPower.
The firm, a major windfarm developer which also runs the coal-fired Longannet power station, is prepared to commit “tens of thousands of pounds” to the project and is currently in negotiations with the Scottish Executive to secure its backing.
ScottishPower, which has also given copies of Mr Gore’s book of the same name, An Inconvenient Truth, to hundreds of its staff, plans to pay for cinema screenings for older children in primary schools and all secondary pupils. The firm is currently discussing with the Executive how pupils could be bussed to cinemas, and to cinema owners about times for screenings. …”
I’m not sure how much progress the proposal has made.
16 January 2007 at 7:08 PM
I will be showing AIT as part of a unit on global biological change in my college level introductory biology course. Students will be watching the documentary in small groups outside of the large lectures that make up the principle part of the course. I will provide them with worksheets and online quizzes to help them explore the ideas in the film and to explore areas where the film might have done a better job (I am in agreement with RC’s assessment of the overall veracity of the film).
Once all the students in this class of 250 have had a chance to see the film I will introduce the topic in lectures. Since, the students will have absorbed much of the background information (that is my hope at least) on the topic from AIT, I will be able to focus on topics of data collection, analysis, interpretation, and model building in greater detail. My hope is that this documentary makes my job of focusing on the biological consequences of global warming a lot easier.
I would appreciate any links to materials on discusing the documentary from credible sources. Any comments from others who have attetmpted to use AIT as a teaching tool at the undergraduate level would be appreciated.
Also, could the the folks at RC explain to me why the changes in temp caused by changes in the earth’s orbit are initially responsible for increases in CO2 concentrations. Is this due to ocean warming and the release of dissolved CO2 at higher temps? I haven’t come across a clear explanation of this that’s stuck in my mind.
You can contact me at aristotleszoo at yahoo dot com.
[Response: The exact mechanisms that cause CO2 to change through the glacial cycles are still not fully quantified. Vegetation on land decreases in the cold phases, and so that is a source of CO2, implying that the oceans must be a large sink. The way CO2 gets sequestered in the ocean depends both on its solubility (greater in a cooler ocean) and on the biological pumps (mainly soft organic matter falling through the thermocline). However, the solubility change is probably not sufficient on its own, and so some change in biology was also required. This is still pretty uncertain. However, David is the expert on these things, so he would be the one to ask for more details. - gavin]
[Response:Yeah, still an unsolved problem. CO2 seemed to act as a positive feedback to climate change paced initially by orbital wobbles. The question is whether ocean or biosphere CO2 will amplify the climate change from our CO2 in the future. At present, the biosphere and ocean are absorbing excess CO2, acting as a stabilizing negative feedback. David]
16 January 2007 at 7:10 PM
RE #71 [NY flooding] IIRC, the point being made in those animations was not that NY is going to flood Real Soon Now, but rather that if all the land-based ice on either Greenland or the WAIS were to melt the resulting added water to the world’s oceans would raise sea level 21 feet, which is a known fact and widely reported. We don’t know that the ice is melting at a significant rate right now, or if it might in the future, but as we are talking about GLOBAL WARMING and the possibility of ICE MELTING in general it seems to me that asking what this might imply for civilization is a valid question, regardless of when it might happen. And mapping out the real impacts of a 21 foot increase in sea level is easy to do; you just take a topo map, run a plot around the 21 foot elevation contour, and see what you get. I know most people don’t do that sort of thing to kill time of a Saturday, but that’s why we have professional graphic artists and high-performance computers.
Sure, animating a total ice melt and flooding the former site of the World Trade Center freaks people out. Well hey guess what, that kind of sea level rise IS freaky! It’s HORRIFIC! The atmospheric experiment we’re conducting is utterly INSANE! That’s not drama, that’s the whole, entire, complete, unredacted TRUTH of the thing, don’t you think? What part of “we will be living on a different planet” isn’t dramatic to you, regardless if it’s 30 years or 300? What part of that should be left out for more sober (meaning undramatic) discussion? It’s easy to be sober about something when you can push it out far enought to be Someone Else’s Problem. Well it’s OUR problem, and a lot of thoughtful people are looking at an ice-free Earth anytime in the next 500 years as a BIG PROBLEM. Right NOW.
16 January 2007 at 7:15 PM
I think the reply of Rasmus to #37 illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of a sort of thinking prevalent in the US. Many (perhaps most) people in the US would not be the least bit embarrassed to discover a foreigner is more knowledgeable about an aspect of the US, or about anything, for that matter. There is a proud anti-intellectual and anti-rational tradition in the US that shows no signs of waning. Facts are mutable; opinions are not. Which is why there is little point in responding to many of the comments on this thread (not including comment #37, I hasten to add, which makes a good point).
16 January 2007 at 7:54 PM
Alex Tingle has created the neatest sea level rise toy. Alas, only 14 m max.
16 January 2007 at 8:12 PM
I don’t have time to read through all 77 comments to see if anyone has already mentioned this. To see the other side of this story please go to nsta.org. On their homepage they have their statement about why they didn’t think that they are the appropriate organization to distribute An Inconvenient Truth. Also, they have a link to the other site where teachers can get the DVD for free.
We showed AIT to the entire school at the independent day school where I teach. After the video the first thing the students brought up was the politics. They had a hard time getting passed it. This is in a blue state, very progressive school. Any teacher who shows this video really need to do a lot of work beforehand to help students sort though the politics and science.
[Response: I in fact mentioned the NSTA response in my article, but it’s hardly a very satisfactory response. Take a look at the link in my Comment 35 above. NSTA winds up looking pretty bad. I’m really having a hard time understanding your remark about sorting out the politics from the science. What “politics” are the students seeing in this movie? There’s really very little. Please explain. –raypierre]
16 January 2007 at 8:13 PM
cat black wrote: “Sure, animating a total ice melt and flooding the former site of the World Trade Center freaks people out.”
One thing that “freaked me out” was a single line in the global warming fantasy movie “The Day After Tomorrow”. It wasn’t the fantastic scenes of a giant tsunami washing over New York City and freezing solid in minutes. It was much simpler and might have gone by many viewers unnoticed:
I realized right then that for New York City to become uninhabitable, it is not necessary that sea level rises many meters and puts entire buildings underwater.
The sea level only has to rise enough for the sewers to be flooded, and all the toilets in the city to be backed up, for millions of people to be forced to evacuate.
[Response:On a similar line, on Tuvalu, the limit point was salt water incursion into the groundwater preventing agriculture. It wasn’t kids wading to school or anything like that. Who’d have thought of it? David]
16 January 2007 at 9:27 PM
Rather than taking the opportunity once again to talk past each other instead of to one another, I would ask for the writer of the very first comment what politics exactly should be edited from the documentary to achieve this “greater acceptance by the masses”.
16 January 2007 at 9:34 PM
A short conversation with our home insurance agent informed me that insurance companies are getting ready for severe storm and flooding effects along the Gulf and East coasts of the USA, along with severe restriction or termination of coverage in coastal regions. Permissible coverage is being moved back to 1000 from 500 feet from the coast, and south Florida properties are no longer insurable, except through state funds. For some reason the companies are squinting especially hard at NYC.
The changes are here, manifesting themselves already.
16 January 2007 at 9:37 PM
Re #79: But if the toilets are backed up, people would be forced not to evacuate!
17 January 2007 at 12:01 AM
Showing schoolchildren only one side of a controversial subject is proselytizing - not educating, and shouldn’t be allowed. Kudos to NSTA for taking its responsibilities seriously.
Showing Al Gore’s piece in tandem with the opposing view would be both useful and stimulating. The best presentation that I have seen from the “non-believers” side is “Climate Catastrophe Cancelled” a 25 minute video (I think that it it also available on DVD) created by the Friends of Science Society in collaberation with the University of Calgary. Like “An Inconvenient Truth”, it deals with the subject in readily understood layman’s language and holds the attention of even the most blase viewer. It is available for somewhere south of $20.00 from Friends of Science fos@telus.net
[Response: What you’re suggesting would be about as useful as calling in somebody to show “the other side” of the theory of gravitation. It may indeed be a useful exercise to bring in somebody dressed like Ptolemy and have the students learn why epicycles are a bad idea, but I really don’t think it’s a particularly efficient way to learn about science. As is also the case for evolution, the “controversy” is purely manufactured. –raypierre]
[Response: Very interesting that you raise the issue of the so-called collaboration between the “Friends of Science” and University of Calgary. -mike]
17 January 2007 at 12:47 AM
Gavin,
You didn’t mention the NSTA distributed “Fuel-less, you can’t be cool without fuel” video.
More info
You might want to update your original post just in case the connection isn’t obvious enough. ;-p
[Response: (Note by the way that “group” isn’t “gavin.” “group” is truly the RC group mind, which sometimes chooses to speak through one of us more than another of us.) The “cool without fuel” video is mentioned in some of the links we provided in the article. NSTA defends itself by saying that this wasn’t distributed directly through their web site, but rather through a link to an oil-industry web site. At this point I can’t check that, or the nature of the link, since the NSTA and their petro-collaborators have evidently cleansed their respective sites of damaging evidence (see the report in the link I provided under my comment #36 above). –raypierre]
17 January 2007 at 1:43 AM
Eldridge Moores, the estimable UC Davis geologist, (oops, earth scientist) has recently proposed that the University of California amend its high school admissions criteria to include some required study of earth and atmospheric sciences. In my opinion, this is a proposal whose time has come, or is more likely overdue. Any opportunity for increases in critical thinking skills in general would be a bonus! And as for#78, I am wondering what about the film is overtly “political”? Would a presenting figure with the stature in popular culture of say the late Carl Sagan somehow “sanitized ” the “political” from the film?
[Response: One does want to be careful not to spread the curriculum too thin. As compared to European secondary school science teaching, the US curriculum is already too broad and too shallow. A firm grounding in chemistry and physics should be the first priority. (I am of the camp that says biology is hard, and should be done after chemistry and physics). Rather than a separate requirement on Earth science, I’d rather see Earth science problems brought into the physics curriculum at appropriate points. Radiation balance of planets fits in very well with the study of E&M, and introductory quantum concepts. The dry adiabatic lapse rate is a very nice application of basic thermodynamics. –raypierre]