One novel approach found a 50% increase in the purchase of voluntary carbon offsets in areas where AIT was shown. A follow-up survey conducted a month later found little change in behaviour. However, this increased willingness didn’t necessarily translate into action. Similarly, surveys of moviegoers and students found that watching AIT increased knowledge about the causes of global warming and willingness to reduce greenhouse gases. A UK study found that showing selective clips from AIT resulted in participants feeling more empowered and more motivated to make lifestyle changes to fight climate change. Several studies have experimentally tested the impact of viewing the film. But how do we know whether AIT contributed to this increase? Steven Quiring, also from Texas A&M University and author of the issue’s introduction (6), comes to the conclusion that whether scientists like it or not, An Inconvenient Truth has had a much greater impact on public opinion and public awareness of global climate change than any scientific paper or report.But has the film achieved what it set out to do – raise public awareness and change people’s behaviour in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Measuring the film’s impactĪ public survey by the Pew Research Center for People & the Press found that in the months following the documentary’s release, the percentage of Americans attributing global warming to human activity rose from 41% to 50%. In his opinion, the “real inconvenient truth is that science has no idea how much of recent warming is natural versus the result of human activities”.Īfter providing a succinct summary of the state of climate change science (5), Gerald North from Texas A&M University concludes the debate by stating that although there are some inaccuracies and exaggerations in the film, on the whole it represents mainstream scientific views on global warming. In his view, the film’s main omission is that while humans are almost certainly responsible for global warming, there are other natural causes of climate variability which the film does not address. In another paper (4), Roy Spencer from the University of Alabama in Huntsville also discredits the scientific validity of the documentary. He concludes that there are significant errors in the film, owing to alarmism and exaggeration, which give a false impression of both the current state of climate change and that the science is settled. This increases the film’s emotional impact but weakens the scientific argument.ĭavid Legates from the University of Delaware addresses assertions about trends in precipitation, floods, droughts and storms in particular (3). He comments that unfortunately, it neglects all information that can be gained from computer models, and instead relies entirely on past and current observational evidence. John Nielsen-Gammon from Texas A&M University also agrees that the main scientific argument presented in the movie is for the most part consistent with the weight of scientific evidence (2). ![]() The minor factual errors do not undermine the main message of the film, which explains the theory that increasing carbon dioxide causes a warming tendency in the lower atmosphere. In the first opinion piece (1), Eric Steig from Washington University states that the film gets the fundamental science right. They also agree that its main weakness is that it tries to use individual extreme events, such as Hurricane Katrina, to prove the existence of global warming. ![]() ![]() The papers in GeoJournal agree that it does an excellent job of raising public awareness of man-made global warming and explains why increased atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases lead to warming. Climate change experts express their opinions on the scientific validity of the film’s claims in articles just published online in Springer’s journal, GeoJournal.Īn Inconvenient Truth is about Al Gore’s campaign to educate citizens about global warming and inspire them to take action. What is up for debate is whether it accurately presents the scientific argument that global warming is caused by human activities. There is no question that Al Gore’s 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth is a powerful example of how scientific knowledge can be communicated to a lay audience.
0 Comments
![]() The plan was to have him, Mariano and Diaz-Twine vote to eliminate Hantz and Yates, Manthey and Wade vote to eliminate Shallow. When both the Heroes and Villains tribes had to vote someone out consecutively, Mariano directed his alliance to split their votes due to Hantz's possession of a hidden immunity idol. This group held a majority over the bloc of Russell Hantz, Parvati Shallow, and Danielle DiLorenzo. Apostol appeared to be safe after joining the alliance of "Boston Rob" Mariano, Sandra Diaz-Twine, and Courtney Yates, along with Wade and Manthey. He formed an alliance with Jerri Manthey and fellow Tocantins participant Benjamin "Coach" Wade. His tribe dominated the initial immunity challenges. Villains Īpostol accepted an offer to participate again, in the show's 20th season, where he was assigned to the Villains tribe. Jeff Probst stated that Apostol was one of his favorites of the season because he was maniacal and unpredictable. He eventually voted for Thomas to win the game. Sierra Reed became the target, but Thomas, Lobdell, and Fishbach joined the other group, deciding that Apostol was a bigger threat than Reed Apostol was voted out and became the second juror. Wade and Apostol aligned with Stephen Fishbach, James "J.T." Thomas, Jr., and Beebe, blindsiding Brendan Synnott with the cooperation of Lobdell and Tamara "Taj" Johnson-George. He went on to win immunity again with nine contestants left as well. At the merge, Apostol won the first individual immunity by outlasting former tribemate Debbie Beebe. Early on, Apostol wanted to blindside fellow contestant Erinn Lobdell however, he eventually sided with the majority and voted out the ill Jerry Sims. On the 18th season of Survivor, Apostol was placed on the Timbira tribe, initially sticking with the majority alliance and forming a particularly close bond with Benjamin "Coach" Wade, who dubbed Apostol his "assistant coach". He spent two years in the Philippines as a missionary for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He is a bike shop owner and has cycled professionally in Switzerland, Belgium, and Austria, most notably riding for the Austrian professional continental team, Team Volksbank between 20.Īpostol attended Brigham Young University where he earned a swimming scholarship, but did not graduate. ![]() He was raised in Lindon, Utah, and currently lives in Mesa, Arizona. ![]() Apostol was born in Provo, Utah, on June 17, 1979. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |