An Inconvenient Youth

So, posting number three, and, you know sometimes, something happens, or a decision is made, that goes so far against everything that you believe in, that you simply have to argue the opposite point? Where, in fact, 'argue' is the wrong word, because it is not an argument at all. Far from it. To you, it is more a case of going some way to correcting something that you see as fundamentally wrong. Where you feel the need to say..."look...hang on just a second...".


Well, to follow on from my most recent posting, concerning face paint, balloons, and, I dare say, chocolate cake, here is something with a little more substance. It concerns the decision, about to be taken by a high court judge, to force teachers to place doubt in the mind of their pupils, before they are allowed to view Al Gore's climate change film, 'An Inconvenient Truth.'

You really can't blame the government for this one...they did their best. This one is in the hands of the judiciary, after prompting from that one true bastion of climate change science...the long distance lorry driver.

If the courts really need advice from somebody as to the most effective method of educating our kids on environmental matters, surely they could do better than that??? Does anyone have Jeremy Clarkson's number???


This article was published on the lifeatuni.com online news and current affairs site, at: http://www.lifeatuni.com/lifestyle/articles/200709_articles/lifestyle_articles_inconvenient_youth.php

An Inconvenient Youth

Earlier this week, a high court judge gave a very clear indication of how he plans to rule in a well publicised case, concerning the governments decision to screen Al Gore‘s award winning documentary ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, in all secondary schools across England. And the decision? A very clear victory for the continuing voice of the climate change sceptic.

Mr Justice Burton, who is due to deliver a decision on the case next week, revealed that he would be ruling that teachers must warn pupils that there are other opinions on global warming, and that they should not necessarily accept the ‘opinions’ of the film.

The case follows the decision back in February, by the then education secretary Alan Johnson, that all secondary schools in England would be sent DVD’s of ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ for display to every child between the ages of 11 and 16. The decision paved the way for the raising of awareness among school age children of what Al Gore, the former vice-president of the United States, describes as “the single greatest threat to mankind.”

However, Dover lorry driver Stewart Dimmock took it upon himself to challenge the right of the government to broadcast the film in secondary schools, calling for an outright ban, on the grounds that the film is politically bias, contains serious scientific inaccuracies, and is ‘sentimental mush’.

The decision of Mr Justice Burton does not go so far as to issue an outright ban, as Mr Dimmock had hoped, but will still place great doubt within thousands of young, impressionable minds. Of course, there is value in encouraging independent thought among our youth. But- the scientific community has agreed on the causes behind global warming. To sow the seed of doubt in the mind is years behind the scientific consensus, echoing of the long running battle to place equal weight behind the teaching of creationism in American high schools, against Darwin’s theory of evolution. An argument that would be more at home in the dark ages.

Those who continue the fight against science in the climate change arena are motivated purely by financial issues. And we would do well to heed the warnings of scientists, ahead of the warnings of self preserving economists, with one finger on the economic pulse, and the other measuring the thickness of their wallets.


As far as the accusations of Mr Dimmock are concerned, beginning with political bias, Al Gore is a man who stood at the forefront of American politics for many years, ever since his 1984 election victory in the state of Tennessee. His democratic credentials are there for all to see. It was only the 2000 Florida voting scandal which impeded him from claiming what many saw at the time, and many still believe, to be his rightful tenure as President.

It was Al Gore’s political ambitions and successes which brought him in touch with the truth about climate change, via the warnings offered to American politicians by scientists. However ‘inconvenient’ they may have been at the time.

To suggest that the film should be banned from secondary schools on the grounds of political bias, is to discredit the source from which it originated. And how refreshing it was, to see a man such as Al Gore embrace a new challenge beyond the world of politics. One which he clearly saw, and still sees, as far more important, and far more fulfilling. Far from discrediting the film, it is the political background which provides the film its vital credibility.

As far as the science is concerned, as the world is surely aware, a consensus has been reached by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It is all but certain that human activity is responsible for the warming of global temperatures, via increased carbon output. You may find this hard to swallow, particularly if you make a living driving lorries, but there you go. Around 2000 of the worlds foremost climate experts agree, with no political agenda lurking in the background.

When considering the claim of ‘sentimental mush,’ the reasons behind Al Gore’s presentation must be considered. As a man who had front line access over a number of years to the overlapping fields of science and politics, Al Gore realised the importance of the information that he came into contact with.

He also realised the importance of communicating the message to every man, woman and child on the planet, in an effective, user friendly manner. Al Gore’s 2007 book ‘The Assault on Reason’, talks in detail of the destruction of ideas in discourse, which he puts down to the influence of electronic media, and in particular, television. Recalling the words of one Thomas Jefferson, Gore writes: “The ‘well-informed citizenry’ is in danger of becoming the ‘well-amused audience.’”

The fact that the film contains what some may cynically dismiss as ‘sentimental mush’, is indicative not of Al Gore, and not of an attempt to cover up any scientific shortcomings, but of our entertainment culture. It is indicative of the fact that in order for the message to hit home, the film makers realised the necessity of invoking the human interest angle. Without this, many viewers, raised on popular American primetime TV culture of action, emotion, and fifteen minutes of fame, would have simply lost interest, despite the underlying importance of the message.

For a lorry driver from Dover to call for the banning of the film on such grounds, is a gross misjudgement of the motives behind the film, and of the motives behind the governments decision to screen it within secondary schools. Those to whom global warming is an ‘inconvenient truth,’ should pay attention to the issues raised and widely embraced by the scientific community, as presented to the world in Al Gore’s film.

When all is said and done, do you really want to be around to witness the flooding of our towns and cities, the destruction of species, the loss of entire communities through starvation? Or would that simply be too much ‘sentimental mush…..?’