Federal Way is a town between Seattle and Tacoma. THe school district there has placed a moratorium on the showing of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth". It was prompted by the complaints of a fundamentalist family who doesnt believe in global warming because it's not in the bible.

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

i swear, i left NC to get away from you people. how'd you wind up over here?

1/13/2007 10:46:28 PM

there are idiots everywhere

1/13/2007 10:48:39 PM

thats a good thing. all that film is, is liberal brainwashing. global warming is not recognized by thousands of scientists. and While i believe the Bible i would be suprised if that was the only reason it got banned.

1/13/2007 10:49:34 PM

I stopped reading the article when it called "An Inconvenient Truth" a "documentary"...but then I finished it

Let alone its not "Banned From School"...they just can't show as one-sided a mockumentary on a subject...they have to show both sides of the story

Quote :

"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." "

[Edited on January 13, 2007 at 11:00 PM. Reason : .]

1/13/2007 10:50:55 PM

This is only controversial in the sense that evolution is controversial. Some fundamentalist hucklebucks disagree with the overwhelming scientific consensus, so we all have to pretend like there are two legitimate sides of the issue.

That being said, the teacher's dumb for choosing this particular movie. I'm sure National Geographic or Nature has a real documentary on the subject. I don't blame them for trying to stop the teacher. Then again, good luck finding an anti-climate change movie that's any more intellectually honest than An Inconvenient Truth.

[Edited on January 13, 2007 at 11:11 PM. Reason : .]

1/13/2007 11:09:26 PM

That movie should be banned for being intellectually dishonest, not because it talks about global warming. It makes numerous mistakes and includes outright lies as well. The issue should be talked about in school (albeit with some degree of skepticism, as the warming trend has been proven, but the linkage between humans and warming is still in some degree of dispute) but it should be talked about from less biased sources than Al Gore. Holy Crap! That's like asking Pat Robertson to come speak on theology.

1/13/2007 11:22:13 PM

It amazes me how you people or PEOPLE in general make the condition of our planet into a "bi-partisan" issue. That's why I'm personally disgusted with politics because every issue boils down to a D vs R situation.

1/13/2007 11:28:45 PM

^^ Basically.

Not to mention, I assume biology has a state end-of-course test in Washington. Wtf is this teacher doing showing his kids a two-hour movie?

1/13/2007 11:34:11 PM

Calculus isn't in the bible.

1/13/2007 11:42:32 PM

Quote :

"The Bible says that in the end times everything will burn up, but that perspective isn't in the DVD."

The man has a point

[Edited on January 13, 2007 at 11:54 PM. Reason : .]

1/13/2007 11:51:21 PM

Quote :

"but the linkage between humans and warming is still in some degree of dispute"

no. it's not. not in the scientific community. the only people who dispute this are free trade advocates who are only looking out for their economic interests.

1/13/2007 11:56:21 PM

What if G warming is just a pattern that is in turn at this particular time? Us humans have only been documenting the earths temp for a very short period of time. What if this pattern exceeds human existence, is my question?

1/14/2007 12:00:51 AM

when you look at ice cores from long ago, concentrations of carbon shifted within a specific range. we are getting way out of the historic range.

[Edited on January 14, 2007 at 12:20 AM. Reason : .]

1/14/2007 12:19:38 AM

No

Because past weather patterns from eons ago are documented in ice core samples...






















The ones that haven't already melted away that is.

1/14/2007 1:59:06 AM

Quote :

"i swear, i left NC to get away from you people. how'd you wind up over here?"

joe_schmoe

Welcome back, schmoe. Way to show your left-wing bias and your bias against those of us who happen to live in the South--a two-fer. (You know, in the past, groups of people have been offended by the use of "you people." FYI.)

1/14/2007 4:44:07 AM

yet once again, hooksaw adds nothing to a thread.

1/14/2007 5:32:41 AM

^ My addition is just as comprehensive as the Democrats' Iraq plan.

[Edited on January 14, 2007 at 6:30 AM. Reason : PS: Commenting on an initial post "adds nothing"? ]

[Edited on January 14, 2007 at 6:32 AM. Reason : PPS: "yet once again"? You still on medication?]

1/14/2007 6:29:05 AM

When your position sucks, do as Webster (Hooktard) does and throw a red herring. He thinks it works everytime.

1/14/2007 8:28:40 AM

Quote :

"the only people who dispute this are free trade advocates who are only looking out for their economic interests"

ignorance

1/14/2007 4:32:16 PM

YEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1/14/2007 4:34:50 PM

more evidence that we all live in a police state.

1/14/2007 7:24:53 PM

^^^^ BTW, this is "Webster":



And what did your post add to the thread, Hockey-Shitball?

[Edited on January 14, 2007 at 8:17 PM. Reason : ]

1/14/2007 8:09:20 PM

Quote :

"ignorance"

care to enlighten me?

1/14/2007 8:14:05 PM

Quote :

"It makes numerous mistakes and includes outright lies as well."

Such as?

1/14/2007 8:44:09 PM

^^^Just pointing out that you are trying to derail this thread as you commonly do when you know when your position sucks.
Since you are too dense to get the reference.

1/14/2007 8:47:27 PM

You People!

1/14/2007 8:50:04 PM

^^ Humor is lost on you.

1/14/2007 10:19:27 PM

T-dub is serious business!!!1

1/14/2007 10:30:56 PM

^ Puppy pees on your reply.

1/14/2007 11:25:56 PM

So this guy is supposed to be middle-aged?

1/14/2007 11:30:04 PM

Ignore him. Seriously...he's a weirdo.

(And I'm usually cool with weirdos, but this guy just straight up gives everybody the creeps.)

[Edited on January 14, 2007 at 11:45 PM. Reason : sss]

1/14/2007 11:44:42 PM

^ Fuck off, troll.

1/14/2007 11:46:03 PM

i, i, i just dont know what to say.

1/15/2007 9:03:34 AM

From the article:

Quote :

"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. "

AARRRGGHH!!! NO, evolution and global warming are NOT issues that should be presented to students from both sides. Abortion is an issue that should be presented from both sides because whether life begins at conception, at birth, or at some other point is a purely moral/ethical question. The answers to questions of whether or not evolution and global warming are happening, however, are based on scientific evidence. Students should be presented scientific evidence and nothing more. The scientific consensus on both of those issues, especially evolution, is that they are both occuring, so it doesn't fucking matter what a bunch of ignorant ass-backwards kooks believe.

1/16/2007 11:19:54 AM

<Raises and Shakes Fist in the air>

Science Damn You!

1/16/2007 12:42:32 PM

a lot of "ass-backwards kooks" don't believe in evolution because they dont understand it...they dont look at it as "over millions of years, lifeforms adapted to their environments"...they look at it like "what, you expect me to believe all the sudden i came from a monkey?"

similarly, a lot of people dont understand climate change...they dont think "over billions of years, the earth goes through changes...how much impact do humans have on these changes?" they think of it like "its 60 degrees and its january, we can automatically conclude its sport utility vehicles and evil corporations doing this!"

1/16/2007 12:53:56 PM

^ Well, that is exactly my point. The purpose of teaching kids science is to teach them to think like a scientist, i.e. to learn the information that is available on a given subject, take an objective look at that information, and form a conclusion based on that objective look. When ideas like creationism intelligent design and opposition to global warming are given equal weight in a school science classroom to what the consensus of the scientific community is, that defeats the whole purpose of teaching kids science in the first place.

1/16/2007 1:07:33 PM

Quote :

"joe_schmoe: i swear, i left NC to get away from you people. how'd you wind up over here?"

Don't come back, fuckface.

[Edited on January 16, 2007 at 1:09 PM. Reason : ]

1/16/2007 1:09:16 PM

Quote :

"When ideas like creationism intelligent design and opposition to global warming are given equal weight in a school science classroom to what the consensus of the scientific community is, that defeats the whole purpose of teaching kids science in the first place."

but it doesnt defeat the whole purpose...climatology isnt "an exact science"...you can teach a kid that 9 x 9 = 81, because that is a fact...you can prove it with axioms and postulates...math is definite

complex global cycles are not definite, at least our understanding of them is not definite...maybe this analogy will suck, but the scientific consensus back in the day was that the earth was at the center of our solar system...dont you think that topic should have been able to have opposing ideas discussed in school?

i think too many people think a consensus in the scientific community means absolute fact

and even though you could take all the climate change information and form your own conclusion, based on the information presented so far, its still wrong and against the principles of science to take something like global warming (that actually is controversial, believe it or not), and try to put too much of a onesided view on it

again...we must differentiate between exact sciences...certainly its ok to teach children about gravity...its a law...its pretty much always held true...the same cannot be said for our understanding of climate change

[Edited on January 16, 2007 at 1:22 PM. Reason : .]

1/16/2007 1:15:45 PM

Quote :

"certainly its ok to teach children about gravity...its a law"

sorry. wrong.

1/16/2007 1:58:41 PM

^so your only gripe with my last post was that i chose to accept gravity as a law instead of considering it a part of the theory of relativity? ok cool...that just means something like the scientific consensus on climate change is even less definite...thanks for help making my point

1/16/2007 2:27:21 PM

^ And another point they are missing is that real science should NOT be about consensus.

1/16/2007 2:47:11 PM

What do you think laws and theories etc are? they are consensus.

1/16/2007 2:49:01 PM

No explanation of our origins could ever be a law. The fact that you people don't get this makes it that much easier to dismiss you.

1/16/2007 2:55:37 PM

^^ No, so-called consensus is simply a sometime by-product of reproducable experiments.

[Edited on January 16, 2007 at 2:58 PM. Reason : ^ As if you needed a rational reason to dismiss him. ]

1/16/2007 2:56:57 PM

Quote :

"No explanation of our origins could ever be a law."

who even implied that it could?

1/16/2007 3:01:44 PM

1/16/2007 3:03:50 PM

Quote :

"No, so-called consensus is simply a sometime by-product of reproducable experiments."

look at what a theory, law, and hypothesis means before you continue in this thread.

1/16/2007 3:07:58 PM

^^ok, i meant who in this thread implied it could?...because equivocating people who use science to investigate processes as having the same thought process as pat robertson makes it absurdly easy to dismiss any of your comments on this issue

^i was about to tell you the same thing when you implied that laws are consensus...laws are a hell of a lot more than consensus...something has to be observed the same way over a long period of time`.

[Edited on January 16, 2007 at 3:16 PM. Reason : .]

1/16/2007 3:13:44 PM

You're rationale was along the same lines.

"omg we don't know with 100% certainty yet"

1/16/2007 3:15:54 PM