I agree with Riley here: if people do incorporate it in courses, include
critiques of the science (as well as selective footnote style), and a great
deal of other context-setting comments about contrarian
interventions/strategies, as well as how it gains traction in politics and
policy.
Another
OK folks, let me make the point more clearly. The use of
film (and fiction) as a mirror of what Robert Cox called
rationalities in society is meant to tease out, first,
how those who seek to deliver goods to wide audiences
frame those products in order to attract wide audiences.
This means,
I plan to ask senior seminar students to see the new animated film Wall-e and
contrast that with Cormac McCarthy's novel, The Road, as contrasting visions
of the future (neither deals specifically with climate change -- Wall-e is
over-consumption/garbage/pollution, The Road a post-apocalyptic
While I think it might be interesting to bring Crichton or Inhofe (or
Easterbrook, Lomborg, et al.) in for a real debate, I'd want to make
sure that there was sufficient time for students to really engage the
arguments, claims, framing, etc. As much as I wish it were otherwise, a
certain portion
(Ooops. I posted this earlier note this morning, but inadvertently
sent it only to Michelle. MM)
Michelle and others,
I've used portions of the book, along with showing the short
documentary titled The Great Global Warming Swindle. I then invite
my students to burrow into the natural
If you’re using the ‘great global warming swindle’, it’s worth knowing that
Channel 4, the UK channel which produced it, is currently being done by the
TV regulators there for blatantly distorting things scientists they
interviewed said, and various other specious claims in the film. See:
Good stuff to point out. I let me students discover this on their own,
which leads to all kinds of interesting discussions 'round the table.
For those who'd like additional references to/analyses of The Great
Global Warming Swindle, email me off-line.
Cheers,
Mike Maniates
If youâre
