An Inconvienent Truth in Schools?

[Sportzmaniac36]

Next week, my Earth Science class will be watching An Inconvienent Truth. My question to you is, "Is it okay to watch this movie in school?" IMO, No, because that movie is political propoganda and shouldn't be taught.

[Celt23]

To be neutral I'll just say: better safe than sorry.

[warri0r45]

While I haven't seen it, I'd have to say no. Science in the science class. Politicians documentaries in.. documentary class. Show the students how to spin an issue in a documentary showing them "the great global warming swindle" too. Seriously there are much better resources elswhere.

[Guthix_Girl]

I've had to see the movie twice in school so far. I do not think it's appropriate, because it is trying to force belief onto teens. Let them decide what they want to believe, not some video.

[Lionheart_0]

I think it's more then slightly idiotic how people are saying, "This video contains nothing more then political crap and shouldn't be shown to our kids." That is not the primary focus of the video, and if you see it that way, you look too hard into the video are ignorant at the problem in hand.

 

 

 

Regardless if Al Gore is right or not, some thing needs to be done about how we are treating the world, and Al Gore gave a very empowering video about how we should treat it.Out of all the other global warming videos, this one may of contained the most politics, but it also was the best in succeeding with its objective.

[meol]

I thought Al Gore was off politics now.

 

Anyway, just keep your mind open, it's not as if they were nazis indoctrinating you.

[dwarfdude3]

uh its science class, so you watch a documentary on a scientific issue. I don't see the problem.

[Darksavior69]

Definitely agree, next thing you know they'll be teaching evolution in schools. Fight for your rights people!

 

 

 

btw, inc 5 page debate

[warri0r45]

I've had to see the movie twice in school so far. I do not think it's appropriate, because it is trying to force belief onto teens. Let them decide what they want to believe, not some video.

 

 

 

Science isn't a matter of options and which you choose to believe. Either a theory has scientific support or it dosen't (or one much moreso than another). That's what you teach. Whether you like that and believe it thereafter is your choice.

[Errdoth]

I feel obligated to post this:

 

 

 

 

Anyway, I thought there was a case against it where a judge ruled that it couldn't be shown in schools?

[warri0r45]

I feel obligated to post this:

 

 

 

 

Anyway, I thought there was a case against it where a judge ruled that it couldn't be shown in schools?

 

 

 

I heard about that. Something like 9 major inconsistancies or misstatements of fact or soemthing like that.

[Sportzmaniac36]

I think that was the UK. I live in the USA, so my Al Gore loving teacher will show it, and not present the other side.

 

 

 

P.S. - in the UK, teachers can show it as long as they point out the disputed and controversial points.

[Unoalexi]

I thought Al Gore was off politics now.

 

Anyway, just keep your mind open, it's not as if they were nazis indoctrinating you.

 

 

 

:wall:

 

 

 

 

 

As for An Inconvient Truth, I do think I should be taught in schools. Whether or not it's 'political propaganda, it is still makes a pretty decent point. It's not like being more environmentally conscious is a bad thing. :roll:

 

 

 

Ok I don't get this. WHAT OTHER SIDE TO IT IS THERE. We are hurting the planet. End of story. Regardless of by how much we are hurting it, we are still doing it.

 

 

 

It's like comparing a mass murdered to a person who murdered 1 person. Doesn't mater how much, just the fact that they did it.

 

 

 

1+

[Rebdragon]

I don't see a problem with it, as long as it's not taught as some kind of absolute truth or what not.

 

 

 

I've also seen the Swindle, and I personally agree with the counterpoints to An Inconvenient Truth that it offers (i.e., the relationship between CO2 and temperature rises), but I don't see either as side absolutely, from a subjective point of view, correct. So unless either has been disproved to the point of not deserving the title "science" (which I do not believe has happened, though from reading posts on this thread it might have...), I don't see a problem with showing either movie in the classroom.

[Lionheart_0]

:? Ok I don't get this. WHAT OTHER SIDE TO IT IS THERE. We are hurting the planet. End of story. Regardless of by how much we are hurting it, we are still doing it.

 

 

 

It's like comparing a mass murdered to a person who murdered 1 person. Doesn't mater how much, just the fact that they did it.

[Rebdragon]

:? Ok I don't get this. WHAT OTHER SIDE TO IT IS THERE. We are hurting the planet. End of story. Regardless of by how much we are hurting it, we are still doing it.

 

 

 

It's like comparing a mass murdered to a person who murdered 1 person. Doesn't mater how much, just the fact that they did it.

 

Yes, you are correct in saying that this is an argument based on varying magnitudes, but the magnitude with which we are hurting the planet (temperature-wise, anyways) has a direct effect on how much we need to rectify the problem. Basically, if the recent temperature increases are based 99.9% on solar or other non-human effects, any kind of lifestyle change to lower temperatures would be basically as worthless as possibly imaginable. But if humans are the direct cause of anything from, say, 30% or more of the recent temperature increases [just throwing out numbers here], then a change of lifestyle can have a noticable effect on what we're doing to the planet.

 

 

 

Although anyone with at least half a brain knows that we're technically effecting temperatures by existing on the planet, so is everything on the planet. Your tree outside, your dog, that fly that's been annoying you for the past fifteen minutes, everything on this planet directly effects the global temperature. But are you going to kill a cow just because it's releasing heat from it's body? Well, I'd certainly hope not. That's why this magnitude argument is so important- to rectify the situation, we first must find what things (volcanoes, the sun, us, Shiva, etc.) are having the greatest effect on the matter at hand, and from there, and only there, can we create a proper course of action to try and fix the problem, if possible.

 

 

 

That's debatable Lionheart. Global Warming is happening, yes, but there has been nothing to prove that we have a impact on it. I believe we have nothing to do with the Earth's warming.

 

Say we're having a "negligible effect" on the Earth's warming, not "nothing". Your statement is technically incorrect, and you'll get proponents of the opposing side of the argument down your throat before you can take a breath for it :-w .

[Sportzmaniac36]

That's debatable Lionheart. Global Warming is happening, yes, but there has been nothing to prove that we have a meaningful impact on it. I believe we have nothing to do with the Earth's warming.

[Lionheart_0]

I see what your talking about, but it's still no reason to say "Hey, i'll keep my car on just because I know we aren't affecting the atmosphere and global warming." Regardless of the magnitude of how much we contribute, we should still clean up our life style as the clean up of life style would also help society feel better about itself. It's kinda like washing ones self. If you didn't take a shower for about a month, you would probably feel pretty dirty and crappy about yourself, right? Might as well take that shower once in a while to help yourself feel good.

[cyco]

Why does it matter?

 

 

 

Is showing this video too students a big deal? Most students will push it off anyways because they don't care. Even if we did something about global warming and it was false then it doesn't matter, its just wasted money.

[Rebdragon]

I see what your talking about, but it's still no reason to say "Hey, i'll keep my car on just because I know we aren't affecting the atmosphere and global warming." Regardless of the magnitude of how much we contribute, we should still clean up our life style as the clean up of life style would also help society feel better about itself. It's kinda like washing ones self. If you didn't take a shower for about a month, you would probably feel pretty dirty and crappy about yourself, right? Might as well take that shower once in a while to help yourself feel good.

 

Of course we should do simple things to help the environment, I never said we shouldn't. But do you think it's realistically possible, or even responsible for that matter, to try and get the masses to get up in arms to fight global warming by making major lifestyle changes, when there isn't even near a guarentee that we're the main cause of all the warming?

 

 

 

Again, my argument is about major lifestyle changes to adapt to higher magnitudes of human effect, not simple things that people are supposed to be doing anyways regardless of whether or not the global temperature is going up.

[wakka102]

:? Ok I don't get this. WHAT OTHER SIDE TO IT IS THERE. We are hurting the planet. End of story. Regardless of by how much we are hurting it, we are still doing it.

 

 

 

It's like comparing a mass murdered to a person who murdered 1 person. Doesn't mater how much, just the fact that they did it.

 

Yes, you are correct in saying that this is an argument based on varying magnitudes, but the magnitude with which we are hurting the planet (temperature-wise, anyways) has a direct effect on how much we need to rectify the problem. Basically, if the recent temperature increases are based 99.9% on solar or other non-human effects, any kind of lifestyle change to lower temperatures would be basically as worthless as possibly imaginable. But if humans are the direct cause of anything from, say, 30% or more of the recent temperature increases [just throwing out numbers here], then a change of lifestyle can have a noticable effect on what we're doing to the planet.

 

 

 

Although anyone with at least half a brain knows that we're technically effecting temperatures by existing on the planet, so is everything on the planet. Your tree outside, your dog, that fly that's been annoying you for the past fifteen minutes, everything on this planet directly effects the global temperature. But are you going to kill a cow just because it's releasing heat from it's body? Well, I'd certainly hope not. That's why this magnitude argument is so important- to rectify the situation, we first must find what things (volcanoes, the sun, us, Shiva, etc.) are having the greatest effect on the matter at hand, and from there, and only there, can we create a proper course of action to try and fix the problem, if possible.

 

 

 

That's debatable Lionheart. Global Warming is happening, yes, but there has been nothing to prove that we have a impact on it. I believe we have nothing to do with the Earth's warming.

 

Say we're having a "negligible effect" on the Earth's warming, not "nothing". Your statement is technically incorrect, and you'll get proponents of the opposing side of the argument down your throat before you can take a breath for it :-w .

It's not just about temperatures, were using up all the water, all the natural resources, were cutting down all the trees for buildings and losing oxygen by doing this, theres got to be some breaking point somewhere where they chop down too many trees or use too many resources, then what do we do? Some people argue that we have like 100 years until that happens but then what? We gotta think about preserving the world...

[warri0r45]

That's debatable Lionheart. Global Warming is happening, yes, but there has been nothing to prove that we have a meaningful impact on it. I believe we have nothing to do with the Earth's warming.

 

 

 

This gets more and more fun every time.

 

 

 

It's amazing what you can learn with a little research.

 

 

 

General Reading:

 

 

 

[1] [2] [3] [4]

 

EPICA Ice Core data aligns with previous Vostok Ice Core data to reconstruct CO2 concentration and align it with temperature changes over the past 700,000+ years.

 

 

 

Articles:

 

[1]

 

The European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (EPICA) recovered two deep ice cores from East Antarctica. One of the cores, located at Dome Concordia (Dome C) (75ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâð06'S, 123ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâð21'E, altitude of 3233 m above sea level, and mean annual accumulation rate of 25.0 kg mÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ2 yearÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ1), is the only ice core covering at least eight glacial cycles (1), four cycles longer than previously available from ice cores. This has allowed us to reconstruct the record of the concentration of atmospheric CO2 much further back in time than was possible before. Here, we report results from the interval between 390 and 650 kyr B.P. (kyr B.P. is thousand years before the present, i.e., before A.D. 1950).

 

The Dome C CO2 record [mean sampling resolution of 731 years; details about the methods and the sampling are given in (16)] is plotted in Fig. 1, together with the D record (Antarctic temperature proxy) of Dome C (18) [both records are shown on the EDC2 time scale (1)], a stack of benthic d18O records from globally distributed sites (19), and a high-resolution benthic 18O record from Ocean Drilling Project (ODP) site 980 (55ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâð29'N, 14ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâð42'W) (19ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ22). There is an excellent overall correlation between D and benthic 18O, a proxy of global ice volume (19).

 

See figure 1 in detail. Notice the strong correlation of CO2 concentration and 'delta D' - a temperature proxy. Also notice the correlation of CO2 concentration and 'delta O-18 (isotope of oxygen)' - a proxy of ice volume. Also notice the maximum CO2 concentration for this 260,000 year period was found to be around 290ppm.

 

 

 

[2]

The recent completion of drilling at Vostok station in East Antarctica has allowed the extension of the ice record of

 

atmospheric composition and climate to the past four glacialÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâinterglacial cycles. The succession of changes through

 

each climate cycle and termination was similar, and atmospheric and climate properties oscillated between stable

 

bounds.Interglacial periods differed in temporal evolution and duration. Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide

 

and methane correlate well with Antarctic air-temperature throughout the record. Present-day atmospheric burdens of

 

these two important greenhouse gases seem to have been unprecedented during the past 420,000 years.

See figure 3. Again, notice the correlation of CO2 concentration and temperature. Also notice the maximum CO2 concentration for this 400,000 year period was found to be around 290-300ppm.

 

 

 

[3]

 

Selected climate records are summarized in Figs. 4 and 5, covering the periods from 0 to 350 kyr and from 0 to 100 kyr before the present (B.P.), respectively. The 18O of calcitic foraminifera from deep sea sediments is a proxy indicator for ice volume. The D or 18O of ice from ice cores is a proxy indicator of temperature in the area of the ice core.

 

See figure 4 in detail. Again, notice the strong correlation between temperature and CO2 concentration. Again, notice the maximum CO2 concentration for this 200,000 year period was found to be around 290ppm.

 

Fig. 3. (Upper) CO2 vs. time before present, as inferred by Etheridge et al. (17) from ice core studies.

 

See figure 3 in detail. Notice the rise in CO2 concentration up to around 340ppm prior to the year 2000, uncharted territory for hundreds of thousands of years.

 

 

 

[4]

 

Notice the current atmospheric CO2 concentrations are in excess of 380ppm.

 

 

 

[5]

 

Notice this summation of CO2 concentrations, in ppm, over the past 400,000 years, in line with the data already presented.

 

 

 

Now, notice the huge deviation from the trend of CO2 concentration from around the year 1800 on; the time of the industrial revolution where masses of CO2 were being pumped into the atmosphere. Connect the dots. I conclude, from this little data gathering exercise, that it is ignorant to claim that CO2 concentration increases have nothing to do with modern warming trends and that human activity has nothing to do with these concentration increases. Ergo, we are contributing to global warming.

 

 

 

This is nothing new. The consensus is that human contributed climate change is supported by the evidence. [6][7]

 

 

 

So what of the argument that Mars is experiencing global warming, therefore it must be the sun and thus the sun is making earth heat up too?

 

 

 

[8]

 

On Mars, the warming seems to be down to dust blowing around and uncovering big patches of black basaltic rock that heat up in the day (see 'Mars hots up'). No change in sunshine required.

 

[9]

Results indicate enhanced wind stress in recently darkened areas and decreased wind stress in brightened areas, producing a positive feedback system in which the albedo changes strengthen the winds that generate the changes. The simulations also predict a net annual global warming of surface air temperatures by 0.65 K, enhancing dust lifting by increasing the likelihood of dust devil generation.

 

 

 

Our results suggest that documented albedo changes affect recent climate change and large-scale weather patterns on Mars, and thus albedo variations are a necessary component of future atmospheric and climate studies.

[10]

Shifting dust storms on Mars might be contributing to global warming there that is shrinking the planet's southern polar ice caps, scientists say.

 

 

 

Computer simulations similar to those used to predict weather here on Earth show that the bright, windblown dust and sand particles affects Mars' albedo-the amount of sunlight reflected from the planet's surface.

 

 

 

The research, detailed in the April 5 issue of the journal Nature, suggests these albedo variations play an important role in the climate of Mars. It could also potentially explain how global dust storms are triggered on the red planet.

The researchers think they are on the right track because the computer model predicts a build-up of heat in the atmosphere above Mars' southern hemisphere that is roughly equal to the amount of energy necessary to account for the diminishment of the planet's southern polar ice caps that has been observed in recent years.

 

 

 

Scientists have struggled to explain the shrinkage and have blamed it on everything from fluctuations in the Sun's output to natural variations in the planet's orbit and tilt.

 

 

 

"We haven't really had a really good explanation for this in the past," Geissler said. "We found that this mechanism could contribute or possibly explain the rapid sublimation of the south polar cap."

 

So, according to these sources, albedo variations, which are the determinant of sunlight reflection back into space, are changing due to dust storms which act somewhat analogously to CO2 and the greenhouse effect - trapping solar radiation within the atmosphere. No excess solar output required.

 

 

 

[11]

 

The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun.

 

 

 

"Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained. (Related: "Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says" [september 13, 2006].)

 

 

 

All planets experience a few wobbles as they make their journey around the sun. Earth's wobbles are known as Milankovitch cycles and occur on time scales of between 20,000 and 100,000 years.

 

 

 

These fluctuations change the tilt of Earth's axis and its distance from the sun and are thought to be responsible for the waxing and waning of ice ages on Earth.

 

Here, another suggestion for the changing climate on Mars is put forth - periodical planetary orbital wobbles and tilts akin to Milankovitch cycles on earth - the orbital and tilt shifts which are suggested control the ice ages.

 

 

 

Now, for the idea that the sun alone causes climate change or that it's not humans that are the main contributors:

 

[12]

There is considerable evidence for solar influence on the EarthÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century. Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the EarthÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.

[13]

Variations in the SunÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s total energy output (luminosity) are caused by changing dark (sunspot) and bright structures on the solar disk during the 11-year sunspot cycle. The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years. In this Review, we show that detailed analysis of these small output variations has greatly advanced our understanding of solar luminosity change, and this new understanding indicates that brightening of the Sun is unlikely to have had a significant influence on global warming since the seventeenth century.

[14]

This is consistent with a causal relationship between the two and supports, but by no means proves, the view that the Sun has had an important, possibly even dominant influence on our climate in the past. Other contributors to climate variability are volcanic activity, the internal variability of the Earth's atmosphere and man-made greenhouse gases. After 1980, however, the Earth's temperature exhibits a remarkably steep rise, while the Sun's irradiance displays at the most a weak secular trend. Hence the Sun cannot be the dominant source of this latest temperature increase, with man-made greenhouse gases being the likely dominant alternative.

[15]

The observed temperature rise over the most recent 30 and 100 years is larger than the trend in the solar forcing simulation during the same period, indicating a strong likelihood that, if the model forcing and response is realistic, other factors have contributed to the observed warming. Since the pattern of the recent observed warming agrees better with the greenhouse warming pattern than with the solar variability response, it is likely that one of these factors is the increase of the atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration.

 

 

 

Your turn. Why do we humans have no effect on global warming?

[Rebdragon]

warri0r, that was just mean :P .

 

It's not just about temperatures, were using up all the water, all the natural resources, were cutting down all the trees for buildings and losing oxygen by doing this, theres got to be some breaking point somewhere where they chop down too many trees or use too many resources, then what do we do? Some people argue that we have like 100 years until that happens but then what? We gotta think about preserving the world...

 

If the damage to the environment is great enough, if it reaches to the extent that it has noticable negative effects on the lifestyles of all, then, and only then, will there be a uniform global reaction to cease the damaging of the environment.

 

 

 

People are bastard coated bastards with bastard filling. Simple as that.

[warri0r45]

warri0r, that was just mean :P .

 

 

 

I am more interested in hearing alternate viewpoints based on literature sources to counter my points than just hearing silence or trying to obliterate those who say things like "we're not the cause of it". I'm also more interested in hearing alternate viewpoints based on literature sources over someone's opinion as if it's solidly based in fact or as if it really matters (especially when it's a statement with no reasoning behind it).

 

 

 

There are people who get paid to study this. There are people who learn the science for years to get thier doctorates. There are people who work maticulously on reports which go through the criticisms of others in peer review. The end product is unsurpassed knowledge. It may be right, it may be wrong, but it's more reliable than any abstract opinion anyone may just happen to have, I'm quite certain of that. Everyone gets knowledge from somewhere, it's a necessity of knowing anything. I just prefer getting mine from teachers, lecturers and scientific journals rather than news tabloids, the media, hype or straight "it feels right" opinion.

[Unoalexi]

warri0r, that was just mean :P .

 

 

 

I am more interested in hearing alternate viewpoints based on literature sources to counter my points than just hearing silence or trying to obliterate those who say things like "we're not the cause of it". I'm also more interested in hearing alternate viewpoints based on literature sources over someone's opinion as if it's solidly based in fact or as if it really matters (especially when it's a statement with no reasoning behind it).

 

 

 

There are people who get paid to study this. There are people who learn the science for years to get thier doctorates. There are people who work maticulously on reports which go through the criticisms of others in peer review. The end product is unsurpassed knowledge. It may be right, it may be wrong, but it's more reliable than any abstract opinion anyone may just happen to have, I'm quite certain of that. Everyone gets knowledge from somewhere, it's a necessity of knowing anything. I just prefer getting mine from teachers, lecturers and scientific journals rather than news tabloids, the media, hype or straight "it feels right" opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

Please don't bite me, I actually agree with you!

 

 

 

 

The current warming in the past decades is a natural cycle, driven by a global ocean circulation that manifests itself in the North Atlantic as the Gulf Stream. Warm water and cool water essentially rise and fall in a rhythm lasting decades. "Global warming hysteria" is motivated, in part, by the desire among scientists, government leaders and environmentalists to find a political cause that would enable them to organize, propagandize, force conformity and exercise political influence. Big world government could best lead (and control) us to a better world! :roll: