8 ms·

I suspect that Al Gore's name had the biggest impact on the polarization of the score. He's been a polarizing figure (for whatever reason) for a very long time.

I suspect that Al Gore's name had the biggest impact on the polarization of the score. He's been a polarizing figure (for whatever reason) for a very long time. Not to mention it's a "sequel". I'm not attacking the man in any way, but I do wonder if furthering the polarization of the issue using his name (which he cannot reconcile with the public at this point) does the movement a disservice. I place more blame on us as a species than Al Gore himself, but here we are.

mikeash 9y ago
I doubt that leaving his name off of it would really change much. The people giving it the lowest possible score are reacting to what they see as political propaganda pushing the hoax of climate change. That Al Gore is involved certainly doesn't help, but they'd still hate it even if he had nothing to do with it.
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  Without Al Gore's name nobody would have noticed. There are a lot of people who throw a fit when they just hear that name. Now imagine if Hillary Clinton did a documentary. That would probably be the most rated movie ever.
  - WalterSear 9y ago
    And, in all probability, the most controversially received.
    - maxxxxx 9y ago
      And the least watched too. People would be excited or horrified just by the name and rate accordingly without watching.
- Brakenshire 9y ago
  At some point a significant proportion of the people who have been ridiculing climate change (or to a large extent just going along with a political movement which incidently ridicules it) will shift their beliefs to accept moderate action to tackle climate change, and it's important they can do that without being forced to admit they are actually changing their minds. That means leaving open, for people who previously dismissed it, the narrative of "I don't believe in climate alarmism pushed by radical leftists, but I do believe in following the science, and now that the evidence is in, I support reasonable action". I think it is true that a figure like Al Gore acts as an anchor to make those sorts of changes more difficult.
  - exclusiv 9y ago
    Great points and I think you're spot on. I'm personally a skeptic of the claims made by the AGW side and the alarmism pushed out by so many. The proposed AGW solutions are not feasible worldwide either which is what would be necessary to solve the problem they outline. I'm saying this not to get into a discussion about it at this time but to lay out why I would STILL support the agenda: essentially there are several great secondary benefits from doing what they recommend. This is the biggest failure of the AGW side - they have terrible positioning and think you're stupid if you question science. If you tell people they're stupid (even if they are) they aren't changing their minds. This is how you push the AGW agenda. "Let's say we're wrong. Here are the benefits of doing what we're suggesting and making some changes & investments": - Better air quality - It's good for national security - we no longer need to send large sums of money to hostile countries, many of which support terrorist organizations and other groups which are Anti-American / Anti-Western values. - Cheaper energy That's hard for anyone to argue, assuming the legislation is sensible.
    - koube 9y ago
      That argument is already being made, if people were open to this line of reasoning they would have heard it a long time ago. I think the longer term and overarching issue is that we don't have a shared reality. Science is not a method of finding truth for a large proportion of the American electorate. Academia, scientific institutions, and journalism might as well not exist if people don't believe in them. If that's the case, then it's requires a much more in depth answer than "well look, we might do some good if we spend billions in (perceived) cost". I don't have the answer and perhaps there isn't one.
    - Brakenshire 9y ago
      > The proposed AGW solutions are not feasible worldwide either which is what would be necessary to solve the problem they outline. Just to pick out this point, I don't agree, I think actually most of the action to reduce emissions will be profitable. Low energy lighting pays its investment back in 6 months, on a ten year lifetime. Electric cars are significantly cheaper than petrol already in many countries and particular situations. Solar panels are similarly on the verge of profitable in high insolation, high energy cost places. Both are seeing continual reductions in cost, which will open up new markets, which will lead to economies of scale, which will reduce cost. And there are a lot of situations like housebuilders not putting in decent insulation, because they don't pay the heating bills, where good information can again provide the opportunity for investment with an amazing return. A large amount of the necessary reduction is not difficult, once you properly direct the market economy and industrial civilization against the challenge.
akhilcacharya 9y ago
It's interesting that the original did not see anywhere close to the same polarization.
JamesBarney 9y ago
Why do you think Al Gore caused the polarization of climate change and not that the polarization of Climate Change caused Al Gore to be a more polarizing figure? Except for being a climate change activist he is a pretty bland public figure. It's not like he's Ann Coulter or Michael Moore.
- eregorn 9y ago
  He still gets a lot of flak from that "invented the internet" comment. Probably one of the few comments in politics that makes critics of it even more angry if they don't take it literally.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > He still gets a lot of flak from that "invented the internet" comment. He never claimed to have invented the internet. He did claim to have taken the initiative in creating it in the context of a broader claim about taking the initiative to advance various important economic, environmental, and educational advances through policy and legislation. http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
    - eregorn 9y ago
      Well yeh, that's what I was getting at hence the "don't take it literally" part. I've seen people still don't like what he said even after knowing it was not literal. Some people just don't want to see the internet as something not only invented by the government, but was not the total wild west they romanticized it as.
  - excitom 9y ago
    Isn't it interesting that such a minor (and misconstrued) comment could have such a lasting effect on the man's career while the guy now in power spews far more outrageous falsehoods daily and it just doesn't seem to matter.
    - 9y ago
lcfcjs2 9y ago
This doesn't make much sense really. Climate Change is what caused the polarization, not the fact that Al Gore made the film.
Florin_Andrei 9y ago
> Al Gore's name had the biggest impact on the polarization of the score. He's been a polarizing figure (for whatever reason) for a very long time. That statement seems to imply that polarization is caused by and originates with Al Gore.

mikeash 9y ago

I doubt that leaving his name off of it would really change much. The people giving it the lowest possible score are reacting to what they see as political propaganda pushing the hoax of climate change. That Al Gore is involved certainly doesn't help, but they'd still hate it even if he had nothing to do with it.

maxxxxx 9y ago
Without Al Gore's name nobody would have noticed. There are a lot of people who throw a fit when they just hear that name. Now imagine if Hillary Clinton did a documentary. That would probably be the most rated movie ever.
- WalterSear 9y ago
  And, in all probability, the most controversially received.
  - maxxxxx 9y ago
    And the least watched too. People would be excited or horrified just by the name and rate accordingly without watching.
Brakenshire 9y ago
At some point a significant proportion of the people who have been ridiculing climate change (or to a large extent just going along with a political movement which incidently ridicules it) will shift their beliefs to accept moderate action to tackle climate change, and it's important they can do that without being forced to admit they are actually changing their minds. That means leaving open, for people who previously dismissed it, the narrative of "I don't believe in climate alarmism pushed by radical leftists, but I do believe in following the science, and now that the evidence is in, I support reasonable action". I think it is true that a figure like Al Gore acts as an anchor to make those sorts of changes more difficult.
- exclusiv 9y ago
  Great points and I think you're spot on. I'm personally a skeptic of the claims made by the AGW side and the alarmism pushed out by so many. The proposed AGW solutions are not feasible worldwide either which is what would be necessary to solve the problem they outline. I'm saying this not to get into a discussion about it at this time but to lay out why I would STILL support the agenda: essentially there are several great secondary benefits from doing what they recommend. This is the biggest failure of the AGW side - they have terrible positioning and think you're stupid if you question science. If you tell people they're stupid (even if they are) they aren't changing their minds. This is how you push the AGW agenda. "Let's say we're wrong. Here are the benefits of doing what we're suggesting and making some changes & investments": - Better air quality - It's good for national security - we no longer need to send large sums of money to hostile countries, many of which support terrorist organizations and other groups which are Anti-American / Anti-Western values. - Cheaper energy That's hard for anyone to argue, assuming the legislation is sensible.
  - koube 9y ago
    That argument is already being made, if people were open to this line of reasoning they would have heard it a long time ago. I think the longer term and overarching issue is that we don't have a shared reality. Science is not a method of finding truth for a large proportion of the American electorate. Academia, scientific institutions, and journalism might as well not exist if people don't believe in them. If that's the case, then it's requires a much more in depth answer than "well look, we might do some good if we spend billions in (perceived) cost". I don't have the answer and perhaps there isn't one.
  - Brakenshire 9y ago
    > The proposed AGW solutions are not feasible worldwide either which is what would be necessary to solve the problem they outline. Just to pick out this point, I don't agree, I think actually most of the action to reduce emissions will be profitable. Low energy lighting pays its investment back in 6 months, on a ten year lifetime. Electric cars are significantly cheaper than petrol already in many countries and particular situations. Solar panels are similarly on the verge of profitable in high insolation, high energy cost places. Both are seeing continual reductions in cost, which will open up new markets, which will lead to economies of scale, which will reduce cost. And there are a lot of situations like housebuilders not putting in decent insulation, because they don't pay the heating bills, where good information can again provide the opportunity for investment with an amazing return. A large amount of the necessary reduction is not difficult, once you properly direct the market economy and industrial civilization against the challenge.

akhilcacharya 9y ago

It's interesting that the original did not see anywhere close to the same polarization.

JamesBarney 9y ago

Why do you think Al Gore caused the polarization of climate change and not that the polarization of Climate Change caused Al Gore to be a more polarizing figure? Except for being a climate change activist he is a pretty bland public figure. It's not like he's Ann Coulter or Michael Moore.

eregorn 9y ago
He still gets a lot of flak from that "invented the internet" comment. Probably one of the few comments in politics that makes critics of it even more angry if they don't take it literally.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > He still gets a lot of flak from that "invented the internet" comment. He never claimed to have invented the internet. He did claim to have taken the initiative in creating it in the context of a broader claim about taking the initiative to advance various important economic, environmental, and educational advances through policy and legislation. http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
  - eregorn 9y ago
    Well yeh, that's what I was getting at hence the "don't take it literally" part. I've seen people still don't like what he said even after knowing it was not literal. Some people just don't want to see the internet as something not only invented by the government, but was not the total wild west they romanticized it as.
- excitom 9y ago
  Isn't it interesting that such a minor (and misconstrued) comment could have such a lasting effect on the man's career while the guy now in power spews far more outrageous falsehoods daily and it just doesn't seem to matter.
  - 9y ago

lcfcjs2 9y ago

This doesn't make much sense really. Climate Change is what caused the polarization, not the fact that Al Gore made the film.

Florin_Andrei 9y ago

> Al Gore's name had the biggest impact on the polarization of the score. He's been a polarizing figure (for whatever reason) for a very long time. That statement seems to imply that polarization is caused by and originates with Al Gore.