Forgot your password?

Science Museum Declines To Show Climate Change Film 398

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the i'm-not-listening-i'm-not-listening dept.
sciencehabit writes "A premier science museum in North Carolina has sparked controversy by refusing to show an hour long film about climate change and rising sea levels. The museum may be in a bit of a delicate position. It is part of a state agency, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. The state government has been perceived as hostile to action on climate change; last year, the legislature passed a bill forbidding the state coastal commission from defining rates of sea-level rise for regulation before 2016."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Science Museum Declines To Show Climate Change Film

Comments Filter:
  • In the USA (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 26, 2013 @06:29AM (#45524485)

    Climate change being real or not is completely irrevelant. We're NOT going to do anything about it. No way no how. Until it's a major serious problem that might impact someones cashflow. Until then. And it can be proven that it will cost some rich people some money... Until then. We're not going to do shit except scream 'it's not real i cant hear you'. So just stop with the storys about it. You're causing global warming with the wasted energy it took to type the story in.

    Willful ignorance. We haz it. It's standard policy too.

  • Complex topics? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Sockatume (732728) on Tuesday November 26, 2013 @06:37AM (#45524517)

    The museum's statement reads, in part:

    It would be a disservice to the people of North Carolina who generously funded the construction of the Museum, and who are joined by other visitors from all other US states and numerous other countries, if we were to maintain that showing one organization’s film constituted a comprehensive approach to an issue as significant and complex as sea level science.

    Science cafe events are all about providing a quick, accessible, but by no means comprehensive view of an topic. Most of the ones I've been to have involved a single academic pontificating on their area of expertise and their own ideas for an hour. It seems rather odd to me that a Cafe Sci would restrict itself in this way. They can't have a very rich slate.

  • Re:Is it science? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Sockatume (732728) on Tuesday November 26, 2013 @06:38AM (#45524519)

    That's why it's a Science Cafe - which is about outreach and discussion - and not a university lecture.

  • Tantrums, much? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bradley13 (1118935) on Tuesday November 26, 2013 @07:18AM (#45524691) Homepage

    Poor baby, he didn't get his way.

    The musuem director said that the "Science Cafe" was the wrong forum, but that they would consider showing the film as part of a larger project.

    This film is an advocacy film for one particular viewpoint, being pushed by one particular organization. The musuem rightly sees that showing this film alone, with no context or alternative viewpoints, may not be the best way to present a balanced viewpoint on a difficult and controversion subject.

  • Win win situation... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Savage-Rabbit (308260) on Tuesday November 26, 2013 @07:35AM (#45524769)

    If these bozos are forced to show that documentary chalk up a win for environmenalism because the film may make a few more people think abut climate change, if they put up a fight chalk up an even bigger win for environmentalims because the publicity raises awareness about global warming. If we get really lucky Fox News will contribute to that publicity by reporting on this before they realize they may actually have caused a few of their viewers to watch the film to see what all the hullablaloo is about (irony, irony...).

  • Re:Is it science? (Score:0, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 26, 2013 @08:13AM (#45524937)

    If you get people talking that is what science is about.

    No, that's what people with an agenda say when they want their agenda acted upon politically. See: 40 yrs. of "America needs to talk more about race" as a prime example.

    imagine if the south would [sic] won the war

    If the south had won, then the US would have split into several countries and there would not have been a United States to directly combat the Soviet Union. The communists would probably have defeated the West and there would not have had to be a climate change hoax perpetrated in order to implement worldwide centralized economic planning, i.e. you would have gotten what you really want with much less fuss.

    use religion as a basis for humanity that has seemed to work through out human history

    Please don't post when you are drunk. The alcohol makes your writing hard to decipher. I assume you are complaining about religion somehow?

    in the case of politicians, talk out your ass about fighting for the little guy, while you are taking bribes from every industry that pretty much runs government to begin with

    You do realize that govt itself is an industry that, unlike private businesses, mostly produces nothing of any value?

  • Re:In the USA (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gmuslera (3436) on Tuesday November 26, 2013 @08:48AM (#45525097) Homepage Journal

    In a complex system like the world, rising temperature just a few degrees won't be an isolated event. Extreme weather is becoming more prevalent, you seen the storms that happened over asia, europe and america in the last year.. Also, more moisture in air, so more rain, and more floods. Extreme weather and floods will make it difficult to succeed some "long term" investments like crops,

    You are right in one thing, change is good, life adapts with time, or die. And you could end being in the second group, or at least not liking at all what adaptation will mean.

  • by thaylin (555395) on Tuesday November 26, 2013 @10:35AM (#45525843)
    Except the politicians are not paying for it, Me and other residents of NC are paying for it, so yes I do expect it to be covered by my taxes. It is better than the other stupid shit they waste our money on, such as stealing the airport from Charlotte, or the water plants from Asheville because they could unregulated it if it was in the right hands.
  • Re:In the USA (Score:4, Interesting)

    by geekoid (135745) <dadinportland @ y a> on Tuesday November 26, 2013 @12:10PM (#45526811) Homepage Journal

    Wow, that was a long way of saying you don't know what climate change is.
    Let me try to boil it down for your simple mind.

    Climate change is about trapped energy. That mean these event will have more energy in them; which we see.

    That means more, and/or bigger and bigger wind speeds. All of which we are seeing. In short, the amount of energy these storms express through a year is trending upwards.

    IN order to keep it simple for you and you ilk, I am going to use a number which is SOLELY used as in example. That actual numbers are far too big for you.

    Lets say 100 unit of energy are spent through storms a year, 100 years ago.
    no there is 110 until of energy spent through storms every year.
    An it keep increasing. It is a fact that the amount of energy released in storms is increasing.

    "Though attempts are made regularly to tie a particular weather-event to the evil human-caused climate change"
    by the media, not the scientist. IN fact, this year is the first year where actual scientists who are experts in this field say 'yes, there are some indicators the amount of energy is caused by global warming.'

    All you information seems to be coming from media headlines. Stop it. Media very seldom gets science information correct. Media is written for simpletons who want to feel informed with out actual spending the effort to be informed.

    "None of the dire predictions made 40, 30, 20, or 10 years ago came to life. "
    Yes, they are. the scientific one that is, not the media headline one. See above.

    "ver the years, we moved from the threat of "Global Cooling" [] (temperatures, supposedly, falling), to "Global Warming" (temperatures, supposedly, rising)
    see there oyu go, showing the world you don't understand the science or the history.

    There are two effect. You can keep track of things up to 2, right?
    Particulate in the air blocking sunlight. This is happening, and in fact measurably less sunlight is hitting the earth now then 100 years ago. This has the effect of less energy hitting the surface, and thus less IR being created. This is happening, but its effect is dwarfed by global warming.

    These thing are not opposite, they are two effects that aren't weight equally. Meaning more energy is trapped than sunlight blocked. And no, the don't cancel each other out, they make things worse. It's only simpleton who cant understand this.

    Let me explain to you, at a high level, the science of gloabl warming. Let me know if you disagree wiht any of thise scienctific facts, then we can have an actual discussion.
    1) The vast majority of visible light hitting the earth comes form our sun. disagree? please explain and show your work
    2) Visible light passe through CO2. disagree? please explain and show your work
    3) Visible light hits something and IR is expressed. disagree? please explain and show your work
    4) CO2 absorbs IR. disagree? please explain and show your work

    SO, the onerous is on YOU to explain where that energy is going if it isn't stating close to the Earth.

"How do I love thee? My accumulator overflows."