Wibble wrote:
JPG wrote:
Wibble wrote:
Linda B wrote:
A letter has been sent home from my daughters school, suggesting that
parents might like to go in one evening to watch the film "An Inconvenient
Truth". Students will be shown the film as part of their Beliefs and Values
lesson. Quote from the teacher... "It contains graphic details of the
affects of global warming that you might wish to discuss with your child".

Has anyone here seen the film and can offer opinions on how good it is, ie.
is it terribly biased one way or the other, does it over dramatise things,
etc? I certainly don't wish to start a GW argument but would welcome
thoughts from uk.sci contributers.

Thanks,
Linda B

Yes, the film is biased towards the "global warming is real" school of thought.

Which is by far the most prevalent, supported by the overwhelming
majority of scientists.

It is the most vociferous school of thought but it is in no way a scientifically
proven fact. An important matter but often overlooked.

And so it should be "vociferous", as you rather scornfully put it. It
is one of mankind's greatest challenges

So far, both sides of the GW debate have a lot of measurements but not
enough to establish, once and for all and beyond all doubt that "GW" is
or is not part of a long term cycle.

Scientific enquiry is never "proven fact", as you should well know.
There is always the possibility that the present warming is not due to
the burning of fossil fuels. However, most observations and much data
point to this probability and the serious scientific consensus is for
anthropogenic causes.


And, yes, the film certainly is dramatic in it's presentation of the information it
seeks to convey. In a manner similar to the 'intelligent' design school of thought,
which is as good an example of an oxymoron if ever there was one.

Please note, however, that "An Inconvenient Truth" is science-based
whereas Intelligent Design (ID) is religion cloaked as science.

Global warming, by equal measure, could also be described as religion cloaked as
science (sic)

Absolute ********. Global warming is serious scientific theory backed
up by extensive observation, modelling and data. Intelligent Design
has no serious peer-reviewed research and is little more than
watered-down creationism introduced by American fundamentalists to
circumvent the teaching of Darwinian evolution in biology lessons.

but I fear that the hot air generated by the debate will do more
damage
to the planet than China, India, America and Russia combined.

If anything is more desperately needed than a global debate on AGW, I'm
not aware of it.