6 ms·

We're approaching the point where we'll be scrambling to deal with increasingly regular natural disasters, heat waves, etc and too busy dealing with the immedia

We're approaching the point where we'll be scrambling to deal with increasingly regular natural disasters, heat waves, etc and too busy dealing with the immediate problems (because that's what constituents are crying out for help with) to solve the underlying problem. What kills me is An Inconvenient Truth came out in 2006 and we've chosen to ignore the issue until it radically changes the planet.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
gjsman-1000 5y ago
But the problem with An Inconvenient Truth these days is that it was made by a politician who is not a scientist. You might agree with that politician or think his grasp of the science is solid, but it is not helpful if you are trying to bridge the divide because opponents will easily grasp those errors. Why would you trust a politician on science when he has a political agenda (allegedly) and isn't a scientist to begin with? If it had been made by the head of NASA or similar, that might have done better. Even if that doesn't mean people would believe it more, it's just the principle of the thing. It made the issue come out the gate as more partisan than it had to be.
- pjc50 5y ago
  Not being a politician won't save you from being dismissed as having a political agenda. Again, we've seen this all over the pandemic.
  - gjsman-1000 5y ago
    I agree - see Fauci for example. I'm saying it was a bad choice in principle. If I was funding a movie about climate change or trying to convince the world... I'd get some PhDs and scientists of notable standing. A politician is the last, worst choice I would have done.
- snypher 5y ago
  Do you think people who deny climate change trust scientists more than politicians?
  - gjsman-1000 5y ago
    Nope. Like I said, I don't know if it would increase belief in any major capacity. I'm just saying it's a bad look and, in my opinion, was a bad choice for trying to convince people in principle. If I had to make a movie about Climate Change, out of principle, I wouldn't choose a politician and I would choose someone with a scientific degree. That's what I'm saying.
- gdubs 5y ago
  It’s not like people got together and said, “let’s have Al Gore do it!” That movie happened, and the public is aware of it, largely due to the fact that Al Gore — whether you hate his politics or not — was in a position where he was exposed to the science, cared deeply about the issue, and dedicated himself to getting the message out. Public messaging being kind of a big part of being a politician.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

gjsman-1000 5y ago

But the problem with An Inconvenient Truth these days is that it was made by a politician who is not a scientist. You might agree with that politician or think his grasp of the science is solid, but it is not helpful if you are trying to bridge the divide because opponents will easily grasp those errors. Why would you trust a politician on science when he has a political agenda (allegedly) and isn't a scientist to begin with? If it had been made by the head of NASA or similar, that might have done better. Even if that doesn't mean people would believe it more, it's just the principle of the thing. It made the issue come out the gate as more partisan than it had to be.

pjc50 5y ago
Not being a politician won't save you from being dismissed as having a political agenda. Again, we've seen this all over the pandemic.
- gjsman-1000 5y ago
  I agree - see Fauci for example. I'm saying it was a bad choice in principle. If I was funding a movie about climate change or trying to convince the world... I'd get some PhDs and scientists of notable standing. A politician is the last, worst choice I would have done.
snypher 5y ago
Do you think people who deny climate change trust scientists more than politicians?
- gjsman-1000 5y ago
  Nope. Like I said, I don't know if it would increase belief in any major capacity. I'm just saying it's a bad look and, in my opinion, was a bad choice for trying to convince people in principle. If I had to make a movie about Climate Change, out of principle, I wouldn't choose a politician and I would choose someone with a scientific degree. That's what I'm saying.
gdubs 5y ago
It’s not like people got together and said, “let’s have Al Gore do it!” That movie happened, and the public is aware of it, largely due to the fact that Al Gore — whether you hate his politics or not — was in a position where he was exposed to the science, cared deeply about the issue, and dedicated himself to getting the message out. Public messaging being kind of a big part of being a politician.