Angry in the Great White North

Kevin Libin writes about Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth becoming required viewing in Canadian schools:

First it was his world history class. Then he saw it in his economics class. And his world issues class. And his environment class. In total, 18-year-old McKenzie, a Northern Ontario high schooler, says he has had the film An Inconvenient Truth shown to him by four different teachers this year.

"I really don't understand why they keep showing it," says McKenzie (his parents asked that his last name not be used). "I've spoken to the principal about it, and he said that teachers are instructed to present it as a debate. But every time we've seen it, well, one teacher said this is basically a two-sided debate, but this movie really gives you the best idea of what's going on."

Mr. Gore's filmed climate-change lecture is showing up in classrooms across Canada, frequently unaccompanied by critical analysis or a discussion of competing theories. "One of the teachers at my kid's school showed it and he even said ahead of time, 'There is some propaganda in this,' " says Tim Patterson, a Carleton University earth sciences professor. "I said to him, 'You even knew this was a propaganda film, and you still showed it in your classroom?' " The weirdest part: It was the gym teacher.

One problem with this film is that besides being one-sided, it's also rife with errors:

James E. Hansen, a NASA scientist and one of Mr. Gore's advisors, agreed the movie has "imperfections" and "technical flaws."

About An Inconvenient Truth's connection of rising hurricane activity to global warming -- something refuted by storm experts -- Mr. Hansen said, "We need to be more careful in describing the hurricane story than he is."

Among other things, since the film's release last year, scientists have rejected Mr. Gore's claims that 2005 was the warmest year on record (temperatures have been receding since 1998), that polar bears are heading for extinction (their numbers are growing), that Antarctica is warming (interior temperature readings show cooling) and that sea levels will "rise 18 to 20 feet," swamping coastal cities (the International Panel on Climate Change predicts a few inches).

Is that reason enough to show an alternative view, such as The Great Global Warming Swindle?

Of course not, the eco-folks would say. An Inconvenient Truth won an Oscar.

No, seriously. In the education guide that accompanies the movie to help teachers grade students presenting on the issue of global warming. This comes page 31 of the AIT Curriculum (Full Version):

Presentation Evaluation Rubric

This analytic rubric is used to verify specific tasks performed during a student presentation. If the task has been completed, all points are awarded. No points are awarded if the task is not complete.

• Organization (15 points)
  • The type of presentation is appropriate for the audience. 5
  • Information is presented in a logical sequence. 5
  • Presentation appropriately cites two references or more. 5
• Content (35 points)
  • Introduction piques interest and establishes the speaker's credibility. 5
  • Scientific terms are defined. 10
  • Presentation is accurate. 10
  • There is a logical summary of the presentation. 10
• Presentation, Oral or Other (50 points)
  • Oral Good eye contact is maintained with audience.
    Other Presentation is visually interesting. 10
  • Oral Speaker's voice is clear and audible.
    Other Presentation can be viewed easily from anywhere in the room. 10
  • Oral Speaker uses appropriate body language.
    Other Presentation is artistically pleasing but not distracting. 5
  • Oral Correct pronunciation of words and proper use of language.
    Other Grammar and punctuation are correct. 5
  • Oral A visual aid is used for support.
    Other Presentation properly cites author(s). 5
  • It is clear that the presentation has been practiced and that it is based on results from reliable sources. 10
  • Presentation meets time restrictions. 5

Score Total Points 100

Notice something? Content is only worth 35% of the total grade. Presentation is worth 50%. If you count Organization with Presentation (I would, since something that is disorganized can't be presented coherently), then we're talking 65%.

Accuracy is worth only 10%. Show that results are from reliable sources for another 10%. So if a student decides to present information from Swindle then is he or she going to be knocked down 20% right off the bat? Obviously the information is completely wrong and presumably paid for by Exxon.

Or consider a student using data presented by meteorologist Augie Auer:

Water vapour was responsible for 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect, an effect which was vital to keep the world warm, he explained.

"If we didn't have the greenhouse effect the planet would be at minus 18 deg C but because we do have the greenhouse effect it is plus 15 deg C, all the time."

The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs, contributed only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent.

However, carbon dioxide as a result of man's activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047 and 0.046 per cent respectively.

"That ought to be the end of the argument, there and then," he said.

And if there is still trouble getting the "right" point of view to score well, don't forget that the teacher can score for poor body language or bad eye contact or lack of artistic appeal -- anything to make sure that Al Gore's Truth wins out.