Slashdot Mirror
National Geographic Releases Alarming Climate Change Movie 'Before the Flood' On YouTube (youtube.com)
dryriver writes: National Geographic's Climate Change movie "Before The Flood," featuring actor-activist Leonardo DiCaprio, can now be viewed freely on Youtube. One of the most interesting points in the movie comes at around the 23 minute mark. At 23 minutes, scientist Michael E. Mann, famous for co-discovering the "hockey stick graph" via eigenvector based climate field reconstruction (CFR), recounts how media like the Wall Street Journal demonized him for his research, how he received death threats from unknown sources, how Congress grilled him about whether his scientific methods are credible, and how he even received an envelope in the mail with strange white powder in it. The movie is worth watching because it shows very clearly that a) man-made climate change is happening and that b) the negative effects of climate change are already impacting many areas of the world.
It depends on how (dis)honest you use the term "the science is settled". There is an overwhelming, if not almost universal, agreement that climate change is real. That has not been disputing in any proper and significant way for a long time. What the relevant parts of the scientific community are still haggling about is:
(1) How bad is it going to be if the current trend continues?
(2) Can the effects be reasonably limited or reversed?
(3) What is the least/cheapest amount of work to keep humanity alive?
A lot of those predictions have a high degree of uncertainty, simply because the underlying physical processes are extremely complex. Many factors are not fully understood, i.e. the impact of global warming on permafrost and the associated feedback cycle, the impact on flora and fauna etc.
In short, the point is not whether the science is settled on every aspect. The problem is real, it is undisputed and aggressive actions are needed now, if not better yesterday. It is far easier to determine when enough has been done compared to predicting that in advance. The car analogy is running full speed into a traffic jam. When do you start to brace -- at the latest point feasible or by reducing your speed to a decent level first?
I didn't believe in climate change before, but now that I see it on Youtube with Leonardo it makes it a) really real and b) happening as we speak.
It's amazing how many self-proclaimed "nerds" are willing to discard evidence and disregard science when the conclusions challenge their worldview or their bank accounts. The whole lot of them are selfish, self-deluding children. These aren't the nerds I grew up with.
The world isn't here to cater to you. We've thrived by reshaping it and now have to deal with some unintended consequences. Only a fool fails to change course when they are approaching a cliff. We've seen the approaching disaster and would like to try to avert it or minimize the harm. If we're wrong, then people -- including ourselves -- suffer short-term economic damage. If we're right, we save the world for humanity.
Just dropping three points here:
* Sea levels *are* rising, and its negatively impacting the lives of people already, today: http://www.newyorker.com/tech/...
* greenland ice is melting http://www.independent.co.uk/e...
* glaciers are melting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
All three of these things are hopefully undisputable.
Yes, science isn't sure about everything, but it is quite sure about this, sure enough that it should be trusted. And please do base your political decision on what the scientific consensus provides, everything else would be totally irresponsible.
I keep seeing zealots on this side calling for everything incredibly invasive (in terms of liberties) public policy, to criminal prosecution of "climate change deniers."
Oh, please. Show me one person who has called for criminal prosecution of climate change deniers.
And what "liberties" infringed, for example, by a carbon tax, or a cap-and-trade energy market? If your conception of liberty includes unrestricted license to foul other people's air, then I would suggest that the word "liberty" doesn't mean what you think it means.
The problem conservatives have is that they've let the liberals own the issue. So of course liberals will come up with some giant government solution. Rather than come up with some small government solutions, conservatives chose science denial. Once the science got to be more certain, they doubled down. It's beyond debate that it is a thing that is happening and we're the root cause, but they've tripled down. There's no way for them to back down now without losing face and pissing off donors.
Climate change denial seems to be a generational thing.
When I was growing up, environmentalism meant conservationism. Mowing your lawn and not littering were ways to particpate.
Then people started talking about acid rain, eutrophication of the great lakes and the ozone layer. It was counter-culture, clearly against the industry establishment. Youth supported these initiatives for awareness and change. Those that didn't, weren't an organized opposition. Industries reduced sulpherous emisions, successfully addressing the dead lakes and dead trees from acid rain. Sulphates in soaps were controlled, bringing back Lake Erie from being a stew of algae. Chloroflorcarbons were controlled to address the ozone layer.
Then came the next generation. Global warming became a more serious issue, atmospheric carbon dioxide being observed as the cause. It wasn't as localized as the other issues, and not as easy to address as the ozone issues. Environmentalism was mainstream. Suddenly being anti-environmentalist was the "alternative". "open your eyes" was the call to action "big environment money" was the real cause. Supporting environmentalism was supporting the mainstream government.
The environmental movement was successful because it achieved results on a global scale. Not because it's part of a big moneyed establishment conspiracy. It's embarrassing to be on a site with so many of these anti-environmental twits.
Sometimes I think the only way to get them on-board is to make environmentalism look like some alternative viewpoint being suppressed by a self-serving government conspiracy. Like starting stories that the government is taxing hard-working people, subsidizing oil and gas to increase atmospheric carbon so that real-estate speculators can get a windfall return on investments in the Ozarks.
Beating these people over the head with mainstream movies? it only supports the "big environment" theory.
There are literally 303 references to back up the information in the article linked by GP. I'd say there's a lot more credibility there than there is in your random internet comment.
Also, another thing that I'm unable to understand. Even if it Climate Change wasn't true, the technologies that we're implementing are very good.
Yes, this is the "what if climate change is a trick and we built a better world for nothing" argument, and I am right there with you. Worst-case, we realize improvements in efficiency and extend our natural resources. Gee, that would be terrible! Wait. Not terrible. Wonderful. That would be wonderful.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
No one (except the really silly) deny climate change. They are skeptical of the MAN MADE portion of that.
That's because they're stupid. We emit orders of magnitude more CO2 than volcanism and nobody questions whether volcanism influences the climate. The other way they are stupid is that it doesn't actually matter if we produce more or less of anything than does nature, only if we produce enough to take the system past some kind of tipping point.
If you want to be taken for anything but a troll, your trolls are going to have to address these points directly, and not just go on a rant about Al Gore. That shit is old.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Yes, and those are entirely reasonable things to do when people come up with "new statistical methods" and demand immediate action.
I'm sorry, but no.
Death threats are never an appropriate response.
If your side thinks that they need to issue death threats to rebut a scientific argument, this is basically evidence that they are not arguing with the science.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com