Friday, January 12, 2007 | Science : Earth Sciences | print version

Print | Comments |

Federal Way schools restrict Gore film

by Robert McClure and Lisa Stiffler, seattlepi.com

Thanks to Mark Richards for the link.

Reposted from:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/299253_inconvenient11.html

al gore

This week in Federal Way schools, it got a lot more inconvenient to show one of the top-grossing documentaries in U.S. history, the global-warming alert "An Inconvenient Truth."

After a parent who supports the teaching of creationism and opposes sex education complained about the film, the Federal Way School Board on Tuesday placed what it labeled a moratorium on showing the film. The movie consists largely of a computer presentation by former Vice President Al Gore recounting scientists' findings.

"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."

Hardison's e-mail to the School Board prompted board member David Larson to propose the moratorium Tuesday night.

"Somebody could say you're killing free speech, and my retort to them would be we're encouraging free speech," said Larson, a lawyer. "The beauty of our society is we allow debate."

School Board members adopted a three-point policy that says teachers who want to show the movie must ensure that a "credible, legitimate opposing view will be presented," that they must get the OK of the principal and the superintendent, and that any teachers who have shown the film must now present an "opposing view."

The requirement to represent another side follows district policy to represent both sides of a controversial issue, board President Ed Barney said.

"What is purported in this movie is, 'This is what is happening. Period. That is fact,' " Barney said.

Students should hear the perspective of global-warming skeptics and then make up their minds, he said. After they do, "if they think driving around in cars is going to kill us all, that's fine, that's their choice."

Asked whether an alternative explanation for evolution should be presented by teachers, Barney said it would be appropriate to tell students that other beliefs exist. "It's only a theory," he said.

While the question of climate change has provoked intense argument in political circles in recent years, among scientists its basic tenets have become the subject of an increasingly stronger consensus.

"In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations," states a 2001 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which advises policymakers.

"Furthermore, it is very likely that the 20th-century warming has contributed significantly to the observed sea level rise, through thermal expansion of seawater and widespread loss of land ice."

The basics of that position are backed by the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Academy of Sciences.

Laurie David, a co-producer of the movie, said that this is the first incident of its kind relating to the film.

"I am shocked that a school district would come to this decision," David said in a prepared statement. "There is no opposing view to science, which is fact, and the facts are clear that global warming is here, now."

The Federal Way incident started when Hardison learned that his daughter would see the movie in class. He objected.

Hardison and his wife, Gayla, said they would prefer that the movie not be shown at all in schools.

"From what I've seen (of the movie) and what my husband has expressed to me, if (the movie) is going to take the approach of 'bad America, bad America,' I don't think it should be shown at all," Gayle Hardison said. "If you're going to come in and just say America is creating the rotten ruin of the world, I don't think the video should be shown."

Scientists say that Americans, with about 5 percent of the world's population, emit about 25 percent of the globe-warming gases.

Larson, the School Board member, said a pre-existing policy should have alerted teachers and principals that the movie must be counterbalanced.

The policy, titled "Controversial Issues, Teaching of," says in part, "It is the teacher's responsibility to present controversial issues that are free from prejudice and encourage students to form, hold and express their own opinions without personal prejudice or discrimination."

"The principal reason for that is to make sure that the public schools are not used for indoctrination," Larson said.

Students contacted Wednesday said they favor allowing the movie to be shown.

"I think that a movie like that is a really great way to open people's eyes up about what you can do and what you are doing to the planet and how that's going to affect the human race," said Kenna Patrick, a senior at Jefferson High School.

When it comes to the idea of presenting global warming skeptics, Patrick wasn't sure how necessary that would be. She hadn't seen the movie but had read about it and would like to see it.

"Watching a movie doesn't mean that you have to believe everything you see in it," she said.

Joan Patrick, Kenna's mother, thought it would be a good idea for students to see the movie. They are the ones who will be dealing with the effects of a warmer planet.

"It's their job," she said. "They're the next generation."

P-I reporter Robert McClure can be reached at 206-448-8092 or robertmcclure@seattlepi.com.

Posted: Friday, January 12, 2007 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 57 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #17295 by k1mgy on January 12, 2007 at 6:44 pm

Dear Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

(Author's note: somehow the newspaper's name and the crux of this story are in severe discord)

I read your story about the Federal Way School District's decision, based on the protests of Frosty Hardison - who "believes" the Earth is 14,000 years old - to restrict the showing of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth". Then I became ill. And then I kept repeating to myself, like Dorothy did in the Wizard of Oz, "there are still a few pockets of sanity and rationality left in America. There just have to be."

Perhaps sanity and rationality existed once in the Federal Way School District, but they're surely a gonner now.

Thanks for writing this story (likely as painful to write as to read) which serves to bring into the nation's conscience yet another pocket of rural idiocy, where one dolt can bring down the curtain for everyone else. Surely this community, and the school district that speaks for it, deserves some standing as a focal point of national laughter, and pity. You've earned Frosty Hardison. Just do the rest of us a favor: don't let him out.

Other Comments by k1mgy

2. Comment #17299 by DavidJMH on January 12, 2007 at 7:15 pm

Ladies and Gentlemen,
Haven't the reporters for the Seattle PI missed the point here. This is not about global warming or evolution, this is about a member of the religious right objecting to a left wing Democrat, Al Gore, presenting a politically sensative issue in the schools. Overwhelming evidence doesn't come into it; the guy simply doesn't want his children asking awkward questions about the family's gas guzzling SUV or pickup truck they go to church in.

Other Comments by DavidJMH

3. Comment #17300 by mountainpix on January 12, 2007 at 7:19 pm

If Frosty Hardison wishes his daughter to be an ignorant rube, then he should have asked that she be excused from class for the day that "An Inconvenient Truth" was shown. A girl in my high school class was opted out of entire school years of sex ed and anthropology due to her parents' religious beliefs (which I think is a tremendous pity), but why would the school board impose Hardisons narrow view on all the children. Surely, his view isn't the even the majority opinion, much less a rational one. Some creationists would even argue with him that the world is far younger than 14,000 years, not to mention the narrow majority of the American public that accepts the overwhelming evidence of scientifically established geological time and the reality of climate change.

By the way, why is he obsessed with the "bad America" thing? To me it seems perfectly plausible to accept that the choices of a nation, as much as you love it, could have negative consequences, as well as good ones. I have no problem loving America for its potential and accomplishments, and strongly opposing policies and actions that I consider negative (in the same sense that I greatly appreciate the sacrifice, service, and excellent individual and unit-level performance of American soldiers in Iraq, but consider George W. Bush a war criminal).

It seems to me that people like Mr. Hardison suffer from extreme insecurity. They have a need to be members of self-supporting religious cliques with a mindset that weathers all reasoned challenge without any intellectial heavy lifting (a la "the Bible says it's true, so it must be true), they have a need to feel that their country is great and that they can claim that greatness as their own, and anyone who challenges (threatens) any of the things that prop up their fragile egos can go to hell. The last straw for him would be if his own daughter was allowed to understand things that shake the foundation of his identity.

Other Comments by mountainpix

4. Comment #17302 by CrysOdenkirk on January 12, 2007 at 7:26 pm

why is he obsessed with the "bad America" thing?

It's because that's the way anyone who's not right-of-Bush is perceived. We're not Americans or fellow citizens. We're "America Haters". It's just as dogmatic as "There's no such thing as global warming because the Bible says so".

Other Comments by CrysOdenkirk

5. Comment #17303 by CaptainShiny on January 12, 2007 at 7:30 pm

Even I am pissed of at this guy, and I think Gore's overexaggerating this a bit. I'll admit I haven't done my homework on this, but politicians always twist scientific facts for their own agenda. I'm denying global warming or anything.

Other Comments by CaptainShiny

6. Comment #17304 by CaptainShiny on January 12, 2007 at 7:32 pm

[sic] [sic] and [sic]. Make that "pissed off" and "not denying or anything"

Other Comments by CaptainShiny

7. Comment #17305 by yeahok on January 12, 2007 at 8:06 pm

Out of all the people in this world that could've made this movie, why did it have to be a politician? :(

Other Comments by yeahok

8. Comment #17306 by k1mgy on January 12, 2007 at 8:54 pm

>>Out of all the people in this world that could've made this movie, why did it have to be a politician? :(<<

Al Gore was influenced by science long before he became active in politics (though from a very politically-active family to say the least). He points out in the film that his environmental interest began in his college days.

Those of us in the US who understood his background all trusted that he'd carry his environmental science into his political life and knew that if he became President, we'd see some big environmental initiatives. Unfortunately 'Murca rotated 180 degrees in the other direction, but Gore continues to use his influence and recognition for a very worthwhile fight.

Other Comments by k1mgy

9. Comment #17307 by HappyPrimate on January 12, 2007 at 9:06 pm

While I am not fond of politicians particularly, I believe they are people too. Mr. Gore has consistantly been an advocate for environmental issues, for legislation to keep the people who are packed and ready for the rapture from trashing the place for those of us who will remain here. LOL I believe he really does care and I am grateful he is using his mite to bring the information forward to the masses. He is a brilliant man and I believe he has done his homework on this one. He is to be congratulated for standing up the the nay-sayers. He didn't have to do this, he could have sat home or traveled or whatever he wanted, but he chose to fight for something he feels is worthwhile for humanity. Go Al!!

Other Comments by HappyPrimate

10. Comment #17308 by MIND_REBEL on January 12, 2007 at 9:11 pm

Al Gore is a friend of science.

Other Comments by MIND_REBEL

11. Comment #17312 by Galactic Lord Xenu on January 12, 2007 at 10:02 pm

I feel like shooting myself in the face.

Other Comments by Galactic Lord Xenu

12. Comment #17313 by mountainpix on January 12, 2007 at 10:06 pm

I'll just add that regardless of Al Gore's political life, the fact that anyone could question whether global warming is happening is mind boggling. One would have to believe that the people who report about the massive quantity of supporting data are all a part of a massive conspiracy - folks who spitefully want people to give up their fossil fuel addiction. Is this in and of itself profound evidence of the rampant delusion in the "faith-based" world, or is it the reluctance of people to accept an inconvenient truth?

I hope that Gore runs again and is RE-ELECTED in 2008!

Other Comments by mountainpix

13. Comment #17317 by BracesForImpact on January 12, 2007 at 10:26 pm

The parts in particular which concerned me were:

"School Board members adopted a three-point policy that says teachers who want to show the movie must ensure that a "credible, legitimate opposing view will be presented," that they must get the OK of the principal and the superintendent, and that any teachers who have shown the film must now present an "opposing view."

and

"The policy, titled "Controversial Issues, Teaching of," says in part, "It is the teacher's responsibility to present controversial issues that are free from prejudice and encourage students to form, hold and express their own opinions without personal prejudice or discrimination."

Too many people seem to think education should be a democratic process. Shall we teach flat-earth theory because teaching the earth is round could be termed to be "controversial"?

Other Comments by BracesForImpact

14. Comment #17320 by evolver23 on January 12, 2007 at 10:50 pm

I feel like I'm reading The Onion:

1. It's outrageous, comical, and so obviously filled with lunacy,
2. It's making me cry.

Why does the school board cater to this crap? All this for someone who is terrified that an individual might have the audacity to criticize the United States?

Was I drugged? Is this still Earth?

Other Comments by evolver23

15. Comment #17323 by palebluedot on January 12, 2007 at 11:03 pm

It's real sad, thinking back to Florida 2000.
It could have been so very different:-(

Other Comments by palebluedot

16. Comment #17336 by William on January 13, 2007 at 1:14 am

What does it matter? You can still rent a copy of the film at a video store. Don't expect ANYTHING from the public school system - if you want your kids to be educated, you'll have to do it yourself on your own time. Don't rely on these cretins who make up the school boards.

Other Comments by William

17. Comment #17340 by derwent on January 13, 2007 at 1:32 am

...if (the movie) is going to take the approach of 'bad America, bad America,' I don't think it should be shown at all," Gayle Hardison said. "If you're going to come in and just say America is creating the rotten ruin of the world, I don't think the video should be shown."

What's the matter? Feeling guilty?

Other Comments by derwent

18. Comment #17343 by scottishgeologist on January 13, 2007 at 1:51 am

A lot of these fundy whackjobs simply dont give a "flying f*ck" about the environment. They see it as man having "dominion" over it and anyway, the world is a place of sin, a place condemned , a place of punishment, post-Eden, which is going to be destroyed and replaced anyway - the "new heavens and new earth" stuff.

So driving around in a SUV (complete with ridiculous fish symbol on the back) is quite OK - we're saved, we're alright Jack. Remember last year there was an initiative "praying for lower gas prices"

Here it is:

http://www.praylive.com/news.html

(Go down the page and you'll find it under "past events")

I've come across this atitude to the environment among religites in the UK as well. Makes me puke.

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

19. Comment #17352 by Vadjong on January 13, 2007 at 2:27 am

Quote from "An Inconvenient Truth" p.160/161

"I believe that when God created us (and I do believe evolution was part of the process God used), He shaped us, breathed life and a soul into us, and then set us free within nature, not seperate from it, giving us intimate connections to all aspects of it. The relationship we have to the natural world is not a relationship between "us" and "it." It is us, and we are of it."

Al Gore, 2006

Your comments, please.

Other Comments by Vadjong

20. Comment #17365 by jeff_n on January 13, 2007 at 3:21 am

BracesForImpact says:
Too many people seem to think education should be a democratic process. Shall we teach flat-earth theory because teaching the earth is round could be termed to be "controversial"?

Of course. If an intelligent and well-informed perspective is presented it should always be balanced by a stupid and ignorant one. :o)

Other Comments by jeff_n

21. Comment #17366 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 13, 2007 at 3:36 am

"I believe that when God created us (and I do believe evolution was part of the process God used), He shaped us, breathed life and a soul into us, and then set us free within nature, not seperate from it, giving us intimate connections to all aspects of it. The relationship we have to the natural world is not a relationship between "us" and "it." It is us, and we are of it."

Al Gore, 2006

Your comments, please.

Maybe he beleives it? Maybe it is even the case, as long as God is relegated to the "of no conceivable value or interest" category, he can say whatever he likes.

Odds are he knows it's crap and is indulging in some unavoidable pandering.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

22. Comment #17367 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 13, 2007 at 3:38 am

23. Comment #17368 by Logicel on January 13, 2007 at 3:41 am

I was so close to saying something harsh and mean about Gayla and Frosty but instead the posters here are covering the necessary ground, so I will refrain:

http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/message_board.jhtml?c=v&t=4466&m=14589&o=0&i=2&s=la

Please, more Gaylas and Frosties need to open their mouths so everyone can hear the pathetic nature of their beliefs and how they need to be challenged and not respected when they cross the private/public line in the sand.

Other Comments by Logicel

24. Comment #17369 by Logicel on January 13, 2007 at 3:47 am

Frosty's and Layla's particular brand of inanity is getting quite a harsh response in the blogosphere:

http://taintedideals.blogspot.com/

Other Comments by Logicel

25. Comment #17371 by Logicel on January 13, 2007 at 4:00 am

Great comments at Myers site:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/01/ridicule_is_a_useful_tool.php

Other Comments by Logicel

26. Comment #17373 by Logicel on January 13, 2007 at 4:14 am

Myers says it all, "Hardison is a fringe element who can babble all he wants on the internet and in his home; the real problem is school board members like David Larson, who thinks the existence of an opinionated kook in his district is a justification for compromising the education of the kids of every family in that school district."

Other Comments by Logicel

27. Comment #17379 by IPV4 on January 13, 2007 at 6:49 am

This article sums up our struggle in a nutshell. We must lobby the U.S congress and fight the powers that propagate false beliefs of fairy tale myths as facts. The American political system loves it when their constituents are dumb as dirt. People we need to organize and fight to prevent the brain washing of future generations of children or the result will be what we are reading in this article. "The Bible says" give me a freaking break.

Other Comments by IPV4

28. Comment #17380 by ChainsawKiller on January 13, 2007 at 6:51 am

How F*cking ridiculous. I know Catholic and Muslim Creationists and all of them agree Global Warming is a problem.

Have non of these people noticed the strange adverse weather problems in the world.

Does this meen that we have to teach opposing veiws of everything in schools? Holocaust Denial and homosexuals are evil will be the next things they want to see being taught.

Its strange they want freedom of speech on somethings and not on others. I want to see religion being a load of sh*t being the next thing taught in schools, how about that?

Other Comments by ChainsawKiller

29. Comment #17384 by Lionel A on January 13, 2007 at 7:25 am

Do I get this story right? One, yes just one, parent has prevented the showing of 'An Inconvenient Truth' to the pupils of a whole school using the support of the school board.

You poor American's! I understood that your democracy was in deep trouble (yes I realise that ours isn't that much better and also withering) but this looks to be an indicator of just how bad things can be. The thought of funatics jumping on this to use as precedence in any future cases fills me with dismay.

I note that Frosty Hardison's wife is judging the movie without, apparently, even watching it! How sad is that? And what about the school board?

As for that dame, the Rev. Beatrice Williams, driving 110 miles to beg her god for lower gas' prices � this has to be a classic indicator of the lack of reason underpinning the actions of such funatics. See story at:

http://www.praylive.com/events/LA_Prayer.htm

Other Comments by Lionel A

30. Comment #17392 by seals on January 13, 2007 at 8:03 am

If only this was one of those Onion funnies... has the ironically named Frosty twigged that whether or not climate change is occurring, it's not like fossil fuels will last forever. So why the debate about reduction in their use - how long will their/our heads stay buried in the sand?

Other Comments by seals

31. Comment #17405 by wayne on January 13, 2007 at 11:01 am

32. Comment #17408 by nine9s on January 13, 2007 at 11:17 am

This is one reason (among others) why I support homeschooling. If the whackjobs who indoctrinate their poor kids at home were instead in the school system, this is what they'd try to do. Let them keep their ignorance to themselves and leave us alone.

Other Comments by nine9s

33. Comment #17410 by perkyjay on January 13, 2007 at 11:37 am

Re #19 - Vadjong: If Al Gore intends to run again in 2008, as much as I would prefer that he came clean and told the truth about his beliefs, he is pretty well obliged by the system prevailing in the US to DISSEMBLE. We all know that an atheist doesn't stand a cat in hell's chance of being elected to political office in the US.

Other Comments by perkyjay

34. Comment #17414 by captain underpants on January 13, 2007 at 12:45 pm

Does Al Gore currently hold any political office or aspire to aquiring one? That is, is he actually still a politician? He has stated on numerous occasions that he doesn't intend to run for president.

Other Comments by captain underpants

35. Comment #17416 by Dreamer's Dilemma on January 13, 2007 at 1:29 pm

"The debate in the science community is over,'' Gore insists, but in the inimitable words of the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a classical liberal, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."

More than 17,000 scientists, to date, have signed a petition sponsored by Dr. Frederick Seitz, past president of the National Academy of Sciences, refuting Gore's claims that global warming is human-induced. The petition states: "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."

The preceding was taken from a column by Mark M. Alexander, Friday June 23, 2006.

How is it that people lucid enough to see through the charade of religion are so willing to blindly follow the dictums of the socialists and secular humanists in Al Gore's camp?

Other Comments by Dreamer's Dilemma

36. Comment #17420 by jeff_n on January 13, 2007 at 2:21 pm

Dreamer's Dilemma says:
The preceding was taken from a column by Mark M. Alexander, Friday June 23, 2006.

The quote comes from "The Oregon Petition", a thoroughly discredited fundamentalist scam. You can read about it here and here.

Other Comments by jeff_n

37. Comment #17421 by 601 on January 13, 2007 at 2:22 pm

Frosty - "...everything will burn up, but that perspective isn't in the DVD."

Curiously, that IS exactly what I thought AnIT predicts.

Balancing majority and minority rights is never easy, and what we teach the children is a keystone for the future. The stakes are high.

Science Friendly Crowd: Teach the scientific consensus in science class, expect it to evolve over time.

Religious Insecurity Crowd: All classes are theology, promote locally popular dogma, preemptively defend against challenges.

Other Comments by 601

38. Comment #17423 by Lionel A on January 13, 2007 at 2:52 pm

Dreamer's Dilemma

To cast aspersions at allegedly lucid people who can see through the charade of religion being willing to blindly follow the dictums of socialist and secular humanists for presuamably believing that there is a potentially damaging anthropomorphic signature to the greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere, increases which accelerated as the industrial revolution spread globally, and continues to accelerate, is to ignore the collective opinion of many of the world's leading scientists.

It is also unhelpful to a measured discussion.

As for the 17,000 scientist signature petition that you mention, is this related at all to the petition that was created in the early years of this century where many of the so called scientists turned out to be from well know celebrities � film stars, singers and even cartoon characters?

Sorry but when you investigate the many, many aspects of the arguments then there can be only one sensible conclusion and that is the certainty of human activity having a forcing effect on climate change. A forcing effect which is, and will increasingly, trigger progressively more aggressive feedback mechanisms.

There is already a thread on this topic in the Forum where further argument could be made perhaps.

Other Comments by Lionel A

39. Comment #17431 by Blue State Mike on January 13, 2007 at 4:52 pm

Sorry for the length, but this is the reply from the school board member at the center of the controversy, Dave Larson, to my angry e-mail to him:

Due to the volume of interest in this matter I am using auto-reply to
get
you the quickest reply possible because your concerns about what we did
are important. I write this intending to express my own views and not
the
views of other board members. I will not be replying to your replies.
Some of the media has not reported this matter accurately and I wanted
to
make sure the issues and our decision were clear to you. Feel free to
share this with others who are concerned.

1. We did not make the decision based upon Mr. Hardison's religious
or
other beliefs. The decision was made because a teacher was going to
show
the movie and it did not appear she was following policy. It turned
out
that she was not following policy. There was also an offer last week
by
the proponents of the movie to give 50,000 copies to teachers across
the
country to use as curriculum, which would have increased the chance
that
the movie would be used. There was more than one complaint/concern
expressed about this issue based upon that alone.
2. We did not ban or censor the movie and have no intent to do so.
Teachers can use it as they see fit if they follow policy on movies and
controversial issues, but because there was some misunderstanding on
the
policy we asked that the Superintendent be involved in making sure
policy
was being followed. One of our high schools has already used the
movie.
The students were asked to take a side, research the issues, and then
debate the issues from that standpoint. What they did goes above and
beyond the policy in my opinion.
3. We are not banning the teaching of global warming.
4. The debate on global warming is crucial to society and limiting the
debate to only one side's view of the facts and science would not be
good
for anyone even if they believe the debate is over.
5. Our policies are designed to make sure that the door is open for
more
debate on issues, not less, but it does not mean as some allege that
any
wacko theory can be taught in our schools.
6. The decision was made upon existing policy. It was not based on
anyone's direct belief regarding politics, science, religion, or when
the
earth was formed or when it will end.
7. Policy 2331 and 2331P is intended to prevent one-sided views of
controversial issues.
8. There was more than one complaint/concern expressed about this
issue.
9. The policy should be equally enforced regardless of what side of
the
spectrum any controversial issue falls upon. This protects the
integrity
of the education process. We would have made the same decision if the
movie was about the Iraq war or some other issue and was narrated by
George W. Bush or some other partisan, even if the proponents felt the
debate was over on the topic they were presenting.
10. Using a partisan to present issues affecting contested public
policy
matters makes it controversial per se. The media attention to our
decision is also evidence of the controversial nature of this film.
11. Science and politics have been merged on this issue by persons
beyond
our control. The political aspect of this is what makes it the most
controversial, especially when a political partisan makes the
presentation. With that in mind, there are many other ways to teach
global warming instead of using a feature film by a political partisan
(see links below from NOAA and NASA that have references to skeptics),
but
despite that we did not vote to "ban" the movie even though we could
have.
We also had the power to compel specific sources be used instead of
the
movie and did not do that either. Some have raised the issue of us not
watching the movie first, but we did not ban the movie or that would
have
been crucial. We did feel it was controversial based upon the above
reasons which is all we needed to know based upon our policy.
12. On the issue of how final the debate is, Galileo and other out of
the
box thinkers come to mind. Would they have ever made their discoveries
had they not questioned what was perceived to be the determined "facts"
of
the day by those in power? Those who believe science is infallible
need a
history lesson. Research issues that were thought to be scientific
fact
50 or 100 years ago and you will truly understand why we believe in
debate, even about science and even when some think the debate is over.

In sum, we simply asked for duly adopted policy to be followed by
making
sure opposing views were presented when a political partisan presents a
contested political/scientific issue to impressionable youth.

Thank you.

Dave Larson

http://eobglossary.gsfc.nasa.gov/Library/GlobalWarming/warming.html

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#IN TRO

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Laboratory/PlanetEarthScience/GlobalWarming/GW.html

Controversial Issues - Teaching of - 2331

The Federal Way School District shall offer courses of study which
provide
learning experiences appropriate to the level of student understanding.
The instructional program shall respect the rights of students to face
issues, to have free access to information, to study under teachers in
situations free from prejudice, and to form, hold, an d express their
own
opinions without personal prejudice or discrimination.

Adoption Date: 8/10/98

Controversial Issues, Teaching Of - 2331P

The Board of Education of the Federal Way School District establishes
the
following guidelines to deal with the teaching of controversial issues:

� It is the teacher's responsibility to present controversial
issues that
are free from prejudice an d encourage students to form, hold and
express
their own opinions without personal prejudice or discrimination.

� When a teacher is in doubt as to whether or not a topic or speaker
is
controversial, they should refer the matter to the school principal.

� When controversial topics are presented in the classroom, students
can
choose not to participate. Alternate learning opportunities will be
provided.

When handling controversial issues, the teacher may not present his/her
own personal position as the only acceptable position, which may be
taken
on that particular issue. The teacher shall not seek to bring about a
single conclusion to which all students must subscribe, but rather
encourage a problem solving environment. The teacher shall not
suppress a
student's view on that issue as long as the expression of that view
is not
derogatory, malicious, or abusive toward the other students' views,
nor
shall one student be permitted to dominate the discussion.

8/10/98

Other Comments by Blue State Mike

40. Comment #17433 by Dreamer's Dilemma on January 13, 2007 at 5:04 pm

Continuing to cite from the same column referenced in the earlier comment, which may be found at TownHall.Com:

{Renowned meteorologist Dr. William Gray, in a recent interview with Discover Magazine (which has advocated the theory of human-induced global warming), says: "This human-induced global-warming thing ... is grossly exaggerated. ... I'm not disputing there has been global warming. There was a lot of global warming in the 1930s and '40s, and then there was global cooling in the middle '40s to the early '70s. Nearly all of my colleagues who have been around 40 or 50 years are skeptical ... about this global-warming thing. But no one asks us." (Gray was described by Discover Magazine's editors as one of "the world's most famous hurricane experts.")

Commenting on the misuse of science to support political agendas, Harvard's Dr. Malcolm Ross concludes of such folly, "Freeze or fry, the problem is always industrial capitalism, and the solution is always international socialism."}

Apparently, unless one is in lockstep agreement with "the only sensible conclusion", one is being unhelpful to a measured discussion. The point is, legitimate scientists (discounting the fundamentalists) remain on both sides of the global warming debate.

Other Comments by Dreamer's Dilemma

41. Comment #17437 by Mel Z on January 13, 2007 at 5:25 pm

"Somebody could say you're killing free speech, and my retort to them would be we're encouraging free speech,"

Is this a joke or what?

Other Comments by Mel Z

42. Comment #17441 by Will in Aus on January 13, 2007 at 6:11 pm

"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."

Mmmmm, funny that, perhaps it's the complete lack of evidence for anything said in the Bible, and the overwhelming evidence for global warming.

"Asked whether an alternative explanation for evolution should be presented by teachers, Barney said it would be appropriate to tell students that other beliefs exist. "It's only a theory," he said"

Yet another example of a layperson misunderstanding scientific terminology. A theory in science is something supported by evidence, accepted as fact, but still able to be modified slightly as new evidence presents itself.

"From what I've seen (of the movie) and what my husband has expressed to me, if (the movie) is going to take the approach of 'bad America, bad America,' I don't think it should be shown at all," Gayle Hardison said. "If you're going to come in and just say America is creating the rotten ruin of the world, I don't think the video should be shown."

There's nothing that annoys me more than a patriotic American who believes that the USA is a superior country. NEWSFLASH Gayle, America is one of, if not the worst offender with regards to greenhouse emissions. Everyone should be saying "bad America, bad America".

It's time for the world to start embracing science, rather than criticising it. Decisions like that made by the school board in question are detrimental to society and to our longevity as a species. It's time to face the facts.

Other Comments by Will in Aus

43. Comment #17444 by k1mgy on January 13, 2007 at 7:15 pm

Regarding the Quote from "An Inconvenient Truth" p.160/161 referenced earlier:

"I believe that when God created us (and I do believe evolution was part of the process God used), He shaped us, breathed life and a soul into us, and then set us free within nature, not seperate from it, giving us intimate connections to all aspects of it. The relationship we have to the natural world is not a relationship between "us" and "it." It is us, and we are of it."

Al Gore, 2006

>>Your comments, please.

Al Gore comes from the Bible Belt of America and I am not surprised that he has been influenced by it.

The difference is that he is not attempting to ram his belief down the throat of America.

President Kennedy gave a wonderful speech which set to rest the blather about his catholicism during the presidential election campaign.

It's worth a read and is very applicable in today's Bush "faith-based" climate. I bet that Al Gore would agree with every word:

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkhoustonministers.html

Other Comments by k1mgy

44. Comment #17475 by magetoo on January 14, 2007 at 1:59 am

Wow.

I just have to comment on Dave Larson's autoreply. It seems to be just a mishmash of whatever feeble excuses could be thought up the quickest. One, good, reason should be enough. Instead we see the shotgun approach - let's hope something hits the target. A few things stood out in particular:

10. Using a partisan to present issues affecting contested public policy matters makes it controversial per se. The media attention to our decision is also evidence of the controversial nature of this film.

Using a partisan? Al Gore is a climate scientist now? Amazing.

And the media attention is not necessarily an indication that the issue is controversial; rather, I think the most of us would agree that the media attention is due to what is percieved as a ban, and that it involves a political celebrity.

11. Science and politics have been merged on this issue by persons beyond our control. The political aspect of this is what makes it the most controversial, especially when a political partisan makes the presentation.

"The political aspect of this is what makes it the most controversial"? So the controversy is about politics, and not science?

12. On the issue of how final the debate is, Galileo and other out of the box thinkers come to mind. Would they have ever made their discoveries had they not questioned what was perceived to be the determined "facts" of the day by those in power? Those who believe science is infallible need a history lesson. Research issues that were thought to be scientific fact 50 or 100 years ago and you will truly understand why we believe in debate, even about science and even when some think the debate is over.

Here he's equating Galileo and "other out of the box thinkers", presumably climate change sceptics. Is he seriously suggesting that all opposing views must be taken seriously? That's ridiculous. Someone mentioned Holocaust deniers earlier, that might make for an interesting test case...

Sorry for any spelling errors, I can't seem to use the "preview" function. And I'm not saying the Al Gore's position is 100% proven true (though I personally think it's mostly true), just that some very poor arguments were used in defense of the decision.

Other Comments by magetoo

45. Comment #17492 by jeff_n on January 14, 2007 at 4:40 am

Dreamer's Dilemma says:
Apparently, unless one is in lockstep agreement with "the only sensible conclusion", one is being unhelpful to a measured discussion. The point is, legitimate scientists (discounting the fundamentalists) remain on both sides of the global warming debate.

Agreed. But your use of "The Oregon Report" shows that we need to be careful about where we get our information. There is an awful lot of misinformation about this issue out there.

Other Comments by jeff_n

46. Comment #17497 by Logicel on January 14, 2007 at 5:48 am

good points, Magetoo, thanks.

Other Comments by Logicel

47. Comment #17505 by Lionel A on January 14, 2007 at 7:42 am

Dreamer's Dilemma ref #17433 and #17420

Please note that it was the tone, using such an inflammatory juxtaposition as 'people lucid enough' and 'blindly follow the dictums of the socialists' of your posting which is unhelpful to measured discussion.

You wrote about blindly following and yet cite an already discredited petition see:

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/climate/climatecriminals/esso/case.cfm

and have a look at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Seitz

and therein note the reference to 'Chair of Fred Singer's Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP).'

Then have a search for Fred Singer's allegancies and known prejudices, a visit to:

http://www.stopesso.com/why.php

may help.

Your use of a quote by Dr Malcolm Ross indicates the political ideology that may be clouding your judgement here. This issue is not about capitalism versus socialism, it is about the survival of our species and the biosystems of the planet of which we are a part.

There may well be 'legitimate' scientists on both sides of the climate change debate but it may be instructive if you investigated the proportions of scientists on each side and also the likely allegancies, qualifications and experience of those 'scientists' who counter arguments for any anthropogenic effect.

BTW The link supplied with Larson's response:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#Q2

is informative.

Other Comments by Lionel A

48. Comment #17599 by Vadjong on January 15, 2007 at 4:31 am

Thanks for responding to the quote from "An Inconvenient Truth".
I get the impression most agree with comment #17367 by briancoughlanworldcitizen : Odds are he knows it's crap and is indulging in some unavoidable pandering.

I never believed for a second that such a clear-thinking, straight-talking man in the rest of his book, could possibly mean such an obviously incoherent remark.
Elsewhere he is far more articulate and outspoken in his disgust for the Bush administration's anti-science policies.

In view of the importance of his message and the targeted audience, however, can he afford to "come out of the closet" ?

Other Comments by Vadjong

49. Comment #17795 by IPV4 on January 16, 2007 at 2:26 pm

To Dreamer DIlemma,

Dude, do you live in a cave? This is not even a debate anymore! Even Exxon has recently stopped donating money for their disinformation campaign. Have you wathched the movie? I'm going to say no, for the simple reason is that Gore makes a powerfull scientific case for his position, what is yours for denying it.

Other Comments by IPV4

50. Comment #17897 by scot on January 17, 2007 at 11:20 am

I posted this link in another area, but here is a decent opposing view to Gore's film. Good reading for anyone who is a true beleiver in Global Warming. The environment is crucially important, but so are objectivity and reason.

http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759

Other Comments by scot

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last