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."
Fixed summary for you (Score:5, Insightful)
"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 and 'mocks North Carolina politicians'. The museum may be in a bit of a delicate position because residents of a state don't enjoy having their state made fun of."
Re:Fixed summary for you (Score:5, Insightful)
The museum may be in a bit of a delicate position because residents of a state don't enjoy having their state made fun of."
Oh, because the politicians are "the state"? We shouldn't question our elites? Nice servitude attitude you got going on there.
Maybe it being banned has something to do with those same politicians having their hand in the till of the yearly multi-million dollar campaign to sell climate science denial [rtcc.org]. Forget facts. Forget science. Yay for forum shills, newspaper and television paid climate science denial.
At least we will know who to persecute with extreme prejudice if (when?) climate chaos ends up killing millions [democracynow.org].
Re:Fixed summary for you (Score:4, Insightful)
We should question our elites and we should feel free to mock our politicians. Expecting them to pay the costs and provide the venue for us to do it is a bit much. Nobody is saying that they can't play the film in a private venue. They are only saying that the state owned and operated museum isn't going to do it.
State run institutions have a very treacherous tightrope to walk on things like this. If they play the movie and offend a bunch of office holders they could find their funding in jeopardy or invite office holders to start actively attacking the institution. I don't blame the administrators for wanting no part of this. Biting the hand that feeds you is a dangerous game.
Re:Fixed summary for you (Score:5, Interesting)
"they" are not paying for it, "we" are (Score:3)
Politicians are public servents. "We" pay "them", and I absolutely want some of my money supporting people that are critical of those in power.
Here in Canada we have a long history of publicly funded shows (satire and serious) whose main goal is holding the people in power accountable.
Re: (Score:3)
Expecting them to pay the costs and provide the venue for us to do it is a bit much.
This isn't lords and ladies. The politicians don't pay out of pocket. That's YOUR money they are spending.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
what would appear to be a political movie masquerading as a scientific documentary.
Anything related to climate change is labeled "political" by the large well funded anti-science, pro climate science denial lobbies.
Re: (Score:3)
Anything related to climate change is labeled "political" by the large well funded anti-science, pro climate science denial lobbies.
Having not seen it, I can't really be certain, but it would appear from other comments that have not been disputed that part of the movie mocks politicians. That would generally be considered political. It is said to include footage of "Stephen Colbert making fun of the NC legislators", which would seem, as it is a clip from a political comedy show, a fairly clear cut case of it being political.
Just because there are global warming documentaries that are falsely accused of being political does not mean th
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, yeah, all those elections he ran in after that movie. How many was that?
Re: (Score:3)
That would be no elections won, that would reflect a failure. He never so much as set foot in a primary.
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.
Re:Fixed summary for you (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not being banned you stupid fuck,
That's a little discourteous. My suggestion is that if you want yourself and your ideas to be treated with respect, that you likewise treat others with respect.
a single museum is deciding not to show what would appear to be a political movie masquerading as a scientific documentary.
Calling stupid legislation stupid is merely accurate labelling. To withhold saying that someone's stupid ideas are stupid on the grounds that that person is a legislator is to engage in politicing.
Re: (Score:3)
Didn't you just tell him not to call people names if you want to be treated with respect? I haven't seen the film, but it is entirely possible that it runs afoul of this same advice.
He didn't call anyone names. He said that something proposed (in this case, legislation) is stupid. Otherwise intelligent people can (and do) make stupid decisions. Assuming that the film does run afoul of the same advice, it is still Academia's place to put it forward so that it is up to debate on the state and taxpayers' dime. That's what state-sponsored academic institutions in the free world are supposed to do.
Re: (Score:3)
Satire is great. Stephen Colbert is great. But it blunts any outrage I might have had over the state-funded science museum not showing the film. I still think they are being ridiculous, but I'm not at all surprised and have a hard time building any outrage.
Re: (Score:2)
americans + politics = whole new lexicon.
Nothing means what you think it means.
Re: (Score:3)
Ain't that the truth.
Elite (Score:3)
"I have not met any Americans that act in any form that would suggest that they think that American politicians are "elite"."
I;d bet they couldn't dock at the space station without a docking computer (cue Blue Danube)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, that is why everyone in Somalia is so free and happy.
That sort of braindead ideology deserves to be mocked.
Re:Fixed summary for you (Score:4, Insightful)
The simple formula applies everywhere: the higher the taxes, the less freedom.
Go look at wikipedia's list of countries by tax rate [wikipedia.org], and find all the countries where you have significant freedoms, and then look at their tax rates.
Re: (Score:3)
Chech Republic seems fine. Cyprus, probably, Ok too — never been there. Hong Kong may be Ok — one acquittance from there complained of Chinese government doing stupid things there (but not oppressive). I don't see a trend in that list...
But... The main (if not the only) freedom that counts, is the freedom to spend the fruits of one's labor the w
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
After WWII, taxes were very high for decades to pay it off. So I guess we didn't get free again 'til, what, the 80's? Ah, yes, Reagan's tax-busting. My taxes and my friends taxes went up, but we were young and just starting out, so we didn't count. Millionaires did well, and that's what counts.
alteration =/= correction (Score:4, Insightful)
"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 and 'mocks North Carolina politicians'. The museum may be in a bit of a delicate position because residents of a state don't enjoy having their state made fun of."
In that case, so much for an academic center's freedom to purport controversy and satire independent of the state's political POVs and the current temperament of the plebe.
You bold that part out as if that was a valid reason for the museum to decline the exhibition of said film. How much more stupid could that statement get? You are equating the state with the residents whereas I can assure you a substantial number of NC's residents would disagree with you.
And if the state, and academia for that matter, were completely subject to whatever the popular mood might be (which in this case, your statement is completely debatable to begin with), then we would still be living with segregation laws.
The whole point of state-sponsored academic institutions in the developed free world is to present information, examine controversy, and why not, satirize and challenge the status quo independently of what state officials, and even residents think.
I could see how the Nazis sponsored Aryan science as opposed to "corrupted Jewish thinking" proposed by the likes of Einstein.
I could understand Soviet academies forced to abandon research deemed counter-revolutionary which brought us stuff like Lynsenkoism [wikipedia.org]... and even then the Soviets were wise enough to give Soviet intelligentsia a great degree of freedom.
But to whiff the smell of such thinking in a developed, free/capitalist country, in America of all places, man, that is a sad day for humanity.
Re: (Score:3)
I could see how you'd have a point if the film in question was the only material available about climate change, or even the best material available. As it stands the people who run the museum think that the film is needlessly provocative and does not further the debate. The museum does address [naturalsciences.org] climate [naturalsciences.org] change [naturalsciences.org]. Those 3 links are what I found from a single search, I'm not sure how much you'd see if you actually visited the museum.
Re:Fixed summary for you (Score:4, Insightful)
NC has earned all this derision.
Re: (Score:2)
"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 and 'mocks North Carolina politicians'. The museum may be in a bit of a delicate position because residents of a state don't enjoy having their state made fun of."
Yeah, unless you're in one of the self-deprecating states like Minnesota where we love to mock ourselves (the movie Fargo, A Prairie Home Companion, How to Talk Minnesotan, etc). Being able to handle criticism instead of censoring it sounds like something North Cackalacky needs to work on.
That's one awesome thing about Minnesotans. The rest of the country, in particular places like NC should do well to learn from that.
In the USA (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:In the USA (Score:5, Funny)
Willfully ignorant? That's not fair. Have you considered that perhaps they're simply global warming supporters?
Progressive climate advocates aren't afraid of change, unlike you right-wing climate conservatives. Change is good.
"But ... But Florida will be under water!" cry the anti-climate change zealots. I can live with that. There's nothing but retirees, crazies, and scientologists down there anyway.
Bring on the heat!
Re: (Score:3)
Climate Change and Ocean Levels [furman.edu] Ironic that North Carolina has a lot to look forward to.
Re:In the USA (Score:5, Insightful)
"But ... But Florida will be under water!" cry the anti-climate change zealots. I can live with that. There's nothing but retirees, crazies, and scientologists down there anyway.
Um, won't they all leave Florida and go to live near you...?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but he'll be dead by then.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:In the USA (Score:5, Insightful)
Weather isn't climate.
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.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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!'
It's called Loading the Dice [nytimes.com]. Big snowstorms acn actually be evidence for global warming (if it's warmer but still below freezing that means more snow in wet areas and less snow in dry areas). But when we start seeing events which probably could not have occurred under previous climate conditions, those individual extreme events may be actually evidence that the baseline has shifted due to global warming. Hot days aren't evidence for global warming, but record-breaking heatwaves and droughts? They proba
Re: (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 o
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
And therefor they must always be wrong in the future?
During the last ice age the world-wide population of Homo sapiens dropped down to a few thousand. We are desperately dependent on a stable climate for our survival.
Re: (Score:3)
This does not seem to disprove GP. Let's accept all of your factual assertions as correct.
Average # of hurricanes/yr 1885-1889*: 5.2
Average # of hurricanes/yr 1944-2005: 6
Average # of hurricanes/yr (2005, 2012): 12
* I think you meant 1886-1888 w
Re:In the USA (Score:4, Interesting)
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" [wikipedia.org] (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.
Re: (Score:3)
NOAA recently released a report [noaa.gov] detailing 12 major weather events we've been having (droughts, floods, storms) and their
Re: (Score:2)
We won't change our direction going toward that cliff until we are actually falling. Won't be too late, we will have already enough money to buy me a parachute.
Is it science? (Score:5, Informative)
From TFA:
That's not science.
Re:Is it science? (Score:5, Interesting)
That's why it's a Science Cafe - which is about outreach and discussion - and not a university lecture.
Re:Is it science? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's why it's a Science Cafe - which is about outreach and discussion - and not a university lecture.
OK, so rule #1 of outreach - don't mock the people you're trying to reach. Check out an IMAX film for an idea of how to do entertainment and science at the same time. There's a reason they're so popular at science centers (I mean real IMAX...).
Sounds like the museum director made the right call here.
Re: (Score:2)
Blocking the whole movie because it includes footage of someone else making one joke about that particular state, a joke pertinent to the issue that the entire movie is about? Baby. Bathwater.
Re: (Score:2)
They wouldn't even have been the first museum in North Carolina to have shown it.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I've given them. Maybe I'm doing them wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And such propositions policy is not constructed from reason, and so a reasoned response is no response. Ridicule really is the only response in this case.
I agree it shouldn't appear in a scholarly paper, but I think that science should include science outreach.
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?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"The 2013 Atlantic hurricane season, which officially ends on Saturday, Nov. 30, had the fewest number of hurricanes since 1982" (source: NOAA).
But hey, don't let facts get in the way of a good movie - right?
Re:understandable (Score:5, Insightful)
Thankfully, they seem to be fewer and farther between than ever. Hard to deny the evidence for global warming right in front of you, developing year after year.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I found a few who said that the increasing severity of these sorts of storms in specific regions is linked to changing climate - but that is completely different statement and to collate the two as one would indeed be disingenuous. And nobody would want to be regarded as disingenuous.
Would they?
Re: (Score:2)
I looked around - didn't find any.
Holy cow - you need to listen to some of the audio coming out of Poland right now. Start with the Phillipines rep who is on hunger strike.
Re:understandable (Score:5, Insightful)
So.. AGW is not real because you don't like the proposed courses of action that might help counter it. Got it.
Everybody can see that you're twisting his meaning, which just gives more ammo to those who do not believe the AGW models. "See, they can't even engage in honest debate!".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For anyone that can't see I'm being facetious, one flood isn't proof of global warming, but this was an extreme event, which we seem to be getting more and more of lately.
Re: (Score:3)
Not particularly. The cost of natural disasters as a percentage of global production is remarkably stable. We're mostly taking notice more because increased populations means the absolute number of people getting hit at once goes up, which makes for great television.
Re: (Score:2)
Aren't the people getting hit more important than the effects of a major disaster on global economic production? Basic morality, codified in numerous legal codes, artistic works, and centuries of human behavior says that lives matter more than stuff.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are STILL people pushing this butthurt deflection? Warmer more humid air makes for more powerful storms, and warmer, drier air makes for record drought conditions. So yeah, denialists, record tornado seasons, massive forest fires months before fire season, record heat waves of months of 100+ degree heat and the most powerful hurricanes/typhoons in a century/of all time are evidence of global warming.
Re: (Score:3)
So yeah, denialists, record tornado seasons
2013 was the quietest tornado season on record [wordpress.com]. Don't make shit up to try to win an argument. Try instead explaining how the heat in the climate shifts around from one region of the plant to another from year to year. You do have an accurate model for that, right?
Re: (Score:3)
No, it's still right, because "global warming" means an overall warming of the planet. As for blizzards, that's where the w
Re: (Score:2)
How are we going to hold off the sea? (Score:5, Funny)
the legislature passed a bill forbidding the state coastal commission from defining rates of sea-level rise for regulation before 2016.
They really ought to keep the sea in check right now. Without regulation, it's free to rise however fast it damn well pleases until 2016.
Re: (Score:2)
More like a mandate preventing any information about Petraus, Benghazi, or IRS scandals from leaking to the press until after an election. Or fudging unemployment numbers because you got your ass handed to you in the first debate. Or neglecting to even start designing healthcare.gov before the election because you know it's going to prove controversial, and then act surprised when you couldn't deliver in 10 months...
Nice non sequitur marinated in red herring sauce.
Rate of Sea Level Rise (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Atlanta, Atlantis... what's in a name?
Complex topics? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Sea levels used to be much higher (Score:2, Insightful)
About 7000 years ago:
"The Older Peron... throughout the period, global sea levels were 2.5 to 4 meters (8 to 13 feet) higher than the twentieth-century average."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Older_Peron
Re: (Score:3)
If we're going to wind the clock back 7000 years I'd rather start with re-establishing bears and coyotes as the dominant predators in the National Mall.
Re: (Score:2)
About 7000 years ago:
"The Older Peron... throughout the period, global sea levels were 2.5 to 4 meters (8 to 13 feet) higher than the twentieth-century average."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Older_Peron
True, but infrastructure(there wasn't any) and populations were a lot more flexible then. Right now, with the concepts of property, cities, countries the impact of a 4 m rise in sea level would be catastrophic.
Corrupt Religious Luddites (Score:4, Insightful)
Whether it is corporate shills in climate change denial or religionists diluting science with creationism and imaginary divinity, the inescapable conclusion is that the willful ignorance and in-grained avarice of politicians will surely be the death of us all.
Tantrums, much? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Science isn't a view point. When will you get that?
There is NO scientific alternate viewpoint of the increased energy in the atmosphere.
" present a balanced viewpoint "
False equivalency.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence [wikipedia.org]
Which you probably believe becasue of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance [wikipedia.org]
Facts:
1) Visible light comes from the sun
2) visible light hits the earth an IR is expressed.
3) CO2 is transparent to visible light
4) CO2 absorb IR energy
Please explain why increasing CO2 would not res
Win win situation... (Score:2, Interesting)
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 (ir
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it was literally a documentary about how you should sell your seafront properties?
My thoughts on the subject. (Score:2)
Nice Museum from the outside, not many places you can place a large
globe of the Earth and it look good. - yet I may be pushing it.
I scanned the articles, No, a museum or library isn't a place for taking sides on such
a subject, how soon many forget, Global warming is of major concern, then not a
month ago were told it's been a farce, (sorry Gore I like you). Temps were ignored
the unseen heat placed in the ocean currents that take can take a thousand years to complete
a cycle, (good hiding spot).
Yet it continue
In the USA, the climate changes you! (Score:3)
In the USA, the climate changes you!
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Go. Fuck. Yourself.
--
BMO
More detail on the decision: (Score:2)
N.C. Museum of Natural Sciences director puts kibosh on documentary about sea-level rise [indyweek.com]
This wasn't the simple-minded decision that partisans on both sides are trying to make it. But in the wake of the high-profile departure of the Nature Research Center's top scientist [wral.com], it does seem a bit chilling.
Ambiguous reasoning (Score:2)
FTFA:
"The problem, Koster says, is that the Science Café venue was not the right format for a complicated and controversial topic, because events are only an hour long and the Café only has small screens."
And yet, later in the article:
"The Science Café has addressed climate change in its Café programs as well. “This is by no means a new issue,” Koster says."
So, which is it?
Government Decision Making (Score:3)
Ultimately, government entities only know how to make one type of decision: political decisions. If you want an organization to make decisions on any basis other than politics, make sure it is not part of the government.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, that would imply an equal hatred of democrats. They are just as bad, just in slightly different ways. It would be more accurate and appropriate to hate all politicians.
Re: (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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And ...with a simple wave of your hand you dismiss your responsibility to provide cites to back up your claim that "Wikipedia is not research"?
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, even the most casual of observation of American politics will reveal this particular mechanic works exactly as described. The number of republicans in any official capacity who even acknowledge the existence of a preponderance of evidence can be counted on your fingers.
Re: (Score:2)
Just as bad in general, maybe, but on science denial? Are you just ignoring reality there?
Re: (Score:2)
Or you could accept that problems have a variety of solutions all with cons and pros, some could be described as lefty, some as right, some as authoritarian, some as libertarian, and all of the spectrum in between. To suggest "lefty policies cause problems rather then solve them" is just as disingenuous as ascribing the same to right leaning policies and only furthers the tribal break down of politics in contemporary America.
Re: (Score:3)
No, this is the one where the same Director demoted the head of its Natural Research Centre to a figurehead position and reassigned her as "at risk" staff.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Why are you asking us? Surely if you want to understand the films content, you could look at TFA yourself, and study the history of the museum.
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!
Your understanding of the predictions made by climate models is completely off the wall insane, and laughably wrong. You need to get a handle on the basic facts before presuming to criticise either the science of the actions of others in response to that science.
Re: (Score:2)
Neither of those movies have ever been scheduled to appear at the museum.
Re: (Score:2)
Providing, of course, that the cost of the solutions (of which there are, basically, none) is also presented.
What's the point of going all-out to solve this problem if it'll cripple the economy of the world MORE than not doing anything?
Nobody even has a solution anyway. All we have is a lot of people shouting about who's right, and nobody has sat down and said "Okay, so let's assume this side is right... what the fuck can we do about it?" and then approach the problem from the opposite angle.
Fact is, any "
Re: (Score:2)
I'll just call you blind to the facts, if that's okay. I'd say, based on the linked information below, that warming is continuing.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php [nasa.gov]
And, let's face it: you can argue that the cause is somewhat irrelevant. What is hard to argue with is that a change in the environment will destabilize the existing geopolitical conditions, which are relatively constrained at the moment. If you believe in the free market and capitalism, you know that change i
Re: (Score:3)
www.climatedepot.com
www.rense.com ...
www.infowars.com
www.whale.to
www.timecube.com
www.junkscience.com
www.foxnews.com