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."

Comments

Fixed summary for you

[Anonymous Coward]

"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

[FriendlyLurker]

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. 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.

Re:Fixed summary for you

[Anonymous Coward]

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:Fixed summary for you

[usuallylost]

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

[thaylin]

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:Fixed summary for you

[microbox]

The simple formula applies everywhere: the higher the taxes, the less freedom.

Go look at wikipedia's list of countries by tax rate, and find all the countries where you have significant freedoms, and then look at their tax rates.

Re:Fixed summary for you

[Politburo]

More accurately, opponents saw the opportunity to label anything related to climate change as "political" because Al Gore.

Re:Fixed summary for you

[0racle]

I have no idea of the value of the content of the film in question, but if the residents of NC don't want to have the rest of the world point and laugh at them, perhaps they should stop doing things and stop electing people that cause the world to point and laugh at them.

NC has earned all this derision.

Re:Fixed summary for you

[Charliemopps]

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.

In the USA

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[narcc]

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:In the USA

[Joce640k]

"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:In the USA

[ElectricTurtle]

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!'

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:In the USA

[geekoid]

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.

Is it science?

[Silverhammer]

From TFA:

Director Ben Kalina says he hoped that an event at the museum would spark dialogue, especially because the museum is across the street from the state Capitol. “I thought this would be a great opportunity to invite people from state legislature, people working on issues in the state, and the public to discuss these issues.” Kalina says he made a balanced film that is not a polemic, although it does contain a scene from The Colbert Report, in which the comedian mocks North Carolina politicians for the bill. “I’m sure some people wouldn’t appreciate that,” he admits.

That's not science.

Re:Is it science?

[Sockatume]

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

Re:Is it science?

[bill_mcgonigle]

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.

understandable

[Gravis Zero]

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:understandable

[Kythe]

There are STILL people who think a single season, storm, or record defines climate?

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:understandable

[kenai_alpenglow]

Yep, sure are. . Look at all the folks (& politicians) who were claiming that typhoon in the Philippines is proof of AGW. With the solution being a transfer of wealth from 1st world countries to "the poor" countries.

Re:understandable

[bill_mcgonigle]

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!".

How are we going to hold off the sea?

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

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.

Complex topics?

[Sockatume]

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.

Corrupt Religious Luddites

[some old guy]

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.

Re:Science museum declines alarmist propaganda

[KeensMustard]

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.

The Free Market

[bmo]

"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

alteration =/= correction

[luis_a_espinal]

"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.