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

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[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!".

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