Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Science Museum Declines To Show Climate Change Film

Unknown Lamer posted about 9 months ago | from the i'm-not-listening-i'm-not-listening dept.

Science 398

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."

cancel ×

398 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Fixed summary for you (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45524441)

"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 (5, Insightful)

FriendlyLurker (50431) | about 9 months ago | (#45524641)

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 [rtcc.org] . 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 [democracynow.org] .

Re:Fixed summary for you (0, Flamebait)

Pseudonym Authority (1591027) | about 9 months ago | (#45524799)

It's not being banned you stupid fuck, a single museum is deciding not to show what would appear to be a political movie masquerading as a scientific documentary.

Re:Fixed summary for you (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45524841)

what would appear to be a political movie masquerading as a scientific documentary.

Anything related to climate change is labeled "political" by the large well funded anti-science, pro climate science denial lobbies.

Re:Fixed summary for you (2)

KeensMustard (655606) | about 9 months ago | (#45524905)

It's not being banned you stupid fuck,

That's a little discourteous. My suggestion is that if you want yourself and your ideas to be treated with respect, that you likewise treat others with respect.

a single museum is deciding not to show what would appear to be a political movie masquerading as a scientific documentary.

Calling stupid legislation stupid is merely accurate labelling. To withhold saying that someone's stupid ideas are stupid on the grounds that that person is a legislator is to engage in politicing.

Re:Fixed summary for you (0)

MightyYar (622222) | about 9 months ago | (#45525165)

Didn't you just tell him not to call people names if you want to be treated with respect? I haven't seen the film, but it is entirely possible that it runs afoul of this same advice.

Re:Fixed summary for you (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45525181)

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.

Americans seem to use the word "elite" to mean something very strange. I have not met any Americans that act in any form that would suggest that they think that American politicians are "elite".

Re:Fixed summary for you (3, Insightful)

usuallylost (2468686) | about 9 months ago | (#45525203)

We should question our elites and we should feel free to mock our politicians. Expecting them to pay the costs and provide the venue for us to do it is a bit much. Nobody is saying that they can't play the film in a private venue. They are only saying that the state owned and operated museum isn't going to do it.

State run institutions have a very treacherous tightrope to walk on things like this. If they play the movie and offend a bunch of office holders they could find their funding in jeopardy or invite office holders to start actively attacking the institution. I don't blame the administrators for wanting no part of this. Biting the hand that feeds you is a dangerous game.

Re:Fixed summary for you (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45525131)

"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."

Yeah, unless you're in one of the self-deprecating states like Minnesota where we love to mock ourselves (the movie Fargo, A Prairie Home Companion, How to Talk Minnesotan, etc). Being able to handle criticism instead of censoring it sounds like something North Cackalacky needs to work on.

Let me guess (-1, Flamebait)

Joce640k (829181) | about 9 months ago | (#45524483)

a) Republicans?
b) Politicians being named in the film?

Re:Let me guess (1, Offtopic)

cascadingstylesheet (140919) | about 9 months ago | (#45524559)

At least you know who you've been trained to hate ... good for you.

Re:Let me guess (-1, Redundant)

Kythe (4779) | about 9 months ago | (#45524611)

No training necessary, I suspect. Only rational thinking and a bit of world knowledge.

Re:Let me guess (1, Insightful)

dreamchaser (49529) | about 9 months ago | (#45525071)

No, that would imply an equal hatred of democrats. They are just as bad, just in slightly different ways. It would be more accurate and appropriate to hate all politicians.

Re:Let me guess (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45525127)

a bit of world knowledge.

But just "a bit". Fear not. If you are like most people, you will eventually learn enough about the world to understand that lefty policies cause problems rather than solve them. With a little more effort you will realize that the leadership of the left isn't really trying to do what's best for society anyway.

If you are not a socialist before age 30, then you have no heart. If you are still a socialist after age 30, then you have no brain.
- Winston Churchill

In the USA (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45524485)

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 (4, Funny)

narcc (412956) | about 9 months ago | (#45524603)

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 (2)

Kythe (4779) | about 9 months ago | (#45524625)

Not just Florida.

Climate Change and Ocean Levels [furman.edu] Ironic that North Carolina has a lot to look forward to.

Re:In the USA (5, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | about 9 months ago | (#45524741)

"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 (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about 9 months ago | (#45525187)

Yeah, but he'll be dead by then.

Re:In the USA (2, Interesting)

gmuslera (3436) | about 9 months ago | (#45525097)

In a complex system like the world, rising temperature just a few degrees won't be an isolated event. Extreme weather is becoming more prevalent, you seen the storms that happened over asia, europe and america in the last year.. Also, more moisture in air, so more rain, and more floods. Extreme weather and floods will make it difficult to succeed some "long term" investments like crops,

You are right in one thing, change is good, life adapts with time, or die. And you could end being in the second group, or at least not liking at all what adaptation will mean.

Re:In the USA (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about 9 months ago | (#45525031)

We won't change our direction going toward that cliff until we are actually falling. Won't be too late, we will have already enough money to buy me a parachute.

Is it science? (4, Informative)

Silverhammer (13644) | about 9 months ago | (#45524493)

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? (4, Interesting)

Sockatume (732728) | about 9 months ago | (#45524519)

That's why it's a Science Cafe - which is about outreach and discussion - and not a university lecture.

Re:Is it science? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45524557)

and not a university lecture.

You have a strange idea of what a university lecture is.

Re:Is it science? (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about 9 months ago | (#45524589)

Well, I've given them. Maybe I'm doing them wrong.

Re:Is it science? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45524651)

Well, I've given them. Maybe I'm doing them wrong.

You certainly wouldn't be the first.

Re:Is it science? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45524779)

Nor the last

Re:Is it science? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45524941)

And, sadly, not in a minority

Re:Is it science? (4, Insightful)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 9 months ago | (#45525073)

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.

Re:Is it science? (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about 9 months ago | (#45525143)

Blocking the whole movie because it includes footage of someone else making one joke about that particular state, a joke pertinent to the issue that the entire movie is about? Baby. Bathwater.

Re:Is it science? (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about 9 months ago | (#45525191)

They wouldn't even have been the first museum in North Carolina to have shown it.

Re:Is it science? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45524783)

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.

Are you being sarcastic? Colbert Report is suppose to be a right wing mockery, for him to say that the law is wrong makes it laughable. If you get people talking that is what science is about. To come up with one sided theories without dialog would be anti-science.

On the other hand f**k em, if Florida and the other southern states get wipe off the map it would be a win, win. If you think the Federal government is bad imagine if the south would won the war.. To me it is the same BS propaganda that the Feds pull off, use religion as a basis for humanity that has seemed to work through out human history. Or in the case of politicians, talk out your ass about fighting for the little guy, while you are taking bribes from every industry that pretty much runs government to begin with.

Re:Is it science? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45524937)

If you get people talking that is what science is about.

No, that's what people with an agenda say when they want their agenda acted upon politically. See: 40 yrs. of "America needs to talk more about race" as a prime example.

imagine if the south would [sic] won the war

If the south had won, then the US would have split into several countries and there would not have been a United States to directly combat the Soviet Union. The communists would probably have defeated the West and there would not have had to be a climate change hoax perpetrated in order to implement worldwide centralized economic planning, i.e. you would have gotten what you really want with much less fuss.

use religion as a basis for humanity that has seemed to work through out human history

Please don't post when you are drunk. The alcohol makes your writing hard to decipher. I assume you are complaining about religion somehow?

in the case of politicians, talk out your ass about fighting for the little guy, while you are taking bribes from every industry that pretty much runs government to begin with

You do realize that govt itself is an industry that, unlike private businesses, mostly produces nothing of any value?

Re:Is it science? (1)

Truth_Quark (219407) | about 9 months ago | (#45525049)

If science has a role in developing policy, then legislation requiring unscientific calculations of sea level rise should be responded to by the scientific community.

And such propositions policy is not constructed from reason, and so a reasoned response is no response. Ridicule really is the only response in this case.

I agree it shouldn't appear in a scholarly paper, but I think that science should include science outreach.

Die spinnen die (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45524497)

Amerikaner

understandable (3, Informative)

Gravis Zero (934156) | about 9 months ago | (#45524501)

the problem is with the message in the video, not science.

Shored Up is a convincing call for action along our coasts. As the oceans rise and storms flood our towns and cities, we have a choice to make: do we continue to develop as we have in the past, ignoring clear risks and danger?

Re:understandable (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45524579)

They should show this video instead [youtube.com]

Re:understandable (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45524585)

"The 2013 Atlantic hurricane season, which officially ends on Saturday, Nov. 30, had the fewest number of hurricanes since 1982" (source: NOAA).

But hey, don't let facts get in the way of a good movie - right?

Re:understandable (4, Insightful)

Kythe (4779) | about 9 months ago | (#45524637)

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 (3, Insightful)

kenai_alpenglow (2709587) | about 9 months ago | (#45524697)

Yep, sure are. . Look at all the folks (& politicians) who were claiming that typhoon in the Philippines is proof of AGW. With the solution being a transfer of wealth from 1st world countries to "the poor" countries.

Re:understandable (0, Flamebait)

erikkemperman (252014) | about 9 months ago | (#45524821)

So.. AGW is not real because you don't like the proposed courses of action that might help counter it. Got it.

Re:understandable (4, Insightful)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 9 months ago | (#45525095)

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!".

Re:understandable (0)

erikkemperman (252014) | about 9 months ago | (#45525147)

Um, okay. I thought I just paraphrased what he had said, no twists intended. Guess I misunderstood his post, then. Out of curiosity, though, how did you read it?

Re:understandable (0)

teg (97890) | about 9 months ago | (#45525193)

So.. AGW is not real because you don't like the proposed courses of action that might help counter it. Got it.

Or don't see that this course of action actually will fix the problem, for a variety of reasons - even though they recognize that the evidence of AGW is overwhelming.

Speaking of evidence - it's always seemed rather odd to me that the ones most opposed to AGW, "because of lack of evidence", are the same people that are most likely to be passionately religious. These two positions are at the complete opposite ends of the "proven" scale.

Re:understandable (2)

KeensMustard (655606) | about 9 months ago | (#45524839)

I looked around - didn't find any.

I found a few who said that the increasing severity of these sorts of storms in specific regions is linked to changing climate - but that is completely different statement and to collate the two as one would indeed be disingenuous. And nobody would want to be regarded as disingenuous.

Would they?

Re:understandable (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 9 months ago | (#45525107)

I looked around - didn't find any.

Holy cow - you need to listen to some of the audio coming out of Poland right now. Start with the Phillipines rep who is on hunger strike.

Re:understandable (1)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | about 9 months ago | (#45524785)

I think it might be partly due to all the Albertans who lost their computers in last years big flood [wikipedia.org] . Don't worry once they dry out they'll be back on.

For anyone that can't see I'm being facetious, one flood isn't proof of global warming, but this was an extreme event, which we seem to be getting more and more of lately.

Re:understandable (2)

theM_xl (760570) | about 9 months ago | (#45525017)

Not particularly. The cost of natural disasters as a percentage of global production is remarkably stable. We're mostly taking notice more because increased populations means the absolute number of people getting hit at once goes up, which makes for great television.

Re:understandable (2, Insightful)

Uberbah (647458) | about 9 months ago | (#45525009)

There are STILL people who think a single season, storm, or record defines climate?

There are STILL people pushing this butthurt deflection? Warmer more humid air makes for more powerful storms, and warmer, drier air makes for record drought conditions. So yeah, denialists, record tornado seasons, massive forest fires months before fire season, record heat waves of months of 100+ degree heat and the most powerful hurricanes/typhoons in a century/of all time are evidence of global warming.

Re:understandable (2)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 9 months ago | (#45525113)

So yeah, denialists, record tornado seasons

2013 was the quietest tornado season on record [wordpress.com] . Don't make shit up to try to win an argument. Try instead explaining how the heat in the climate shifts around from one region of the plant to another from year to year. You do have an accurate model for that, right?

Re:understandable (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about 9 months ago | (#45525197)

Also people that think that global climate is exactly the same as weather. This list [wikipedia.org] don't seem to go in the direction of "nothing happened".

Re:understandable (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45525211)

The global cyclone energy index is on a downward trend since several decades. I'm not sure why you believe otherwise - there's no support for such a viewpoint in the actual data.

http://policlimate.com/tropical/global_running_ace.png [policlimate.com]

There's not a single "extreme weather" index that's currently on the rise (besides media headlines). There are plenty of models claiming that there will be, in the future, but so far it's not visible in the observations.

(But hey, why let the scientific method stand in the way for activist arguments?)

How are we going to hold off the sea? (5, Funny)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | about 9 months ago | (#45524503)

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:How are we going to hold off the sea? (1)

marcroelofs (797176) | about 9 months ago | (#45524621)

It's about time for a law regulating that the earth is flat.

Re:How are we going to hold off the sea? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45524767)

More like a mandate preventing any information about Petraus, Benghazi, or IRS scandals from leaking to the press until after an election. Or fudging unemployment numbers because you got your ass handed to you in the first debate. Or neglecting to even start designing healthcare.gov before the election because you know it's going to prove controversial, and then act surprised when you couldn't deliver in 10 months...

Rate of Sea Level Rise (2)

relisher (2955441) | about 9 months ago | (#45524507)

How's the beachfront property in Atlanta?

Re:Rate of Sea Level Rise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45524539)

Lousy, plain lousy! But that's normal for Atlanta, we'll be better off when the sea completely claims Atlanta.

Re:Rate of Sea Level Rise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45524575)

Expensive! There's only the industrial park at the moment. Anyone you know have the money to buy out 3M?

Re:Rate of Sea Level Rise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45524623)

Invest now for your house on the beach in a few centuries. Leave something useful for your descendants - buy in Atlanta!

Re:Rate of Sea Level Rise (1)

captainpanic (1173915) | about 9 months ago | (#45525055)

Atlanta, Atlantis... what's in a name?

Complex topics? (3, Interesting)

Sockatume (732728) | about 9 months ago | (#45524517)

The museum's statement reads, in part:

It would be a disservice to the people of North Carolina who generously funded the construction of the Museum, and who are joined by other visitors from all other US states and numerous other countries, if we were to maintain that showing one organization’s film constituted a comprehensive approach to an issue as significant and complex as sea level science.

Science cafe events are all about providing a quick, accessible, but by no means comprehensive view of an topic. Most of the ones I've been to have involved a single academic pontificating on their area of expertise and their own ideas for an hour. It seems rather odd to me that a Cafe Sci would restrict itself in this way. They can't have a very rich slate.

What happens when... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45524529)

National Historical sites such as 'Kill Devil Hills'** are submerged?
Those outer islands in NC are really low lying. They could easily become uninhabitable.

People who refuse to admit to climate change are as bad as the proverbial with their head stuck in the sand. Beware the tide is coming in rapidly.

** for those who don't know this is where the Wright Bros actually flew their aircraft. (and I'm a darned foreigner to boot)

Sea levels used to be much higher (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45524563)

About 7000 years ago:

"The Older Peron... throughout the period, global sea levels were 2.5 to 4 meters (8 to 13 feet) higher than the twentieth-century average."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Older_Peron

Re:Sea levels used to be much higher (2)

Sockatume (732728) | about 9 months ago | (#45524617)

If we're going to wind the clock back 7000 years I'd rather start with re-establishing bears and coyotes as the dominant predators in the National Mall.

Re:Sea levels used to be much higher (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45524815)

Actually, the Younger Peron is only about 5700 years old. If the sea level keeps rising by 3mm/yr, then it will take 1000 years to reach 3m and "wind the clock back" 5700 years.

Re:Sea levels used to be much higher (1)

teg (97890) | about 9 months ago | (#45525213)

About 7000 years ago:

"The Older Peron... throughout the period, global sea levels were 2.5 to 4 meters (8 to 13 feet) higher than the twentieth-century average."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Older_Peron

True, but infrastructure(there wasn't any) and populations were a lot more flexible then. Right now, with the concepts of property, cities, countries the impact of a 4 m rise in sea level would be catastrophic.

Science museum declines alarmist propaganda (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45524583)

Is this the same science museum that refused to show "The population Bomb: The Movie", "Ice Age: Year 2010" and all the other variations of were all going to be dead 30 years from now unless we are all forced to adopt whatever leftist ideology is popular at the time? The environmentalists have taken a page from Harold Camping and all other doomsday cults. Make a prediction that mankind will all be dead, or facing an apocalyptic scenario 30 years from now, and when that 30 years have passed and nothing terrible has happened still insist you are still right and make another prediction for the apocalypse 30 years from now, but this time its real!

Re:Science museum declines alarmist propaganda (2)

Sockatume (732728) | about 9 months ago | (#45524605)

No, this is the one where the same Director demoted the head of its Natural Research Centre to a figurehead position and reassigned her as "at risk" staff.

Re:Science museum declines alarmist propaganda (3, Insightful)

KeensMustard (655606) | about 9 months ago | (#45524867)

Is this the same science museum that refused to show "The population Bomb: The Movie", "Ice Age: Year 2010" and all the other variations of were all going to be dead 30 years from now unless we are all forced to adopt whatever leftist ideology is popular at the time?

Why are you asking us? Surely if you want to understand the films content, you could look at TFA yourself, and study the history of the museum.

The environmentalists have taken a page from Harold Camping and all other doomsday cults. Make a prediction that mankind will all be dead, or facing an apocalyptic scenario 30 years from now, and when that 30 years have passed and nothing terrible has happened still insist you are still right and make another prediction for the apocalypse 30 years from now, but this time its real!

Your understanding of the predictions made by climate models is completely off the wall insane, and laughably wrong. You need to get a handle on the basic facts before presuming to criticise either the science of the actions of others in response to that science.

Re:Science museum declines alarmist propaganda (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45524897)

You should write for the Onion, or the Colbert Report.

Re:Science museum declines alarmist propaganda (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about 9 months ago | (#45525183)

Neither of those movies have ever been scheduled to appear at the museum.

Corrupt Religious Luddites (3, Insightful)

some old guy (674482) | about 9 months ago | (#45524609)

Whether it is corporate shills in climate change denial or religionists diluting science with creationism and imaginary divinity, the inescapable conclusion is that the willful ignorance and in-grained avarice of politicians will surely be the death of us all.

Re:Corrupt Religious Luddites (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45524787)

In this case it's mainly the former. The majority of North Carolina's hostility towards climate change research in this case is based on the development of coastal areas. Anything that threatens development may cause a loss of valuation on these areas, so apart from the devaluing of assets of certain wealthy members of the states there would also be a corresponding loss in property taxes for the larger municipalities.

No such thing as 'man made global warming' (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45524655)

Still, nice to see they've conveniently renamed it 'climate change'. LOL.

www.climatedepot.com

Tantrums, much? (2, Interesting)

bradley13 (1118935) | about 9 months ago | (#45524691)

Poor baby, he didn't get his way.

The musuem director said that the "Science Cafe" was the wrong forum, but that they would consider showing the film as part of a larger project.

This film is an advocacy film for one particular viewpoint, being pushed by one particular organization. The musuem rightly sees that showing this film alone, with no context or alternative viewpoints, may not be the best way to present a balanced viewpoint on a difficult and controversion subject.

this is goat-5ex (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45524705)

waal: *BSD faces a - Netcraft has slings are 3limited, Obtain a copy of Raymond in his like I should be

I love NC (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45524711)

And this is one of the many reasons I love living in NC. It doesn't always bow to what is falsely called science.

You can call me an idiot, or any other name you like, but if you don't at least question some of global warming/climate change, then you are no better than me. Case in point ... ALL climate modeling programs showed continued increased warming for the last decade, but instead there has been a lull in global warming. If these models are wrong, then what else have climate scientist gotten wrong? I'm just saying ...

Challege Accepted (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45524795)

OK, you're an idiot. And so are the rest of the hillbilly nutjobs who incorrectly view "science" as a realm of absolute immutable facts rather than a world of observations that serve to prove or disprove theories.

Re:Challege Accepted (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45524871)

Well, and that film doesn't rely on facts but on hysteria. Hence, the science museum is keeping it out. Makes sense, right?

Re:Challege Accepted (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45525065)

OK, you're an idiot. And so are the rest of the hillbilly nutjobs who incorrectly view "science" as a realm of absolute immutable facts rather than a world of observations that serve to prove or disprove theories.

So what do you call people who start with a theory and twist and distort their explanations every time observations contradict their theory rather than re-examining their original assertions? Who jump from one doomsday future (coming ice age, global warming, climate change, extreme weather) to another whenever observations don't seem to be helping them out? Who declare that opposition to their theory doesn't exist and, when that no longer works, declare that the opposition is either tainted by funding from (evil) corporations or is incapable of scientific reasoning? Who insist that they themselves are immune to bias due to self-interest? Who demand that massive wealth transfers and extraordinary taxation and regulatory burdens be imposed on the clean producers of the West while giving the filthy producers in China and India a pass? Who are not transparent about their work and respond to requests for their datasets and computer code with excuses not much different from "the dog ate my homework"? Who have been revealed in emails to have conspired to prevent the critics of their theories from publishing and to try to punish journals who would dare to publish dissenting views? Who explicitly excluded media coverage of the meetings at the UN in which the latest IPCC report was created? (<-- If that doesn't scream "political process" rather than "scientific process" to you, then you are hopeless.) Whose most common response to criticism is to call their critics names? I wouldn't call such people objective scientists.

Oh FFS... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45524749)

I think I'm spending too much time on Slashdot. Nothing but fucking depressing stories about how pathetic humans are all the fucking time. It's hard to remain interested in life when Governements and organizations with a lot more money than sense seek to dumb us down, deny us progress and doom our future.

Win win situation... (1, Interesting)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | about 9 months ago | (#45524769)

If these bozos are forced to show that documentary chalk up a win for environmenalism because the film may make a few more people think abut climate change, if they put up a fight chalk up an even bigger win for environmentalims because the publicity raises awareness about global warming. If we get really lucky Fox News will contribute to that publicity by reporting on this before they realize they may actually have caused a few of their viewers to watch the film to see what all the hullablaloo is about (irony, irony...).

Re:Win win situation... (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 9 months ago | (#45524877)

I thought it was literally a documentary about how you should sell your seafront properties?

Re:Win win situation... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45525145)

It's actually a documentary about how the US tax payer should foot the bill for people who own nice beachfront property, plus send billions in the direction of the corporations they own.

Re:Win win situation... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45524887)

If you look at polls, you see that Americans are increasingly reaching the conclusions that (1) AGW is real, and (2) that threats from AGW are vastly exaggerated. In short, they are reaching the scientifically correct conclusions. They'll likely recognize this firm for what it is: a political hack piece.

Reading from the Book of Eugenie Harvey.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45524801)

Thou Shalt Not Suffer a Climate Change Denier to Live...

Time for some empirical work! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45524857)

Let's get one continent, say Europe, to behave as if human climate change were real and another one, say North America, to behave as if it were fake. Let's compare results in a century or so.

There's a reason they "declined" to show it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45524911)

It's a science museum, and climate change is not science.

More discrimination! (1)

Lucky_Pierre (175635) | about 9 months ago | (#45524915)

The museum isn't showing films advocating Lysenko biology either.

Wrong approach (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45524921)

Environmentalists are tackling this topic in the wrong way. The approach has to be more tangible to the lay person. There is no need to attract flack by invoking climate change. Focus on where it hurts most: the taxpayers' wallet. The discussion could have been centered around how much money it costs to repair damaged areas after a huge hurricane like Katrina and Sandy. On top of that, show how the "nanny" state subsidizes flood insurance. I think the discussion could be flipped on its head and it can be approached in a way that attracts a conservative audience.

Re:Wrong approach (1)

ledow (319597) | about 9 months ago | (#45524959)

Providing, of course, that the cost of the solutions (of which there are, basically, none) is also presented.

What's the point of going all-out to solve this problem if it'll cripple the economy of the world MORE than not doing anything?

Nobody even has a solution anyway. All we have is a lot of people shouting about who's right, and nobody has sat down and said "Okay, so let's assume this side is right... what the fuck can we do about it?" and then approach the problem from the opposite angle.

Fact is, any "global" problem needs a global-scale solution, of which there are none, and which will cost global-scale amounts of money, which we're not going to spend until we have a viable solution, and may end up costing more than if we DID have, say, a 10m sea rise.

Re:Wrong approach (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45525161)

You are assuming that if we have a 10m sea level rise then all that will happen is just a loss of dry land. It is quite possible that all that extra water pressing down on the tectonic plates could trigger geological events like volcanoes and earthquakes. Perhaps all that extra weight could pop the super volcano under Yellowstone national park like a boil. Last time something like that happened, 95% of life on earth was killed (late Permian era iirc)

My thoughts on the subject. (1)

Trax3001BBS (2368736) | about 9 months ago | (#45525011)

Nice Museum from the outside, not many places you can place a large
globe of the Earth and it look good. - yet I may be pushing it.

I scanned the articles, No, a museum or library isn't a place for taking sides on such
a subject, how soon many forget, Global warming is of major concern, then not a
month ago were told it's been a farce, (sorry Gore I like you). Temps were ignored
the unseen heat placed in the ocean currents that take can take a thousand years to complete
a cycle, (good hiding spot).

Yet it continues, like nothing happened, with the same importance of stopping it or more than before.

I was taught that the 1940's were the end of the warm cycle, and part of a 100,000 year cycle
personally I look forward to anything that will keep it warmer. but what were being bombarded
with isn't fact, but predetermined results to sway a world.

I applaud a Museum / library for not taking part in this or any debate, they should be (remain) neutral.

In the USA, the climate changes you! (2)

captainpanic (1173915) | about 9 months ago | (#45525045)

In the USA, the climate changes you!

In the Soviet USA, the climate changes you! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45525139)

Corrected that for you.
Nothing reminds Soviet Era of 80s like today's USA

Canute knew he was not God (0)

dbIII (701233) | about 9 months ago | (#45525081)

Canute knew he was not God and couldn't stop the waves - why do these Creationist losers ignore reality to pretend to be better than God? They've got a pretty old lesson there about how you cannot legislate for forces of nature to do what they are told.
They want to frame science is a religion to try to shift the argument so why not go with it and not point out the weakness in their own "Lite" and dumbed down version of religion. If reality challenges it and they can tell their personal God what to do then it's really not worth much is it?
Remember that Jesuits are just as much the perceived enemy of these types as biologists, geologists and now climate scientists.

Brother & Sister State. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45525103)

North Carolina, the other white meat.

The Free Market (4, Informative)

bmo (77928) | about 9 months ago | (#45525175)

"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 [nytimes.com]

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

Heads we win, tails you lose (0)

Applehu Akbar (2968043) | about 9 months ago | (#45525217)

There is no right-wing conspiracy against anthropogenic global warming because none is necessary, since this is the issue that will sink the left.They have invested so much in the most apocalyptic outcome on this issue that if AGW turns out to be exaggerated, they lose all credibility and nobody will ever listen to them again. If AGW really is happening, and to an extent that would require us to stop emitting carbon in one generation, the only way to do so is to go nuclear, massively. Yucca Mountain opens immediately, and a waste recycling complex will have to be built around it. The most cherished chunk of leftish theology vanishes into the political ooze.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>