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.