Dr. Angela Collier plays the Binding of Isaac: Rebirth and talks at length about what went wrong with string theory, and how that affected science communication.
Dr. Angela Collier plays the Binding of Isaac: Rebirth and talks at length about what went wrong with string theory, and how that affected science communication.
There are no solutions to climate change that are contingent on a particular party being in power in a single nation when the problem isn’t confined to a single nation. Making the environment about Democrats over Republicans is wildly dangerous because it breeds contentment: people think they did their part in electing the “right” person and stop giving a damn. Politics isn’t going to offer a solution to climate change, but they’ll certainly tell you they’ve got em.
Tell me you’re okay with being lied to in order to be made afraid, tell me you’re okay with science being misrepresented for political brownie points, and I’ll tell you you’re no better than a grubby politician yourself, because that’s all that standpoint serves. Political brownie points. It’s “ends justify the means” logic. “Its fine to fear monger and lie and misrepresent facts as long as you’re doing so on support of the right ideology” is wildly stupid and dangerous reasoning.
Who is lying and fearmongering? The only ones lying or misrepresenting data are people who deny that climate change is happening or that it’s as severe as it is.
And while I have no faith in Democrats in the US to do anything meaningful, because they haven’t, it’s undeniable that when Republicans are in power, things get significantly worse. In the US we have one party that has no spine or will to do anything, and another that is not only actively denying climate change, but seeks to continue actions that accelerate it, all while gutting regulatory bodies and dismantling previous efforts.
However
If you think scientists and activists are lying and misrepresenting the data, then you haven’t actually looked at the data. I’m not going to debate the realities of climate change with you or anyone else. The data is incontrovertible. There aren’t two sides here, and debate only gives credence to people who try to claim it isn’t happening.
The core of the issue is human greed. And that greed is given free reign under capitalism. Capitalism is the problem, and it’s end is the only way forward. That is a political issue and, short of people forming militias and destroying fossil fuel companies, is going to have to be dealt with in a political arena.
Notice that never once have I said “vote Democrat” or “I endorse fearmongering to get people to vote Democrat”
I’m also just going to hop in here to note that you two seem to be making fairly similar points:
While there are clearly some differences in worldview here, it might be more productive to explore where you can find common ground on this issue.
I might be wrong, but I suspect that if I were to ask both of you to discuss what it is we should actually be doing about climate change I’d get two very similar responses, probably just differing on which things should get the most emphasis. (In fact, I am asking that, if you feel you can take the time to answer.)
I am referring to Crichton’s opinion, which was directly the result of and stated about the film An Inconvenient Truth and Al Gore and the democrats early 2000 campaign of “vote Democrat or burn in apocalypse”.
I am not referring to something you said.
It’s true that democrats are better than republicans. Crichton was a Democrat. A donor even.
Crichton was adult enough to offer criticism of his own team, valid criticism. That doesn’t mean and didn’t mean he was a climate change denier. He wasn’t. He was a researcher, a medical doctor, and an academic. He had a nuanced take, and he was absolutely right: no meaningful change will come about from only one party or only one side.
The problem isn’t confined to one side so one side cannot by themselves affect it. We voted Obama twice and the climate is still fucked. You can argue he tried but I’ll tell you even if he accomplished 10000% of his goals he wouldn’t have fixed the problem. It’s a much deeper problem than 8 years can fix. Or 50 years. This is a generational problem. It will take generations to fix. So anyone telling you if you don’t vote for them, you’ll die, is probably just misusing the science.
And taking someone to task over the environment because you feel they voted the wrong way for it is just doing the same thing. It’s misusing the science for political ends. You and I might agree that those ends are just, but that doesn’t mean we agree that it’s okay to misrepresent facts to get there.
I would argue that only politics is going to offer a real solution here. Individual actions can help, but climate change is a huge problem that will take coordination on a massive scale to deal with. Politics is how we do that. “Politics” means much more than just which box you tick come election season.