This request came in from WUWT reader Michael, who’s concerned that “My daughter’s fifth grade class is currently being indoctrinated regarding “human caused” climate change.” and he wants to know what film might be a good response.
My daughter’s fifth grade class is currently being indoctrinated regarding “human caused” climate change. Her teacher sent home a note informing parents that she will be screening CNN’s Planet in Peril, which she described as “fairly objective”.
Is there a good film I could recommend the teacher to show to provide balance to my daughter’s class. Any other assistance with a response to her teacher would be most appreciated. Below is the email from my daughter’s teacher.
Thanks,
Michael
~~~~~~~~~~
Hello Parents,
I want to make you aware of a documentary we are watching in 5th grade. It is produced by CNN and is called “Planet in Peril.” This video is meant to introduce students to the idea that the earth is warming and that all effects of this warming has a ripple effect. In my view, it is fairly objective, and attempts to examine whether this problem is man-made or not.
My intent is to make students aware of the scientific research that is out there, and encourage them to do their own research on an aspect of this science that interests them.
Please communicate any concerns you have about this as soon as possible. I am happy to make any adaptations for your child tailored to your concerns.
Thank you,
Mrs. A
5th Grade General Studies
=================================================================
My first thought would be this video from Dr. David Evans,
Another would be the 50 to 1 video:
I’m sure readers can suggest other videos.
A ten-minute film that would attempt, not refutation, but doubt-raising (an easier sell, and more acceptable to teachers), would not cost more than $10,000, if done by an underpaid volunteer, of whom there’d be many. It need only provide counterpoints to, or tonings-down of, the claims in the CNN movie. The fact that this hasn’t been done is just one of many reasons why there is no well-organized, well-funded contrarians’ coven. For more on the things such a coven would have done if one existed, see my guest thread, Notes from Skull Island, here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/16/notes-from-skull-island-why-skeptics-arent-well-funded-and-well-organized/
I second “The Great Global Warming Swindle” and also “Not Evil Just Wrong”, which I think deserves much wider exposure.
I recommend “CBC – Global Warming Doomsday Called Off”. It is 45 min. long and so might be suitable in a classroom setting. It is not better than “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, but it does cover the same material in much the same way, with many of the same people. It’s shorter format may make it a better choice.
Sometimes a little mocking and some music will go a long way with kids:
http://youtu.be/Vx-t9k7epIk
I think that the Doomsday Preppers guys surely know best about it. They might have a lot of video or references documentary on this…
The Great Global Warming Swindle on the BBC? You must be joking. It was Channel 4. The BBCs response was Earth: the Climate Wars – an awful propaganda three parter.
Janice Moore says:
May 12, 2014 at 3:47 pm
“The Global Warming Swindle” — aired on BBC 2007
——————————————————
It was actually on Channel Four, not the BBC, although I wouldn’t give them too much credit as I don’t think that a sceptical idea has been aired since and Channel Four News is, if anything. more hysterically alarmist than the BBC News.
I would have a number of concerns as a parent ( well, if I was this parent my child would not be allowed to be indoctrinated with this stuff. Ever )
Some concerns are about the content of the film. I have not seen this but from what I can read ( transcripts are available at CNN, I expect the video is also ). This film is apparently less about climate conditions and trends but more about ecosystems and the ability of flora and fauna to deal with it. I understand the intent is to highlight animals and plants under stress or threat of extinction then tie these events to global changes in climate which are then claimed to be human in cause. Myself i don’t see how this material is germane to the teacher’s goal:
“….to introduce students to the idea that the earth is warming and that all effects of this warming has a ripple effect.”.
The next concern I would raise is that in the very same week of broadcast, CNN also broadcast a programme so as to present a balanced view on the subject. This program was called:
“Keeping them honest: The truth about global warming.”
Which I understand was a regular feature by host Cooper with changing areas of interest each week. I would make a strong case to the school that if CNN felt obliged to show these two films together in the same week and the latter as balance for the former, then the school has an obligation to do the same.
My final concern is that this was aired in October 2007. Filming obviously took place in the year preceding. That’s nearly 7 years ago. Much of what the film contains scientifically will be out of date and not relevant. The science has moved on. Unless the teacher is willing to present current data for any assertions about populations of species etc. then it’s not doing the students any good. If you want to encourage students to go out and research the issues for themselves then give them the tools to do so and help them in their search. Don’t start by feeding them outdated propaganda.
Any film you show them will have the effect of pushing the combined agendas of the people who produced it ( I mean that in the broad sense of all involved ) and also likely the agenda of the person choosing the film. That’s how religion works. Just give them facts and tell them to go and find the truth for themselves.
“I taught her the ‘stump the teacher’ game and to question authority. She is a top honors student.”
You may have done her a disservice. As she grows older, pressure on her grades in any area where her instructors have subjective discretion will increase.
I instruct all younger family members in the now necessary arts of apparently absorbing instruction and obediently regurgitating it on cue.
As I put it to them, “These ‘educators’ are not in the least bit intent on genuinely educating you, which is to say, to think critically for yourself. What they are instead intent upon is _indoctrinating_ you to think precisely as they do. A quite different matter. And they will not treat you well if they believe for one second that you are resisting or questioning that process of indoctrination. They have substantial control over the trajectory of the rest of your life. You are perforce going to have to either become a passive parrot, or able to pantomime being a parrot. The latter option is what you should choose.”
The Dr Evans Video claims that there is 1.1 C of warming for each doubling of CO2 but nothing could be further from the truth because the heating effect is logarithmic and doubling over and over has LESS and less effect not more.
Now at 400ppm CO2 has very little more to add to the heat blanket no matter how many times it doubles from here.
One wonders if the primary aim of the video is to push that falsehood by misdirecting to feedbacks.
Two recommendations: Lord Monckton’s “Apocalypse? No!”, and Pete Garcia’s / Jesse Jones’ / Deyvis Martinez’s / Will Rich’s “The Boy Who Cried Warming”
The “The Global Warming Swindle” is an interesting documentary and fueled my original skepticism. Not because I believed it at the time, but because I was shocked by how weak the rebuttals were from the establishment. But it’s greatest and most serious failing is that it purports to provide an alternate explanation for the warming (solar activity).
davidmhoffer says:
May 12, 2014 at 4:27 pm
That is why they are watching movies, instead of reading. Perhaps standard English is not included among “5th Grade General Studies.”
Mrs A. wrote:
Beyond the bad English noted by Mr. Hoffer, I call your attention to the warming = problem assumption slipped in there by Mrs. A.
As well, her view seems to be that a documentary titled “Planet in Peril: is “fairly objective.”
In my view, a good assignment for the students would be to investigate their teacher’s assumption that warming is necessarily a problem. What would be an ideal temperature? Would the students want the world to get colder, or warmer? Would longer growing seasons and enlarged agricultural zones be a problem, or a benefit? What percentage of atmospheric CO2 is produced by natural sources? Was CNN’s attempt to examine this issue successful, or not? Finally, did the students find the documentary to be objective, or biased?
But back to the bad English grammar (and muddled thinking): If I were Michael, I’d be thinking about getting my child out of that school.
She’s in her 5th year of a 12 year sentence.
It is abusive to make children feel responsible for the state of the world.
It is abusive to subject children to anxiety-provoking disaster material when the ONLY intended outcome is to push children to push their parents on behavior.
It is unethical for schools to wedge themselves between parent and child.
Any decent school could ignore the global warming issue and instead simply teach children more valuable education: science, measurement, causality, rhetoric, and logic. And the observe of these.
Then, send these educated people off to college and the real world to figure out what problems and concerns are out there.
A properly, classically educated high school grad ought to be able to see a scam-artist approaching from 50 paces.
We are not teaching our children HOW to think, but WHAT to think. We are sure to be incorrect some portion of the time.
So, let’s just go for HOW to think.
There is nothing to be done to save the kids directly. For that result the video needs to convince the teacher. The teacher can then calm the kids with reality. If you can’t reach the teacher… the kids are going to drown in a sea of alarmism. GK
Don’t have a video to recommend, but I would generate a two or three page handing listing of all the failed climate predictions given by the Climate Scientists over the years. I would also add a list of 10 or so of the Top Scientists that disagree with CAGW. Would also write a very short and to the point rebuttal of the “97%of climate scientsts agree….”. Have to destroy the fallacy there is a consensus and as well that scientists are never wrong in the young mind.
My first thought is identical to John Whitman’s suggestion for Feynman’s lectures.
My second and tertiary thoughts are that Feynman’s lectures should have frequent commercials consisting of outtakes from Turney’s ship of fools and tools.
I like this one. 7 minutes and easy to understand.
A few of the famous predictions to refute… Hansen and East Manhatten being under sea water by now (picture of then vs now). Hansen predicting 0.2C temperature rise per decade from 2000 to 2200 in a cute picture graph (his prediction vs actual). A graph showing Global sea ice but you only ever hear about Arctic sea ice. A bar graph of frequency of catastrophic weather events over the past century showing there is NO increase. Put in enough stuff like this to fill up a couple of pages, with some nice pictures and a few easy to read graphs.
Hmm.. after watching Crosspatch video, I would show this 7 minute video and then give the handout.
Chris Thorne says:
May 12, 2014 at 6:42 pm
“I taught her the ‘stump the teacher’ game and to question authority. She is a top honors student.”
You may have done her a disservice. As she grows older, pressure on her grades in any area where her instructors have subjective discretion will increase.
I instruct all younger family members in the now necessary arts of apparently absorbing instruction and obediently regurgitating it on cue.
—
This makes me sad. Firstly, I don’t believe that all teachers have the attitude that you ascribe to them. Secondly, even if most teachers had this attitude, I think it is wrong to actively discourage your children from speaking their mind. If my parents had given me such advice, I would have felt betrayed.
Forget the science, I’d teach them the history of propaganda. This one, if they can handle it….
There are two questions to be asked:
One was posed by Steve McIntyre. He asked for an engineering quality calculation of the warming caused by greenhouse gases. None has been done. We only have computer simulations and the students should be told that is all it is – modelling.
Second: Ask anyone to produce a study which has MEASURED the temperature increase caused by CO2. None exists. A graph is used to compare temperature increases with CO2 increases. The same can be done with a chart showing the increase in the number of lawyers or cell phones.
Not to burst your bubble or anything, but logarithmic does indeed precisely mean a constant increase per doubling.