6 ms·

Both cowspiracy and seaspiracy, received a lot of critics and fact check by prominence professors. "oversimplifies a complex issue", so why don't try to explai

Both cowspiracy and seaspiracy, received a lot of critics and fact check by prominence professors. "oversimplifies a complex issue", so why don't try to explain it to us? Instead of criticizing and discrediting real issues that we're going to face in a few years. Ah, they're quoting multiple times professor X and study Y without links or reference... I'm not a Netflix fan/users, but I saw those documentaries and I really appreciate the effort they're doing to open the eyes of a lot of people.

fireattack 6y ago
I can see both sides. I appreciate these documentaries for raising awareness as you said. The reason why experts don't "try to explain it to us" probably is exactly because they think it's complex and nuanced. They probably don't even think there is an "issue" that need to be explained to begin with. Think it this way: you're in a field, and you know its pros and cons. You are not going to randomly speak anything about it because that's just.. like everything else in the world. Now, suddenly someone, likely an "outsider", wrote an article to describe the field/area in a certain one-sided way (good or bad). Of course you now suddenly have a strong opinion on it. Note: above is about the common question I saw "why these experts only appear to refute others but never explain the thing themselves", not about Seaspiracy in particular.
- IgorPartola 6y ago
  I can see both sides but the side of the experts can clearly do better here. “It’s too complex to explain to all you people” or “this isn’t really a problem, the documentary makes a mountain of a mole hill” aren’t good approaches. If you are an expert in a field you should have at least some ability to simplify the issue or point out the mitigating factors that the documentary missed. The much more likely explanation here is that experts have a vested interest in looking smarter than some guy with a camera so they furrow their brows and talk about the complexities of the issue. As an analogy, BitCoin is complex. Between its usage of a blockchain and energy usage and murky origin story with who knows who owning a large chunk from the get go. Yet you could probably explain the power consumption problem to someone pretty easily.
  - fireattack 6y ago
    I think there is a fundamental difference between the two groups about how much simplification/inaccuracy can be accepted. The TV producer would take 90% fact, 5% oversimplification, and even 5% misleading info all day every day. The experts probably won't accept that. This is not to say they are unable to simplify things (which as you said, is a very crucial skill on its own) if asked, they just won't go ahead and actively publish anything that way. I personally side with TV producers here as soon as they have good intention. But can see why other people think otherwise.
    - IgorPartola 6y ago
      As a subject matter expert you must sometimes communicate with non-experts. If you can’t do that, you are failing at half the job because being an expert is not just about knowing the subject but being able to communicate well about it.
- BrandoElFollito 6y ago
  This is the problem I have with climate change. I am a very rational, science oriented person (actively promoting science, atheist, PhD in physics, actively hating homeopathy pseudo-science, you name it). I wanted to understand: - why there is a problem with climete chnage - how we know there is one - my winter was cold, where is the warming (exaggerating that of course) - etc. I am not an expert, nor want to become one. I just want someone to tell me: this is the evidence, these are the consequences as seen historically, we are "here" in the timeline. The only thing I hear is "you dumb believers!" and "you dumb non-believers" (or a disgusted stare). The only pertinent information that does not come with 200 pages of explanations are, as usual, in xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1379/ https://xkcd.com/1379/ and https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/. And also https://thefederalist.com/2016/09/30/xkcd-succumbs-to-climate-change-denial/ https://thefederalist.com/2016/09/30/xkcd-succumbs-to-climat... and https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/20/josh-takes-on-xkcds-climate-timeline/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/20/josh-takes-on-xkcds-c... - as a counterpoint.
  - elias94 6y ago
    see David Attenborough: A Life On Our Planet is better than 200 pages
  - jfengel 6y ago
    This is, in essence, the crux of the problem. With your level of education it shouldn't be at all difficult to find a resource that answers your questions. Instead you've sought out two comic strips and two extremely ideological sources. The basics of climate change can be taught standing on one foot. Carbon dioxide absorbs IR radiation, while oxygen and nitrogen are transparent to it. There was an equilibrium between visible light hitting the earth, being absorbed, and being reemitted as IR. We've doubled the amount of CO2, so you would expect twice as much of that heat to be retained. Compare it to the surface of the moon, which is at the same distance from the sun as us, but is on average well below freezing. CO2 isn't the only factor, but we've changed the equilibrium by doubling it. That's it. It's very, very simple. The reason it produces only yelling is because it's been said so many trillions of times that if you haven't seen it, it's because you're not looking. There's no sane counter-argument: more CO2 produces more heat. It couldn't not do so. The economics of why that's a problem is more complicated, but we've spent so much effort fighting anti-science attempts to deny really basic, obvious, trivial chemistry that we don't get to the even slightly non-trivial parts. The slightly non-trivial parts are "Yes, if you raise the temperature 4 degrees F it's going to make a lot of marginally livable places unlivable, and many millions of people will die. Also, some of that carbon dioxide becomes carbonic acid when absorbed by the oceans, which isn't good for sea life. Also, you know that weather is a chaotic system, and changing the energy balance of it causes changes to what meta-stable parts do exist, requiring substantial changes to the lifestyles of people there." Again, this has all been said thousands of times. If it helps to have somebody explain it to you, great. But you also know that I'm about to be overrun with Gish Gallopers trotting out repeated-refuted objections, and to a casual observer it's going to look like I can't keep up and therefore must be wrong. And the only way to decide for yourself is the one thing you don't want to do: as you say, you're not an expert and don't want to become one. So I'm really not sure what to do, and I'm pretty sure I've just wasted my virtual breath. I really think that my second paragraph should have put an end to this, and you can imagine my frustration that it doesn't.
slightwinder 6y ago
> so why don't try to explain it to us? Maybe they do and nobody is listening? The crux with complicate topics is that oversimplification can lead to wrong conclusions. So experts are always eager to avoid the point that leads to the wrong direction and are careful with their explanations. The question is whether cowspiracy and seaspiracy turned in the wrong direction or whether the critics are just to cautious.
- elias94 6y ago
  > Maybe they do and nobody is listening? Exactly why we need something like seaspiracy. Overfishing, coral reef deaths, and all the others problems are real and if not for George Monbiot, David Attenborough and similar figures, they would all remain hidden to the large public.
  - arbitrage 6y ago
    hey netflix PR plant person. > exactly why we need something like seaspiracy. scientists have been preaching this sermon for fifty years. a pithy pop-'science' crypto-vegan documentary is not going to fix this problem. we don't need to disguise complex issues as infotainment.
    - retSava 6y ago
      There are levels. Individuals may need something that seems like "entertainment" to accept and make individual change. Politicians need something else, eg science and studies, in order to conduct politics and change/form laws and regulation. Both are needed.
      - _fs 6y ago
        > Politicians need something else, eg science and studies, in order to conduct politics and change/form laws and regulation If only that were the case. When was the last time a popular politician gave any regard to scientific studies. In politics, it's all about 3 things. Money, money, and money.
rozab 6y ago
Legit, did you read the same article as me? I read another comment here that seemed to be referring to this BBC article as if it wasn't the one linked. Was the link changed? I think this article is very fair. It does a good job linking to sources where available, and calling out where estimates lack hard sources. They've brought in a variety of experts, and they do mention the claims which might seem unbelievable but are accurate. I've never had much problem with the Reality Check series.
YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
>> "oversimplifies a complex issue", so why don't try to explain it to us? Note that this is the BBC's turn of phrase, not a quote from one of the interviewed experts. As to the studies mentioned in the BBC article, most of those are the ones cited in Seaspiracy itself. The BBC seems to have asked the authors of the studies to comment on how their findings were represented by Seaspiracy. In the case of Cowspiracy (the prequel, so to speak) there have been careful analyses of the claims in that documentary. From wikipedia: >> Doug Boucher, reviewing the film for the Union of Concerned Scientists, disputed the film's assertion that 51% of global greenhouse gases are caused by animal agriculture. Boucher describes the 51% figure as being sourced from a 2009 Worldwatch Institute report by Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang,[18] not from a peer-reviewed scientific paper. Boucher asserted methodological flaws in Goodland and Anhang's logic, and said that the scientific community formed a consensus that global warming is primarily caused by humanity's burning of fossil fuels.[1] Boucher stated that the scientific consensus is that livestock contribute 15% of global greenhouse gas emissions - far lower than the 51% stated by the film.[1] Boucher's review concludes: "Movies like Cowspiracy aren’t believable, not only because of how they twist the science, but also because of what they ask us to believe: that the fossil fuel industry—the ExxonMobils of the world—aren’t the main cause of global warming... and that thousands of scientists have covered up the truth about the most important environmental issue of our time."[1] >> (...) >> A 2018 peer-reviewed meta-analysis estimates that the food supply chain is responsible for 26% of annual anthropogenic GHG emissions. Within the food supply chain, animal products (including fish farms) account for 56-58% of GHGs,[3] implying that animal products account for roughly 15% of total anthropogenic GHG emissions.[23][24] In a 2019 erratum to the meta-analysis, the avoided annual greenhouse gas emissions arising from a "no animal products" scenario are estimated at 28% of the total, which includes 8.1 Gt CO2 of removal by trees regrowing on land no longer required for livestock.[25] >> A 2019 Forbes article quotes Steven Chu, the Nobel Prize winner and former U.S. Secretary of Energy, stating: “Let me say it again: agriculture and land-use generates more greenhouse gas emissions than power generation." The article references the 2009 Worldwatch Institute article that estimates livestock are responsible for at least 51% of human-induced greenhouse gas emissions.[26] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowspiracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowspiracy No doubt, a similar careful analysis of Seaspiracy will follow at some point. The BBC is probably not that interested in a careful analysis anyway.

fireattack 6y ago

I can see both sides. I appreciate these documentaries for raising awareness as you said. The reason why experts don't "try to explain it to us" probably is exactly because they think it's complex and nuanced. They probably don't even think there is an "issue" that need to be explained to begin with. Think it this way: you're in a field, and you know its pros and cons. You are not going to randomly speak anything about it because that's just.. like everything else in the world. Now, suddenly someone, likely an "outsider", wrote an article to describe the field/area in a certain one-sided way (good or bad). Of course you now suddenly have a strong opinion on it. Note: above is about the common question I saw "why these experts only appear to refute others but never explain the thing themselves", not about Seaspiracy in particular.

IgorPartola 6y ago
I can see both sides but the side of the experts can clearly do better here. “It’s too complex to explain to all you people” or “this isn’t really a problem, the documentary makes a mountain of a mole hill” aren’t good approaches. If you are an expert in a field you should have at least some ability to simplify the issue or point out the mitigating factors that the documentary missed. The much more likely explanation here is that experts have a vested interest in looking smarter than some guy with a camera so they furrow their brows and talk about the complexities of the issue. As an analogy, BitCoin is complex. Between its usage of a blockchain and energy usage and murky origin story with who knows who owning a large chunk from the get go. Yet you could probably explain the power consumption problem to someone pretty easily.
- fireattack 6y ago
  I think there is a fundamental difference between the two groups about how much simplification/inaccuracy can be accepted. The TV producer would take 90% fact, 5% oversimplification, and even 5% misleading info all day every day. The experts probably won't accept that. This is not to say they are unable to simplify things (which as you said, is a very crucial skill on its own) if asked, they just won't go ahead and actively publish anything that way. I personally side with TV producers here as soon as they have good intention. But can see why other people think otherwise.
  - IgorPartola 6y ago
    As a subject matter expert you must sometimes communicate with non-experts. If you can’t do that, you are failing at half the job because being an expert is not just about knowing the subject but being able to communicate well about it.
BrandoElFollito 6y ago
This is the problem I have with climate change. I am a very rational, science oriented person (actively promoting science, atheist, PhD in physics, actively hating homeopathy pseudo-science, you name it). I wanted to understand: - why there is a problem with climete chnage - how we know there is one - my winter was cold, where is the warming (exaggerating that of course) - etc. I am not an expert, nor want to become one. I just want someone to tell me: this is the evidence, these are the consequences as seen historically, we are "here" in the timeline. The only thing I hear is "you dumb believers!" and "you dumb non-believers" (or a disgusted stare). The only pertinent information that does not come with 200 pages of explanations are, as usual, in xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1379/ https://xkcd.com/1379/ and https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/. And also https://thefederalist.com/2016/09/30/xkcd-succumbs-to-climate-change-denial/ https://thefederalist.com/2016/09/30/xkcd-succumbs-to-climat... and https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/20/josh-takes-on-xkcds-climate-timeline/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/20/josh-takes-on-xkcds-c... - as a counterpoint.
- elias94 6y ago
  see David Attenborough: A Life On Our Planet is better than 200 pages
- jfengel 6y ago
  This is, in essence, the crux of the problem. With your level of education it shouldn't be at all difficult to find a resource that answers your questions. Instead you've sought out two comic strips and two extremely ideological sources. The basics of climate change can be taught standing on one foot. Carbon dioxide absorbs IR radiation, while oxygen and nitrogen are transparent to it. There was an equilibrium between visible light hitting the earth, being absorbed, and being reemitted as IR. We've doubled the amount of CO2, so you would expect twice as much of that heat to be retained. Compare it to the surface of the moon, which is at the same distance from the sun as us, but is on average well below freezing. CO2 isn't the only factor, but we've changed the equilibrium by doubling it. That's it. It's very, very simple. The reason it produces only yelling is because it's been said so many trillions of times that if you haven't seen it, it's because you're not looking. There's no sane counter-argument: more CO2 produces more heat. It couldn't not do so. The economics of why that's a problem is more complicated, but we've spent so much effort fighting anti-science attempts to deny really basic, obvious, trivial chemistry that we don't get to the even slightly non-trivial parts. The slightly non-trivial parts are "Yes, if you raise the temperature 4 degrees F it's going to make a lot of marginally livable places unlivable, and many millions of people will die. Also, some of that carbon dioxide becomes carbonic acid when absorbed by the oceans, which isn't good for sea life. Also, you know that weather is a chaotic system, and changing the energy balance of it causes changes to what meta-stable parts do exist, requiring substantial changes to the lifestyles of people there." Again, this has all been said thousands of times. If it helps to have somebody explain it to you, great. But you also know that I'm about to be overrun with Gish Gallopers trotting out repeated-refuted objections, and to a casual observer it's going to look like I can't keep up and therefore must be wrong. And the only way to decide for yourself is the one thing you don't want to do: as you say, you're not an expert and don't want to become one. So I'm really not sure what to do, and I'm pretty sure I've just wasted my virtual breath. I really think that my second paragraph should have put an end to this, and you can imagine my frustration that it doesn't.

slightwinder 6y ago

> so why don't try to explain it to us? Maybe they do and nobody is listening? The crux with complicate topics is that oversimplification can lead to wrong conclusions. So experts are always eager to avoid the point that leads to the wrong direction and are careful with their explanations. The question is whether cowspiracy and seaspiracy turned in the wrong direction or whether the critics are just to cautious.

elias94 6y ago
> Maybe they do and nobody is listening? Exactly why we need something like seaspiracy. Overfishing, coral reef deaths, and all the others problems are real and if not for George Monbiot, David Attenborough and similar figures, they would all remain hidden to the large public.
- arbitrage 6y ago
  hey netflix PR plant person. > exactly why we need something like seaspiracy. scientists have been preaching this sermon for fifty years. a pithy pop-'science' crypto-vegan documentary is not going to fix this problem. we don't need to disguise complex issues as infotainment.
  - retSava 6y ago
    There are levels. Individuals may need something that seems like "entertainment" to accept and make individual change. Politicians need something else, eg science and studies, in order to conduct politics and change/form laws and regulation. Both are needed.
    - _fs 6y ago
      > Politicians need something else, eg science and studies, in order to conduct politics and change/form laws and regulation If only that were the case. When was the last time a popular politician gave any regard to scientific studies. In politics, it's all about 3 things. Money, money, and money.

rozab 6y ago

Legit, did you read the same article as me? I read another comment here that seemed to be referring to this BBC article as if it wasn't the one linked. Was the link changed? I think this article is very fair. It does a good job linking to sources where available, and calling out where estimates lack hard sources. They've brought in a variety of experts, and they do mention the claims which might seem unbelievable but are accurate. I've never had much problem with the Reality Check series.

YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago

>> "oversimplifies a complex issue", so why don't try to explain it to us? Note that this is the BBC's turn of phrase, not a quote from one of the interviewed experts. As to the studies mentioned in the BBC article, most of those are the ones cited in Seaspiracy itself. The BBC seems to have asked the authors of the studies to comment on how their findings were represented by Seaspiracy. In the case of Cowspiracy (the prequel, so to speak) there have been careful analyses of the claims in that documentary. From wikipedia: >> Doug Boucher, reviewing the film for the Union of Concerned Scientists, disputed the film's assertion that 51% of global greenhouse gases are caused by animal agriculture. Boucher describes the 51% figure as being sourced from a 2009 Worldwatch Institute report by Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang,[18] not from a peer-reviewed scientific paper. Boucher asserted methodological flaws in Goodland and Anhang's logic, and said that the scientific community formed a consensus that global warming is primarily caused by humanity's burning of fossil fuels.[1] Boucher stated that the scientific consensus is that livestock contribute 15% of global greenhouse gas emissions - far lower than the 51% stated by the film.[1] Boucher's review concludes: "Movies like Cowspiracy aren’t believable, not only because of how they twist the science, but also because of what they ask us to believe: that the fossil fuel industry—the ExxonMobils of the world—aren’t the main cause of global warming... and that thousands of scientists have covered up the truth about the most important environmental issue of our time."[1] >> (...) >> A 2018 peer-reviewed meta-analysis estimates that the food supply chain is responsible for 26% of annual anthropogenic GHG emissions. Within the food supply chain, animal products (including fish farms) account for 56-58% of GHGs,[3] implying that animal products account for roughly 15% of total anthropogenic GHG emissions.[23][24] In a 2019 erratum to the meta-analysis, the avoided annual greenhouse gas emissions arising from a "no animal products" scenario are estimated at 28% of the total, which includes 8.1 Gt CO2 of removal by trees regrowing on land no longer required for livestock.[25] >> A 2019 Forbes article quotes Steven Chu, the Nobel Prize winner and former U.S. Secretary of Energy, stating: “Let me say it again: agriculture and land-use generates more greenhouse gas emissions than power generation." The article references the 2009 Worldwatch Institute article that estimates livestock are responsible for at least 51% of human-induced greenhouse gas emissions.[26] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowspiracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowspiracy No doubt, a similar careful analysis of Seaspiracy will follow at some point. The BBC is probably not that interested in a careful analysis anyway.