Science Museum Declines To Show Climate Change Film 398
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."
Is it science? (Score:5, Informative)
From TFA:
That's not science.
understandable (Score:4, Informative)
the problem is with the message in the video, not science.
Shored Up is a convincing call for action along our coasts. As the oceans rise and storms flood our towns and cities, we have a choice to make: do we continue to develop as we have in the past, ignoring clear risks and danger?
Science museum declines alarmist propaganda (Score:1, Informative)
Is this the same science museum that refused to show "The population Bomb: The Movie", "Ice Age: Year 2010" and all the other variations of were all going to be dead 30 years from now unless we are all forced to adopt whatever leftist ideology is popular at the time? The environmentalists have taken a page from Harold Camping and all other doomsday cults. Make a prediction that mankind will all be dead, or facing an apocalyptic scenario 30 years from now, and when that 30 years have passed and nothing terrible has happened still insist you are still right and make another prediction for the apocalypse 30 years from now, but this time its real!
Challege Accepted (Score:0, Informative)
OK, you're an idiot. And so are the rest of the hillbilly nutjobs who incorrectly view "science" as a realm of absolute immutable facts rather than a world of observations that serve to prove or disprove theories.
The Free Market (Score:5, Informative)
"The state government has been perceived as hostile to action on climate change;"
It's all fun and games until the insurance companies believe that climate change is a threat.
And they do.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/business/insurers-stray-from-the-conservative-line-on-climate-change.html?_r=0 [nytimes.com]
Even if you don't believe the scientists, you'll have to believe your insurance company, especially when you get the bill.
Perhaps the so-called "Fiscal Conservatives" of NC should be, you know, fiscal.
--
BMO
Re:Let me guess (Score:3, Informative)
The republicans are more of a driving force behind the climate change denial movement than the Democrats.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial#Public_sector [wikipedia.org]
In fact if you type "democrat climate change denial" into google [google.es] you get articles about Republican climate change denial.
So...hardly "training" or "hatred". Just simple research.
Re:In the USA (Score:3, Informative)
I love how when anti-global warming types point at a big snow storm or what-have-you and say 'look, global warming can't be real!' and the pro-global warming crowd points out, rightly, 'weather isn't climate' ... but then when there is a big wind storm or what-have-you the pro-global warming types start crying 'look what global warming is doing! waaaaa!'
Why are you listening to the general public? The SCIENTISTS and the SCIENCE make no such claims. They have repeatedly stated that it is very difficult to attribute any single weather event to climate change. Greenpeace or the Heartland Institute or CNN or Fox News are TERRIBLE sources for scientific information. If you want the science, go to the source. Or get a summarized version of the IPCC if slogging through pages of dense science isn't your thing.
Weather isn't climate.
Correct.
That being said, any fantasy about humanity being at risk for significant biological hardship is ludicrous considering that we can eat almost anything, live almost anywhere, are more resistant and adaptive to toxins and pathogens than most other large animals, and we have this thing called "technology" that allows us to move anything anywhere, radically adjust our environments, etc. etc.
Your the one living in a fantasy. Despite all our advanced technology, the world's population depends on a stable climate. Regional climate changes in the past have caused civilizations to die off. From a paleoclimate standpoint, every time a major rapid climate shift occurs there is a major extinction event. In fact, one almost wiped out modern humans not all that long ago.
All it takes is a little shift in climate patterns to cause massive problems for us. For example, if the midwest were subjected to a severe ongoing drought for a couple of years, things would get pretty ugly. What do think will happen to social stability when the price of basic food items go up 100-200%? We had a small preview of that when major agricultural production regions in Russia experienced a severe drought to the point where Russia stopped exports. This is why organizations like the DoD have been doing climate based analysis to determine the impacts of climate change on global stability. They take it very seriously.
That being said, it's unlikely climate change will end up wiping us out. There's just going to be a lot suffering for those who don't have the financial resources to deal with it.
We really need to get over the conceit that we developed in the one true immutable biosphere. 99% of previously extant species are extinct, and that's going to keep happening regardless of what we do because the environment has never been static. Without mass extinctions like what occurred during the Oxygen Catastrophe, animal life wouldn't even exist.
No climate scientist believes that the climate has always been this way. That isn't the issue. The issue i that our civilization has come to thrive in a certain climate. Now we are changing that climate. To think that this won't have significant impacts on us is very naive.
Re:Fixed summary for you (Score:4, Informative)
How entrenched in your ideological nonsense are you? He tried to re-launch his political carer, and almost did it. But he only attracted democrats a leftist independents. The only reason he didn't run was because his attempt failed. The movie itself was actually full of inaccurate data which didn't help him at all.
Republicans jumped at the chance to make him and other democrats look like idiots. They continue to do so as the climate change debate has gotten so political at this point the Left is willing to publish any data they can find to support their case without vetting, while the right does the same. So rather than science, we now have the media publishing false claim after false claim and the general public just throwing up their hands in disgust. Either Global warming is the doom of the world and the only thing that can save us is Solar power... Or it's a made up fantasy.
And lastly, we have a solution to the problem! Nuclear power! We even have groups of climate change scientists asking the governments of the world to replace coal with nuclear power. Yet not a single democrat or republican will touch it. They like it the way it is, a black and white political issue. It's either real or not. There's no possibility that global warming is real, but just not quite as bad as Al Gore made it out to be... because that would be way to hard to describe in a 30sec political ad.
The only thing black and white about global warming is the fact that if you continue to vote for these 2 parties, you are dooming this country. Plain and simple.