[Osx-nutters] Nat'l Science Teachers Reje ct Offers for "An Inconvenient Truth"

[David Cake]

At 3:54 PM -0500 30/11/06, Chuck Bennett wrote:
>On Nov 30, 2006, at 12:58 PM, David Cake wrote:
>
>>At 10:06 AM -0500 30/11/06, Chuck Bennett wrote:
>>>On Nov 30, 2006, at 1:08 AM, David Cake wrote:
>>>
>>>>	But as pointed out by Lambert, Murty is looking at simple 
>>>>frequency and ignoring severity. There is a global rise in the 
>>>>most intense hurricanes, category 4 and 5, and a strong 
>>>>correlation between big hurricanes and sea surface temperature.
>>>
>>>
>>>No.  The original topic was whether or not AIT was misleading or 
>>>"propaganda" as I put it.
>>
>>	Well, misleading and propaganda aren't quite the same thing.
>>	There is no doubt that AIT is a political work, designed to 
>>convince its audience of a particular point of view. Whether that 
>>point of view is a correct one or not is a different question.
>
>
>Then Exxon's involvement or  or not, the movie is not a proper 
>'lesson' to be shown in the schools,  unless what you are doing is 
>pushing a "a particular point of view"

	Actually, Chuck, a large percentage of what passes for 
education consists of exactly this - if it is correct (and its 
probably at least as correct as much of the curriculum - more so if 
you live in Kansas) then its didactic nature isn't always an issue.
	Its certainly far more factual than what passes for a lot of 
public health messages, for example, most of which are presented in a 
manner than strongly pushes a single point of view.


>>>We can drift bak into the entire GW debate if you want, but the 
>>>origin of the entire thread dealt with the statements specifically 
>>>in AIT
>>
>>	Sure. But you brought up the work of Harris, Murty, etc in 
>>the context of treating their statements as being solid scientific 
>>criticism - most of their comments having been demolished, now you 
>>grasp  at the one that survives most intact. Aren't you trying a 
>>little too hard here?
>
>So let's see,   Their ability to count hurricanes and argue that the 
>movie got is wrong is having their arguments demolished?

	Actually, no, I was referring to the way you first trumpeted 
Harris' comments about the quantity of CO2 as a convincing 
demolition. When I posted the link pointing out that the paragraph 
was laughable, suddenly the minor and debatable issue of hurricane 
counts becomes the most important criteria on which to judge both 
sources.
	I repeat - you are trying too hard.

	Here is the real story on the hurricane data - its a matter of debate.
http://cleanpowernow.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=276&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
	Note last paragraph - the NOAA said that hurricanes were 
linked to global warming as the consensus of its scientists, then 
backed away. If Gore got it wrong, he did nothing worse than the NOAA 
did - which was not to say something that wasn't backed by general 
scientific opinion, but to underestimate the extent of debate 
remaining on the issue.
	So, I'm pretty much reading this as if you think that one 
statement about hurricanes is enough to discredit the whole film, 
either you are judging the film by far harsher standards than you 
scientific institutions are judged (you think schoolkids shouldn't be 
told what the NOAA thinks too?) or you are hypocritical, setting 
different standards of truth for stuff you don't like. Either one 
comes down to the same criticism - you are trying far too hard, 
seizing on every inconsistency and spark of debate to discredit the 
whole thing.

>>	Sure, some researchers disagree on the point - but some 
>>agree, as well, notably the Webster/Curry team who are finding 
>>strong correlations between hurricane intensity and surface sea 
>>temperature. I'll grant its a matter of some debate.
>
>and when they publish their results in a peer reviewed paper, answer 
>any critics and Gore puts them in his next movie, I won't care, 
>because he would have gotten it right.

	The Webster/Curry stuff has been published in peer reviewed 
journals - in Science.

>How many of them know that some of the facts are simply wrong or in 
>dispute?    Likely none.    I don't even care about that.   They are 
>adults..

	Well, anyone that ever reads much about climate issues 
anywhere - the denialist position is still fairly loud in the media.

>I would hope that right or left would actually want to get it right. 
>That's why I said that I'd think if  the claim that the Canadian Ice 
>Cap Data (that I posted a link to)
>are in error, then the answer to the claim that Gore's movie got it 
>wrong would be a wonderful chance to bring more attention to the 
>problem.
>
>If the data are correct, and the caps haven't had a precipitous drop 
>off, then attacking the messenger is all you can do.
>
>What raises the red flag for me is when a particular point of view 
>is pushed on the schools and I mean that for the right or the left.

	Well, if thats the issue, lets get back to the beginning here
- DVDs were offered free, with no conditions attached they had to be 
used in a particular way, or that information with a different point 
of view couldn't be shown in addition.
- it was turned down to it threatening Exxon sponsorship.
	So, who here is pushing a particular point of view?
	Or are you going to fall back on saying that censoring your 
opponents point of view doesn't count as pushing your own?
	Cheers
		David