My Take of An Inconvenient Truth

The website www.climatecrises.net is the official website of the film “An inconvenient Truth”. The website summarizes the film as “one man's fervent crusade to halt global warming's deadly progress in its tracks by exposing the myths and misconceptions that surround it.” For Al Gore, the much debated issue of global warming is no longer a political issue - it’s a moral issue – and this comes across very strongly in his film. But to what extent is Mr. Gore’s clear passion for the issue clouded by his desire to be in the limelight? To what extent do money, power, and fame play a role in the way Mr. Gore handles his delivery of this ‘travelling presentation’ and the marketing of this film? Are the ‘scare tactics’ used in this film necessary, and if so, what is the ultimate purpose of the film? I will attempt to answer these and other questions in the critique that follows.

Before being critical of Mr. Gore, I’d like to say that I personally believe this movie does more good than harm. If it has done nothing else, this film has at least helped to bring the issues of global warming and climate change into a wider arena for public discussion, and I say this while recognizing that not everyone agrees with me. Regardless of whether or not I agree with the way the information is presented, at least the information is being presented - something that might not have happened if Mr. Gore didn’t make this film. And, to be perfectly clear about where I stand, I believe the vast majority of facts presented in this film are true – even in the face of mounting criticism against the filmmakers. Are there some distorted or exaggerated facts? Most likely. Does this stand in the way of the major purpose of this film? I don’t think so. Viewers, I believe, are smarter than that. In this day and age, we can’t believe in just one source of knowledge, we’re always critical and skeptical. I think of “An Inconvenient Truth” as one piece in the larger solution to slowing global warming and mitigating climate change. 

With this in mind, it’s important to explain how this movie impacted my understanding and position regarding climate change. To be honest, I didn’t know the basic science behind global warming the first time I watched this movie back in 2005. I understood the concept of a greenhouse and was therefore able to perceive of the Earth as a greenhouse with the atmosphere acting as the glass roof, but I certainly couldn’t explain the raw science as well as I can now. At that time I was interested in environmental issues, however, and was very keen to watch this film. When I first watched this film, I have to admit, it scared me. It made me think about the Earth and our impact on the Earth in a more focused way – even if I, admittedly, did little to change my lifestyle. This film was one of many factors which inspired me to learn more about the Earth and the people living on it - an inherently geographical pursuit. At first it made me think about dooms day. It made me think that we really don’t have a chance to fix the problems that are wrong with this planet and that the entire planet as a whole is at risk of literally ‘going bad’ or ‘becoming toxic’. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the filmmakers wanted to use this ‘scare tactic’ to give people a jolt and to some degree I can’t find fault in that. How else do you get people to pay attention? Sometimes provocation is an easy solution. But as I watch it again now, years later, as I study geography, my mind has changed.  
I now understand the science behind global warming and I recognize that there are many more variables in the equation. The radiation balance of the Earth is not only a factor of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, as this movie tends to make one believe, but is rather a cocktail of competing ‘warming’ and ‘cooling’ effects. I no longer believe that our impacts on the planet can cause the planet to ‘go bad’ or ‘become toxic.’ In fact, it’s my position that in the long term, we are fairly insignificant in terms of the health of the planet as a whole. The planet will survive human habitation on it – it will adapt. The question is whether or not humans can sustain themselves on a planet which is adapting. Obviously, this is a vital question – it’s just not the obvious one that comes from watching this movie. It’s my guess that most people who watch this film tie the fate of the planet and the fate of humanity together, but this bi-lateral dependence is not so. Again, and to put it as clearly as possible, humanity may not be able to survive on a changed Earth, but the Earth can and will survive a change in or even extinction of, humanity.
Many would argue that the fate of the planet is insignificant if there are no humans on it – and rightly so in many ways! There is no doubt that climate change, natural or human induced, is going to effect humans in many negative ways (and probably a few positive ones too). It’s this that I think should be the central theme of this argument and something I wish the film focused on more. Mitigation is one thing (and one that hasn’t been overly successful), but adaptation is another. We need to start to think about how we will adapt to a changing climate, rather than continually fighting over whether climate change is human induced or not. Al Gore’s motive for making this movie is probably not centered on this. I do not believe Al Gore truly has the future victims of climate change as his central priority and I’m not sure he is the best spokesperson either. But the fact of the matter is that he has brought the issue into the limelight and has created space for those with more humanitarian missions in mind to implement them. I cannot bash Al Gore for this.

What I can criticize him for, however, is his self-centeredness. It seems the positive benefits of this film are a lucky offshoot for him – something he didn’t plan. What struck me vividly as I watched this film again was how much of the film revolved around Mr. Gore himself, and not the issue at hand. I recognize that there is some attempt at story-telling in order to make this a more marketable film, but it was a bit over the top. From the opening scene with Gore in his limo, to the scenes on the farm, to the near loss of his son, this film is just as much an autobiography to make himself look good as it is a political tool for fighting global warming. In the face of an embarrassing loss in the 2000 presidential election, it seems that Gore needed this film for his own ego.

So what was Mr. Gore’s purpose in making this movie? I think it was primarily to promote awareness for an issue that he truly does care about, but I also think there was a secondary motive to improve his image. What was the plan Mr. Gore and the producers had when making this film? I think it was to do anything possible to make this issue a news headline and they figured out that ‘scare tactics’ were the best strategy. Would this film have been different if it wasn’t Al Gore presenting the facts? Absolutely, but I personally don’t believe that Al Gore is the key to the debate that this as sparked – rather, it’s the issue itself which is attractive for us to follow.  

SnagFilms Film Widget

Travel Diary 2.0 Style - Good for Geo-Fieldwork or Trips

Check out http://www.loggel.com/ for a great online tool to organize pictures, videos, and text from any trip. Ability to geo-tag is my favorite for geography teachers. I can envision this being used for work in the field or simply as an assessment for a school trip during an 'activity week' or 'classroom without walls' experience. Could be very useful for World Challenge as well.

IB Geography 2009 Pre-test Online - No username or password needed

I'm experimenting with a free quiz maker today from the site www.proprofs.com which you can sign up for. I've previously created a 75 question 'pre-test' in PowerPoint which comprehensively covers the new IB Geography Curriculum for 2009. See the entire quiz in .ppt form here (btw, this also includes an excel file with sources and another with shows how each question links to the new IB Geography Specification). Finally, I've found a way to put this online for free, but I've only included the first 10 questions of the quiz for time-saving purposes. I can see myself using this tool from www.proprofs.com to create 'pre-tests' for all of my classes. Results can be analyzed and saved in excel format. Below is the example quiz which I've embedded here an struggling to embed into this blog. Go ahead and try the quiz yourself by clicking on the screenshot below which links to the page with the quiz! Thanks.

Twitter wants to know location too!

In a follow up to my previous post about mapping 'tweets' in order to understand the spatial distribution of certain social phenomena this article discusses how Twitter is now interested in doing exactly this on a grander scale.  Take a look.

http://www.businessinsider.com/one-of-twitters-next-projects-location-2009-6

Real Time Mapping from Social Networking Sites

Well the MLB All Star Game just ended and my team (NL) lost AGAIN - 13 years in a row without a victory!

In light of baseball season, here's an idea for creating your own 'thematic maps' which kids can get into.  It was inspired by the map below which shows the areas of the continental US which support each of the 30 teams in Major Baseball Teams.  In essence, this is meant to be a map of each team's "fan base".  This could be used to explain the Gravity Model, but also to disprove it!  Some teams have fans fairly far from the city in which they play. 

But how can one test if this map is true or not?  I think it would be interesting for students to attempt to 're-create' this map using 'real-time' data - this can be done using the social networking site "Twitter".  The map below was created for me by the author of a great blog called Mibazaar (www.mibazaar.com).  It shows a mashup in Google Maps of all of the 'tweets' which have the term "go cubs" in them.  In this way, students are able to plot the locations of 'cubs fans' across the nation based on what they are writing on twitter.  Wouldn't it be cool to aggregate all of the plots over time and see if the map above is correct or not?  After all, "Cubs Nation" as shown in the map above is of quite an awkward shape, spilling over into Iowa and parts of Indiana.  How about across the rest of the USA - are there Cubs fans that the map above doesn't show?  Could one do this for all 30 major league teams and, in essence, 're-create' the map above?  



View Larger Map


Can you spot any problems with the map above?  I've yet to figure out:

1.  How to aggregate all of the 'tweets' so you get a full picture of the cumulative total?

2. How to write the code so only "go cubs" (as a phrase) comes up in the results and not "go" and "cubs" seperately?

3. How to do this for the entire USA and not just the 'east' and the 'west'

But, overall, I think this is really cool and a great way to get students interested in mapping something they are interested in.  Any comments?  Ways to make this better or more 'useable' in the classroom?  Is anyone doing something like this at the moment in their Geography classrooms?  Would love to hear!

Why you should start the new IGCSE Geography Curriculum with the unit on Development

I spent the morning thining about my future job as teacher of the new IGCSE Geography curriculum and which units within the curriculum are the most important.  I asked myself which unit should be taught first to the new incoming Year 10 group in Fall 2009.  I came up with an answer - to teach Unit C9: Development and Human Welfare first thing.  Ironic, because this is the LAST unit listed in the spec - but it shouldn't be!  Please see my reasoning below and help me think about this by commenting.  Thanks

I would argue that this section is one of the most important in the geography curriculum and should be taught at the very beginning of the first year of IGSCE Geography. I believe that one of the main reasons for studying geography is to understand why people in different places are different in terms of what they have, how they interact in their own place (culture), and how they think about the world. In fact, this specification itself starts out with a section that says “Edexcel IGCSE in Geography enables students to appreciate the differences and similarities between people’s views of the world, its environments, societies and cultures .” In order to understand why people view the world differently, one has to understand their starting point. The vast majority of students that enroll in an Edexcel IGCSE course in geography come from a starting point that is privileged and to some extent biased to western ways of thinking. I think the most relevant way to start a class in geography is to begin by opening students’ eyes to the rest of the world and to instill in students the value of thinking from a different perspective. In addition to the reasoning above, the following are other reasons why unit C9 of the new IGCSE Geography curriculum should be the first unit taught in Year 10.

• Students enter IGCSE Geography with vast differences in their geographical knowledge and understanding. Unit C9 is one of the most flexible units in terms of the ability to differentiate for different levels of ability. While some students might simply be trying to grasp the concept of which countries are ‘developed’ and ‘developing’, others can let their imaginations run wild as development is a topic that the entire world is still trying to solve – there is plenty of data for students who excel.  

• This unit lends itself immediately to the use of a variety of geographic tools and techniques including the use of maps, the creation of maps, the use of data, the use of virtual globes and GIS.

• The topic can be broken down into a very simple question – Why are some places ‘rich’ and some places ‘poor’? Students won’t be afraid of this question – but will find over time that it is not an easy question to answer. It sparks investigative thinking.

• There is a TON of extremely useful data available for teaching about development including works by Jared Diamond regarding the history of development and modern UN data which can be visualized using an incredible tool called Gapminder. Students will NOT get bored to start the year and first impressions matter!

• From my experience, the overemphasis on physical geography is a major complaint that students have about Key Stage 3 and IGSCE geography. I’ve noticed that most students that say they ‘hate geography’ complain about ‘rote memorization’ of physical processes. They roll their eyes thinking about the formation of a waterfall, ox-bow lake, or the dynamics of the coast. Many of them have had this drilled into them in middle school through worksheets and are begging for something new to inspire them at the Key Stage 4 level. Too many Year 10 IGSCE courses start with ‘Unit A1: River Environments’ solely because this comes up first on the spec.

• Throughout the rest of the course, we as teachers will constantly be differentiating between ‘developed’ and ‘developing’ countries. We will talk about how hazards, agriculture, economic geography, or settlements patterns all differ in ‘developed’ regions vs. those in ‘developing’ regions. Why not give students the basis for this distinction at the beginning? The terms and acronyms from unit C9 are some of the most used throughout the course.

I feel as if I could go on and on about why this unit is the most important starting point. The above reasons make a strong case, however, and I’ll you to comment on whether you agree or not with my thoughts. What do you think? Should Unit C9 – Development and Human Welfare be taught first in the New IGSCE Geography Curriculum?