Now Heather is trying to have Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" banned in in Surrey:
Stilwell said if the documentary is shown to kids in Surrey classrooms, then teachers should provide alternative theories on climate change.
Provide "Alternative theories"? Boy, does that phrase take me back-- to Darwin vs. the Intelligent Designers! And of course Wiki lists Ms. Stilwell as a prominent Canadian member of the Christian Right, who advocate "the teaching of teaching of creationism and intelligent design in public schools as opposed to evolution."
35 comments:
Amazing that there's anything left for kids to read with these Christian right-wing wackos.
These people even tried to have the book Tom Sawyer banned a few years ago.
Only book to read is the Bible I guess - everything else will distort your mind. Oh, and only biblical movies too.
Strawman argument.
Let's deal with the issue at hand.
Are you saying that in your mind the movie is entirely accurate? If so, I would suggest you suffer from cognitive dissonance.
If you are advocating a forum to make children aware of climate change, then I would certainly support it. The means of going about that in my mind would be to present a balanced picture...that includes the controversial points of view such as the causes.
Is it wrong to teach kids what the arguement is?
Dante,
Ah yes: teach the controversy. I've heard that one before.
(And actually, outside of the pages of the Natty Post, the causes are not controversial.)
To the best of my knowledge, Heather Stilwell lost because of some underhanded tactics of her opponents, including signing up people who couldn't even speak English and didn't even know they were members.I don't know that the central party had anything to do with this, but I can't believe it didn't go unnoticed.
What's wrong with dissenting views? Isn't that how people can make up their minds? We have Liberals and Conservatives, both with differing platforms. Only in Communism is one party one ideal taught. Maybe if you would look a little more closely at the "other side", you might learn a few real facts about the environment . . . not just the facts as stated by Al (I am God and I invented the internet) Gore.
Climate Change has been proven by science and an overwhelming majority of scientists support that claim.
Allowing a seriously reluded individual, such as Stilwell to get her unscientifically proven pile on the same stage as a film on climate change is the exact same tactic being used to try and discredit Darwinian evolution. By even entertaining an alternate view (even if it is false) adds legitimacy to the false view.
Don't elevate lies to the level of truth, simply ignore ignorance when you see it or tries to run as your MP.
The BC governement should not even acknowledge her views period.
There is no balance to argument of climate change because climate change is a fact. There are no alternative truths in science, only religious beliefs are all over the map, unproven, contradictory, and false.
Beware false prophets!
The "other side" is a pack of lies. Your idea of "balance" is like saying you should listen to the devil at one ear just as carefully as you listen to the angel at the other ear.
"Jay said...
Climate Change has been proven by science and an overwhelming majority of scientists support that claim. "
Jay just proved he is a complete moron & even stupid enough to brag about it.
Climate changes, By definition, it changes. Its not about climate change you dufus. Saying climate change is as dumb as saying water wet.
Actually Jay, the Bible does say we as humanity are to be caretakers and stewards of this Earth, and warns about violating it... so your attacking her position as being somehow typical of religious or Christian attitudes towards saving the planet is not accurate of Christianity or the entire religion in general- only of her apparent specific beliefs
anon,
Great play on semantics but you obviously don't understand the concept.
Hmmm, Is not preventing the other side from debating an issue how we lead to a dictatorship, I see no problem with both films being viewed, Should we not want to encourage students to debate, research and form their opinion on a very important issue. If the science is as firm as we contend then they will arrive at the correct conclusion. Unless we all want a bunch of spoon fed sheep as the next caretaker of this great country. Also, could someone explain to me what her Christian beliefs have to do with CC or GW.
Kingston,
Her position re the debate over GW is very reminiscient of the position of creationists over Darwinism. That is, pretend there are two sides to the argument.
Sorry about that Scott,
I have been lumped into so many groups I am not a part of that I do it myself.
I am familiar with he concept you are trying to put to me but frankly, fundamentalist beliefs are the blame here and not the more moderate approach taken by those with watered down kool aid.
I am talking about the crowd of people who read a book word for word and don't have the ability to twist the words to suit whatever situation they are faced with in order to keep said beliefs relevant.
"the Bible does say we as humanity are to be caretakers and stewards of this Earth, and warns about violating it..."
Strange how those who take the book literally word for word don't see the same passage of text as you do.
I believe the Gore film should be shown if the science teacher at a school is satisfied it is a genuine populatization of science. There is no basis at all to permit the development of a super control on the schools such as, if you show something I do not like you have to show something I like and approve with it. No one has appointed this woman to act as a censor for the schools, and from the comments I have seen she would not be a rational choice for that job anyhow.
To the best of my knowledge, Heather Stilwell lost because of some underhanded tactics of her opponents...
How gossipy. Grow up, would you?
What Heather said was . . . . . if they wanted to show Al the Goricle's movie, they should also present the other side of the story "The Great GW Swindle" by real scientists!!!
Al (divinity school dropout) Goar's movie has little real science but lots of scare. It has been disected by real scientists many times. If you had a problem would you get Al and Hollyweird to solve it???
Of course the socialist/marxist teachers union do not like debate . . . Heather banned nothing only encouraged opposing views.
is this the same women who argued that teachers need to carry concelaed handguns to class??? either way, she's beyond redemption.
teach both sides eh??? well, when christians start teaching darwinian evolution in sunday school and at bible schools then we'll talk. when i was a kid, the catholic creation myth was taught to me...only in grade nine science class were we introduced to the "theory" (yes kids, its only a "theory") of evolution. our school also defied court orders that prevented the lords prayer from being spoken along with the national anthem. and this was at a public school in manitoba (french mind you). my teachers didn't really appreciate me being the only student in my class who believed in a women's right to choose either.
one thing schools do not need, is more beliefs being taught that are devoid of evidence...unless its the flying spaghetti monster.
Last March, the prestigious New York debating society Intelligence Squared sponsored a debate on global warming. On the alarmist side of the debate were the Union of Concerned Scientists Brenda Ekwurzel, NASA climate modeler Gavin Schmidt and University of California oceanographer Richard C. J. Somerville. The skeptical view of global warming alarmism was presented by Massachusetts Institute of Technology meteorologist Richard S. Lindzen, University of London bio-geographer Philip Stott, and "State of Fear" author Michael Crichton, who is also a Harvard-trained physician and an instructor at Cambridge University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. A pre-debate poll indicated that, by 2-to-1 (57 percent to 29 percent, with 14 percent undecided), the audience believed that manmade global warming was a crisis. But in the post-debate poll, the audience reversed its pre-debate views -- the ranks of the skeptics swelled to 46 percent, the believers plummeted to 42 percent and the undecided declined slightly to 12 percent. That's the power of debate. It follows that schools, if they choose to teach the global warming controversy at all, ought to be teaching both sides of the controversy, not just Al Gore's alarmism. Last fall, the National Science Teachers Association rejected Al Gore's offer of 50,000 free DVDs of "An Inconvenient Truth" for use in classrooms. Recognizing that Al Gore and his global warming viewpoint is just that, opinion rather than undisputed fact, the NSTA expressed concern that other "special interests" might also want to distribute materials and that it didn't want to offer "political" endorsement of the film, according to a Washington Post report. The NSTA probably made the correct decision at the time simply because it would be egregiously biased to present just one particular viewpoint about a controversy as heated and important as global warming. Now that the counter-viewpoints are available, however, schools ought to show their students "An Inconvenient Truth," "The Great Global Warming Swindle" and the Intelligence Squared debate.
Heather wants both sides presented, huge problem for lefty/marxists I know.
Al would also like to sell you some carbon credits, get you wallets out.
Hey Canuckistan . . . you marxist rebel . . . . why dont you post all the "Scientific Provable Facts" of evolution???
Great analogy, GW and evolution . . . . both have the same religious zelots supporting the cause.
CO2 induced GW is a Hypothis, not even a theory . . . . last time I checked Evolution is in the same league.
Jay . . . climate change was proven????
I think you mean weather, don't you? Climate is always changing.
I rember when my relatives lived and farmed in Greenland, about 1000 years ago. Today it is covered with ice.
In 1975 they told us to be very afraid, an Ice Age was upon us. I think they used computer models, as we know now they were slightly wrong.
Al the Goricle says to be afraid, scientists from New Zealand to Inuvick have dissed his crummy movie. The south Pacific is not rising, polar ars are just fine . . . 2100 today, 800 25 years ago.
2% of Antartica is warming, but he neglected to mention 98% is cooling.
Nothing is proven Jay . . . . since when did a computer model prove anything . . . garbage in - garbage out!!!!
Oldschool writes:
"I rember when my relatives lived and farmed in Greenland, about 1000 years ago. Today it is covered with ice."
So exactly how old are you anyway?
BC, Thanks for the reply, I think your example is weak concerning GW and Darwinism. This issue is a debate concerning science not religion and science.
I believe in GW but I am still on the fence as to the effect of GHG on it. Every time I am about to come firmly down on the CO2 side, another study comes out such as the temp increase on Mars and the belief that this is caused by solar activity. I cannot understand scientist advocating that the cause of warming on Mars is solar activity but then saying that is not the cause on earth for an example. Unless someone lied to me big time in school, Mars is further from the sun then earth is.
Another big question that no one has explained to me the warming of Iceland and Greenland in past history so that they were once in history farmable. Was this caused by CO2 or is there as the "deniers" say, yes GW is happening but it is a natural event within nature.
What about the fact that even if it is CO2 emissions, does anyone really believe that we can slow them down with the Kyoto plan with the largest emitters not being on board, would our time and money be better spent preparing for the changes that are more then likely going to occur whether I jog or drive to work.
Just my thoughts.
Kingston,
the global warming on Mars thing is explained here:
http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2007/04/kismet.html#links
Oldschool,
Don't be such an ignorant moron.
You may have a 1000 year old grandpa who witnessed Greenlands ice sheets but most humans have not had that unexplainable, impossible miracle occur.
The fact is you are playing just playing on the words in the title. Weather occurs daily. Climate refers to your yearly pattern. Climate does not change in a significant way from year to year, its why people in the Maritimes have had a maritime climate for millenia. Its why the tropics have a tropical climate.
You see what I did there? I showed you how climate has been so reliable that people have named their regions after it. Smart isn't it.
Now when scientist refer to climate change, a result of global warming, they are talking about how the Maritimes won't have a maritime climate anymore. The tropics will experience changes in climate that will result in a grassland and not the forest currently occupying the space.
You see when people refer to climate they are referring to reliable, consistent patterns. Not the variability where one year out of 25 it was a little warmer and then returned to normal. Climate Change is showing a consistent upward progression of planetary heat which will change everyone's climate in a time span of less than 100 years.
So oldschool, like I said go to a new school and take a couple intro courses on earth sciences. It will save you face and actually have you contribute to a solution to this problem rather than being part of said problem.
You sure default to your prejudiced bigotries fast. I've never heard such dispicable responses and explicit hate-speech. Where's the tolerance? Where's the respect for other cultures and religions? Once again, you've proven beyond a doubt that the 'red-neck knuckle dragging white supremacists' can't come anywhere near your level of outright bigotry and racism.
In case they have any interest in how Liberals actually behave behind somewhat closed doors, I'm forwarding this website to all newspaper and news editors, with the express instructions of shining a light on the cockroaches that infest this place. You're a real great example for the world.
Anon 6:18,
Just make sure you spell the name right: "BigCityLib" with no spaces.
(Other readers might do well to note this too)
Argument settled - the parents can get the movie and show it at home.
Did they have computers in 1975?
Yes Jay and knucistan . . . the Vikings, Eric the Red settled in Greenland in the 9th century AD. The settlement remained till the 12th century was abandonded, probably due to the cold. They called it Gronland "Greenland" cause it was covered with ice . . . right!!!
Used to be in the history books when I went to school, but of course today, you get little real history, only social engineering bullshit. Your brains all turn to mush so you believe that CO2 plant food, which makes up only .05% of the atmosphere could have an effect on the planet greater than the sun. Of that .05% only 4% is created by mans activities . . . the other 96% is contributed by volcanoes, oceans, decay and animals.
So if you want to believe the GW hypothises . . . welcome to it, but why don't you demonstrate how it happens? How about a list of the GW believing scientists, names and qualifications. I have been asking for this for 2 years . . . still waiting.
Suzuki, Gore and the other believers will not debate . . . wonder why???
No country will meet Kyoto targets by 2012, and there will never be another Kyoto like program, its just plain nuts. I am all for clean air, but CO2 is not a poison, it is plant food, without it the planet would die. Anyone remember taking biology in high school, or is that a thing of the past now too. Instead you sit in a circle and sing Kumbuyaa and hold hands.
Tell me Jay . . . what great scientific facts did you learn from Al's movie???
That glaciers are calving . . . . this has been going on forever, and excellerates when the glaciers are moving faster ie: more pressure from a growing snowpack.
Maybe it was Al's expert scientific commentary that convinced you. Or his pictures of that poor polar bear must have just tagged at your heart strings. Al played you like a fiddle . . .
Did you know that CO2 does not preceed temperature increases and decreases, but follows by up to 600 years later???
Here are some comments from real scientists re: Al's movie . . .
Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"
Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."
Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."
But Karlén clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," Karlén concludes.
Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, University of Auckland, New Zealand: ”I can assure Mr. Gore that no one from the South Pacific islands have fled to New Zealand because of rising seas. In fact, if Gore consults the data, he will see it shows sea level falling in some parts of the Pacific.”
Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden: “We find no alarming sea level rise going on, in the Maldives, Tovalu, Venice, the Persian Gulf and even satellite altimetry if applied properly.”
Dr. Paul Reiter, Professor - Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France, comments on Gore’s belief that Nairobi and Harare were founded just above the mosquito line to avoid malaria and how the mosquitoes are now moving to higher altitudes: “Gore is completely wrong here - malaria has been documented at an altitude 2500 m - Nairobi and Harare are at altitudes of about 1500 m. The new altitudes of malaria are lower than those recorded 100 years ago. None of the “30 so called new diseases” Gore references are attributable to global warming, none.”
Dr. Mitchell Taylor, Manager, Wildlife Research Section, Department of Environment, Igloolik, Nunavut, Canada: “Our information is that 7 of 13 populations of polar bears in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago (more than half the world’s estimated total) are either stable, or increasing …. Of the three that appear to be declining, only one has been shown to be affected by climate change. No one can say with certainty that climate change has not affected these other populations, but it is also true that we have no information to suggest that it has.”
Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada: “Mr. Gore suggests that Greenland melt area increased considerably between 1992 and 2005. But 1992 was exceptionally cold in Greenland and the melt area of ice sheet was exceptionally low due to the cooling caused by volcanic dust emitted from Mt. Pinatubo. If, instead of 1992, Gore had chosen for comparison the year 1991, one in which the melt area was 1% higher than in 2005, he would have to conclude that the ice sheet melt area is shrinking and that perhaps a new ice age is just around the corner.”
Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, California: “The oceans are now heading into one of their periodic phases of cooling. … Modest changes in temperature are not about to wipe them [coral] out. Neither will increased carbon dioxide, which is a fundamental chemical building block that allows coral reefs to exist at all.”
Dr. R. M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia: “Both the Antarctic and Greenland ice caps are thickening. The temperature at the South Pole has declined by more than 1 degree C since 1950. And the area of sea-ice around the continent has increased over the last 20 years.”
Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, formerly advisor to the World Meteorological Organization/climatology research scientist at University of Exeter, U.K.: “From data published by the Canadian Ice Service there has been no precipitous drop off in the amount or thickness of the ice cap since 1970 when reliable over-all coverage became available for the Canadian Arctic.”
Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, British Colombia, Canada comments on Gore’s belief that the Mountain Pine Beetle (MPB) is an “invasive exotic species” that has become a plague due to fewer days of frost: “The MPB is a species native to this part of North America and is always present. The MPB epidemic started as comparatively small outbreaks and through forest management inaction got completely out of hand.”
Al Gore, who helped draft Kyoto and represented the US at the convention, voted AGAINST the final draft. It is not surprising that this charlatan would come up with a thoroughly fraudulent "carbon credit" scam for himself, in which he invests money in a company he owns as a tax dodge and then claims this maked it OK for him to expell 20 times as much CO2 into the atmosphere as the rest of while telling us we must cut back.
The final vote on Kyoto was 120 countries in favor and only 7 against. Gore and Clinton never asked the Senate to ratify Kyoto. In a separate initiative the Senate, on its own, voted 95-0 to reject Kyoto. On Dec. 31, 2000, 20 days before he would leave office, Clinton cynically and obnoxiously signed Kyoto for no reason other than to cause political trouble for his successor, George W. Bush.
God, I wish Blogger would be more responsive and ban insane sock-puppets like oldschool here.
People like that need to be in treatment (either for chemical addictions or for mental health problems) and not be spending their time reinforcing their delusions in cyberspace. Nip the problem in the bud, before oldschool goes radical and shoots up a university campus.
The film is so packed with lies, distortions, half-truths and misinformation you'd think it was a Michael Moore film.
I'm not really fond of folks with agendas...only the truth.
I just want to point out that the problem with this whole "scientific" debate is that science generally cannot be proven...only dis proven. Everyone should approach the topic with an open mind. Gore's film is clearly a call to action on the position that humanity is affecting the climate in a bad way. It is absurd to believe that humanity hasn't changed the environment in the past so there is a reasonable probability that climate is being adversely affected. This is not science though-only opinion. Science should be constantly evaluating cause and effect and we as people should be putting values on the effects.
Here is a story I just read:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=
Should this not be taught?
oldschool,
I didn't learn anything from Al Gore's film. I studied environmental science in university and have a degree in the subject matter. Al Gore is repeating some of the very stuff I have been working on for five years.
That warming blip (which was followed by a corrective mini ice age) that you write about is one of those anomalies that are not statistically significant.
There was also a period of cooling where Europe missed a summer. Would you say that is definitive proof of global warming via a temporary shutdown of the gulf stream which is part of a global ocean circulation system? Or a product of the interaction of the north Atlantic Oscillation and and an El Nino/Southern Oscillation?
The medieval warming period/anomaly you are referring to was not a global phenomenon. It was localized to the northern hemisphere, mainly around the atlantic.
Very clever monkey, trying to use the typical arguments to try and discredit a mountain of proof.
This piss poor attempt fails because it: a) confuses past evidence of drought/precipitation with temperature evidence, b) fails to disinguish regional from global-scale temperature variations, and c) use the entire "20th century" to describe "modern" conditions , fails to differentiate between relatively cool early 20th century conditions and the anomalously warm late 20th century conditions.
No, no, oldschool, Erik the Red called Greenland "Greenland" because he was a PR guy; sort of the Viking equivalent of Tim Ball.
Or as Eric Nicol wrote, Erik the Red was a Norse of a different colour.
anon,
I bet you the majority of global warming deniers are indeed the same crowd supporting cretinism, I mean creationism. Its a problem some people have in the brain when they ignore logic and rationality for a mysterious sky creature pulling all the strings.
Post a Comment