Slashdot Mirror
Science Museum Declines To Show Climate Change Film
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."
"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."
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.
From TFA:
That's not science.
Amerikaner
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?
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
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.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
How's the beachfront property in Atlanta?
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.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
At least you know who you've been trained to hate ... good for you.
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
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!
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.
Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
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.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
And this is one of the many reasons I love living in NC. It doesn't always bow to what is falsely called science.
You can call me an idiot, or any other name you like, but if you don't at least question some of global warming/climate change, then you are no better than me. Case in point ... ALL climate modeling programs showed continued increased warming for the last decade, but instead there has been a lull in global warming. If these models are wrong, then what else have climate scientist gotten wrong? I'm just saying ...
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...).
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
The museum isn't showing films advocating Lysenko biology either.
"Whenever the cause of the people is entrusted to professors, it is lost." ~ V.I. Lenin
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 "global" problem needs a global-scale solution, of which there are none, and which will cost global-scale amounts of money, which we're not going to spend until we have a viable solution, and may end up costing more than if we DID have, say, a 10m sea rise.
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 continues, like nothing happened, with the same importance of stopping it or more than before.
I was taught that the 1940's were the end of the warm cycle, and part of a 100,000 year cycle
personally I look forward to anything that will keep it warmer. but what were being bombarded
with isn't fact, but predetermined results to sway a world.
I applaud a Museum / library for not taking part in this or any debate, they should be (remain) neutral.
In the USA, the climate changes you!
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.
"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
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
N.C. Museum of Natural Sciences director puts kibosh on documentary about sea-level rise
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, it does seem a bit chilling.
"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... 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.
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?
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
In fact if you type "democrat climate change denial" into google you get articles about Republican climate change denial.
So...hardly "training" or "hatred". Just simple research.
No sig today...
Just as bad in general, maybe, but on science denial? Are you just ignoring reality there?
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.
hurricane measurements from 33,241 BC: None recorded.
You're welcome.
Wikipedia is not research. This is especially true on politically hot topics. Freeform editing and all.
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"?
No sig today...
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.
I don't think "more religion" is an answer to any of society's problems.
(Take a glance at Conservapedia before replying).
No sig today...
The "equal weight to different viewpoints" argument is the favoured tactic of the ignorant anti-science brigade in the US.
So, disregarding the bookshelves worth of data that the science is based on, you simply declare a subject "controversial", which means that suddenly "alternative viewpoints" are needed whiich are presumably not backed up with decades worth of data but in this case generally derive from the "I don't (want to) believe it" brigade, and hey presto! That means both are needed for a "balanced viewpoint"!
Exactly the same tactic is used to get creationism into science textbooks, but remember folks, if enough people voted for politicians who didn't believe in the law of gravity, and those politicians passed a bill repealing that law, it would still be unwise to jump off tall buildings.
"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)
www.climatedepot.com
www.rense.com ...
www.infowars.com
www.whale.to
www.timecube.com
www.junkscience.com
www.foxnews.com
Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
What are you on about? Are you conflating right wing politics and the christian right? Stop doing that, makes you look dumb to the rest of the world.
Lies!
You know, I get really fucking tired of seeing people yank Creationists (a distinct minority) into the argument as if that were an intellectual feat.
The simple fact remains that this movie is predicting a distant future outcome which is not certain. In effect, it is speculation and not science. Science offers tests, data and error bars which give statistical credence to a theory. And the short history of future climate modelling has had a not so good track record with basics like global temperature.
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.
This alone means, they are paying more attention to the real sciences
What the actual fuck are you on?
They ignore all sciences, not just 'real' ones. See fracking & evolution for just a couple examples.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
And with a simple cite of wikipedia, you absolve yourself of the need to provide actual evidence of anything.
When you can go online and edit a paper in Nature to say pretty much anything you want, then Wikipedia is "research".
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Obamacare, anyone?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
White trash, eh? I know a few high-tech companies that would disagree with you.
You know, small companies that you've probably never heard of, like:
Google ( the Lenoir NC data center is featured: https://www.google.com/about/datacenters/inside/streetview/ )
Apple (Their Maiden, NC, data center is a model for green data centers: https://www.apple.com/environment/renewable-energy/ )
EMC (Not only do they have a huge datacenter/Center of Excellence in Durham, which earned LEED Gold status ( http://www.emc.com/about/news/press/2013/20130314-01.htm ) but they also manufacture storage arrays in their Apex plant ( http://www.emc.com/about/news/press/us/2006/08082006-4543.htm ) and have a significant R&D presence in RTP)
Facebook ( The Forest City Data Center: https://www.facebook.com/ForestCityDataCenter ) Oh, and Rutherford County is very rural.
Further, North Carolina has one of the world's premier research and education networks, NCREN ( http://ncren.net/ ), which just underwent significant expansion over the last two years.
And the list of high-tech and higher education excellence goes on and on.
North Carolinians even know about Slashdot. :-)
Having read the actual article, and not the biased summary, it seems a reasonable decision for the director to make. There is a place for that type of documentary; and it would certainly be a good thing to show in the right venue. And I'm sure the director had a difficult time with the decision.
But, then again, just exactly what does Slashdot commentary have to do with the scientific process anyway? (Yes, I do understand real science, and I also don't have any need to prove that to anyone).
The King of Denmark figured out you can't order the tide not to come in sometime in the early part of the 11th Century. I'm sure North Carolina will get there eventually.
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.
False equivalence.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
there are over 70 references. You're dismissive attitude shows you have no argument.
You lose.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Climatology is the science, climate change is an event that is happening, based on rock solid evidence. I would bet dollar to donuts you don' even know the science is. Hint, it's not rising temperature(increased amount of trapped energy, to e more precise.), rising temperature is the prediction(among others) of the science.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
It's really obvious that mi is one of the low-info dittoheads who wrecked the Republican party for anyone with an IQ above room temperature.
Seems like both sides do it. Its called an "argument" or disagreement. I realize you do not see the other position as tenable, but just because you can not see their point, does not mean the point does not exist. The largest problem with "believers" as I call them is that they are unable to differentiate what reality says. The hottest year ever does not tell you that the planet is warming up for one. Its nothing but a record that could have been set regardless of whether the planet is warming or cooling. (Hint: that 1998 statistic tells you nothing about the direction of the climate, just that you had the hottest year ever, and considering that its been 15 years since 1998 and we have not broken that old record yet kind of hints that perhaps the planet is not warming after all. But than again, most scientists use this complicated technique called linear regression to find out whether we are heating up or cooling, because a record does not tell you whether that is happening. To give you an illustration, every year of my last 15 years has been the tallest year of my life, but does this mean I am still growing? And there is your problem, your side engages in sophistry with arguments that have no bearing to what we are discussing. That entire 1998 argument is a bunch of BS that unthinking automatons sprout off and yes, they are like you claim "deniers" are: unable to think about what a fact actually means. So in other words, what is your point for saying 1998 was the hottest year ever? Yesterday Pittsburg set a record low, so does that mean anything? Probably not, some stupid worthless fact that tells you nothing of value. And so the primary function of even mentioning the year 1998 is typically to obfuscate the argument with irrelevant information that gives you no data and nothing to base facts upon. If you want to prove the the planet is warming up faster than ever before, there are scientific ways to do that such as linear regression. There are numerous data-sets including a few not run by NASA. And NASA provides code for some of the science and some of the data. In your logical universe, if NASA provides some of the data, this means that all of the data in the scientific world is open, and sorry, but that is another bad logical construct. I could go on for hours, because most of your arguments are using bad logic, sophistry, or even outright insults, and so in the end you come off as no better than a monkey who can repeat political sound bites that seem to apply to every argument, and those which he does not have a canned response for he just substitutes outright denial or insults. Yea, you are smart.
Well...Wikipedia hates 'original research', so technically it's articles summarizing other people talking about research.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Yes, what happens when...? Do all the airplanes suddenly disappear?
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 result in an increase of trapped energy.
And the IPCC reports have been very conservative.
The vast majority of alarmist you see is the media.
"The most cherished chunk of leftish"
no. Most people on the left are pro nuclear. Also, using current technology, yucca mountain may not be needed, see we can use that 'waste'.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Color me shocked.
You are not the customer.
Wait, data centers is you link to technology? NC is the master of warehouses, well done.
No, it was unreasonable to take and only goes to hide the science and the impact of the change. The in context and appropriates statement by Colbert is just an excuse.
and no, I don't think NC is full if white trash, just people willing to remain ignorant with any facts that goes against a belief; which is far worse than white trash, now that I think about it.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
When will you get that?
If you propose solutions, if you advocate the need for change, if you cry warnings, that isn't science. Science is the process for knowing about the universe, nothing more. It is the only reliable method we have for separating what is likely correct for what is not.
It does not, however, dictate what we as humans should do, what our politics or policies should be, what we should choose to do.
So, if you produce a video that explains the observed changes in the environment (temperature measurements, atmospheric gas readings, etc), the theory of how those interact, that is science. If you start preaching what needs to be done about it, that is not.
That isn't to say you shouldn't have opinions on it, and that you shouldn't express those, but don't try and pretend that it is science, don't try and pretend that your views are the One True Way(tm) and anyone who disagrees is "anti-science".
One of the big problems with the whole AGW argument is there is multiple levels, but people like you conflate them:
1) The fact of a global temperature change outside of known cycles. This is a measurement, and observation, and isn't really up for any kind of debate unless you can show said measurement is wrong (it is a complex measurement since we are talking long term global average).
2) The theory that the prime or exclusive cause of this increase is an increase in atmospheric CO2, due to human activity. Like any theory, you can argue the conclusions, even if the data is sound, provided you can find a theory that better fits the available data.
3) The conclusion that this is a net negative thing. This is where you start to leave the realm of science. For one, any conclusion like this is a judgement call. Even if you agree on all the data, you can reach a different conclusion as someone else. For example one of my coworkers believes that humanity is a bad thing, and anything that furthers it towards extinction is a good thing. I happen to disagree with that, rather forcefully. Also this judgement is based largely on computer models of what may happen. Fine, but models don't prove anything, they model, and they are only useful is they are accurate. There has been a lot of trouble in this area, since modeling the climate is an amazingly complex problem, the most complex modeling problem we've ever dealt with. So people can very well disagree with the models being used.
4) The policy or politics of what to do about it. This is not science at all this is, well, politics and policy. Even if you agree on what is likely to happen, you can disagree on what to do about it. One person can say that the correct approach is to drastically reduce human CO2 output, another can say the correct approach is a massive geoengineering effort, and yet another can say the correct approach is not to try and stop the change, but simply to prepare ourselves to deal with it. None of these are "right" in any objective, scientific, sense.
The problem is that you seem to be one of the many out there who thinks that it is all science. So that if you accept the data on warming, you them MUST accept the policy of what to do about it or you are anti-science, a denialist, etc, etc. You conflate the issues, and shout at people who disagree.
What are you on about? Are you conflating right wing politics and the christian right?
No. I'm conflating the US Democratic party with the Christian Religion. You're the one extrapolating the data.
No sig today...
Same thing.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I also moved to NC for the same reason (Raleigh whoop whoop!).
Having worked with government R&D scientists for 7 years, I can tell you first-hand I'd rather work with hill billies.
That wikipedia page has 77 citations.
The one I picked out, ie. " Republican strategist Frank Luntz advised members of the Republican Party, with regard to climate change, that "you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue" and "challenge the science" by "recruiting experts who are sympathetic to your view".
That quote has a little number [10] next to it. If you hover the mouse over that you get a citation and source for that quote. You're free to check it out. You can also see the entire history of page edits and see if anybody has been "vandalizing" a page.
(I hate to have to explain how Wikipedia works, but apparently there's people who don't know).
What about the other claim I made about typing "democrat climate change denial" into google and it coming up with articles about Republicans? Is that just something google does to make the Republican party look bad?
You can type stuff like "climate denial republicans vs democrats" into google, and guess what? Same thing.
If you want to trash Wikipedia, do it by providing facts. Show us where the Wikipedia page is wrong. Waving hands, not providing any evidence, dismissing something because of something you once read on the Internet? That just makes you look foolish.
No sig today...
Feel free to show us where the Wikipedia page is wrong.
(sound of crickets chirping)
No sig today...
I never said it was wrong. Actually, *you* didn't even challenge anyone to, either.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Watch your language, young man, if you wish your questions, however rhetorical, answered.
The only "science" in dispute over fracking is whether or not the natural gas-extraction process is dangerous to the environment. Given that the only arguments against are either sponsored by OPEC or put forward by bona-fide anti-Capitalists, it is indeed most prudent to ignore them.
As for evolution, the process is rejected by most major religions, which makes it hardly a Republican-only problem. Even among Christians Obama, for example, got a (slightly) higher share of votes, than McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Behind the times, are we? Well, if you insist on hair-splitting and arguing semantics, here... In University of Montana, for just one example, you can already minor in Climate Change. A college in a more progressive state may be already offering to major in the same discipline, but I'm too lazy to keep searching...
Ad hominems... How sad.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
If you want to cite something from wikipedia, read the actual cite yourself. Then, use that cite to support your argument. Where wikipedia fails is that I can make a statement and throw any cite I want after it. No one will check it. No one will correct it unless they have a vested interest in it.
The best that can be said of wikipedia is that it is a place to go and find references to authoritative sources for the most part. You are an idiot if you trust any of the text of the article.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
The article is ABOUT them and the current branch of science they are picking on. The climate "debate" is just them railing against who they see as their current enemy. Darwin before, Hansen now. The place mentioned in the article has pulled something out to try to avoid upsetting them.
So...still no actual counter argument then? Just hand waving, name calling and ignoring the parts of posts that contain pesky facts.
Yawn.
It feels like I'm back in Usenet in the 1990s. All we need is a sock puppet to make it complete.
No sig today...
Provide actual cites and not some mouth breathing, mother's basement dwelling loser's biased slant.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
I'll pay your way to North Korea. Seems legit way to support your false equivalences.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.