This. This is it. This is the movie that will finally do what Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth couldn't. There is no way a right thinking and reasonable person can watch this movie and continue to believe that climate change, and more specifically global warming, is not happening. It's just not possible. James Balog's pictures and video stand for themselves, as an argument that cannot be denied. Oh, and it's a really good documentary as well. But it's going to be remembered (and debated) based on the merits of climate change, which is why I posted it here. I highly recommend you all watch it as soon as you possibly can. It is stunning.
No, this isn't about logic or truth. It is about seeing it happen with your own eyes. No science, no charts (though there is a bit of both). Ultimately you just watch for four years as glaciers just... disappear.
"Sure, the earth is warming up but there's no proof that global warming is caused by human activities." You'll be reading and hearing this more and more.
Yeah, I think a lot of the climate change deniers have accepted that climate change is happening, but refuse to accept that we're causing/contributing to it in any meaningful way.
And the next steps after that are "yes, it's happening and we're causing it but the effects won't be all that bad" followed by "...but it's too late to do anything about it."
neat trailer. I'd like to see this, but being in the sticks (by which I mean our state's capitol) it's not here until the end of the month.
I'm not sure that I'd be able to see it any time soon (or in a theatre at all) so I'm crossing my fingers that it'll make its way to Netflix at some point or something.
I'm sure Charles is right in the sense that this'll knock people off the fence who happened to be right-wing/skeptical enough to ignore things so far but are affected by the impact of plain visual evidence, but bobj's right on the money in saying that "non-anthromorphic climate change" is a fallback position for people wedded to opposing environmentalism.
You mean "anthropogenic". I think you meant to type "anthropomorphic", which would be like furries but for weather.
It's a natural process. The Earth has always gone through periods of warming. I don't know why you're making something of this that isn't there. Volcanos put out ten thousand times the pollution every year that humans do, so suggesting that something like this could be anthropogenic is anti-science.
Another thing this movie does is *show* you how the scientists take readings from hundreds of thousands of years ago, by showing you the actual air bubbles that are released by the glaciers as they melt; when you see there is actual air there, in ice that is half a million years old, you are going to be far more likely to believe that scientists can actually pull carbon dioxide readings out of the ice. One of the only charts in the movie shows the PPM count of CO2 over the last 400000 years. We're sitting on quite a spike.
I think you're being far too charitable regarding the critical faculties of AGW deniers, Charles. It's motivated reasoning, seeing a video isn't going to change that.
Well, that's why I qualified above with "right thinking and reasponable" people. If someone is motivated to lie to others or themselves, or simply won't accept what's staring them in the face, well, fuck those people. But I would think that actually seeing it happen might still change people's minds. In fact one of the big interesting moments in the movie to me was when James Balog admits that until he started taking pictures of ice, he was of the opinion that it was impossible for humans to alter the planet in a meaningful way.
Pretty much. While I admire your optimism Charles, at this point the reasons for not believing in climate change are either: 1) Motivated reasoning. You've got a financial interest in denying climate change. Viewing the film isn't going to change that. 2) Tribalism. Climate Change is one of those things come up with by Those Other Guys so fuck them GO TEAM REPUBLICAN. The movie - at least based on the trailer - isn't going to undermine either dynamic. That's not to say it won't be a good movie (it sure looks like it is) and it won't be an important rhetorical tool (it might be), but in terms of changing minds its effect will probably be minimal.
The subject has been made a political issue, something subjective that can be willed to behave one way or another via a political process. When people are willing to deny objective science there is no changing their minds, they've made their decision and short of climate change taking physical form and slapping these people across their face changing their mind it isn't going to happen. It's the same with evolution/creationism, facts aren't relevant people simply believe whatever they want in spite of the facts.
People's opinions will move toward what fits with the truth, it's just that it will be slow. This is frustrating for those of us who've already arrived, but facing up to unpleasant realities isn't something people are inclined to do both rapidly and en masse. It'll happen, though.
I don't believe this, people's opinions have actively moved away from all sorts of facts, why else are some schools now teaching various forms of creationism in science class.
I guess I'd need to see the stats, but my first guess would be that YEC is a dwindling phenomenon and has been on a downward trend for centuries, it's just that we started from a high base and the progression is slow.
No, the trailer doesn't do the movie justice. You have to see it to understand what I mean. Point number 2 is exactly the point I think this can influence. I think there's a lot of right thinking people who are just deluded and misled who fall under point 2, and I think that seeing this movie, and seeing what it represents, with their own eyes, could prove pivotal.
Well the issue isn't just young earth creationism but also intelligent design, at least when it comes to science and what should/shouldn't be taught in science classes at schools. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tionism-just-15-percent-accept-evolution.html
Charles, have you spent any time on the denier blogs and dealt with any on a regular basis? This sort of thing does not help. They'll seize on any minor inaccuracy or flood it with bullshit responses, and move on.
There's a pretty big difference between arguing on the internet, and seeing evidence with one's own eyes.
That's a "no" I take it? You don't understand the mentality of these people. A lot of them are very well versed in countering stuff like this. You only have to look at the discussions on various "skeptic" blogs to understand how this works.
I think the people who argue on blogs are a different class of idiot. I think that commonly deluded people who listen to talking heads are largely not the same people who will argue on blogs. Framing my suggestions as invalid BECAUSE BLOGS really doesn't do much. I think you should watch the movie yourself. Those people on blogs? They are crazification factor. They cannot be helped. They are also the ones you don't need to convince in order to see support for real change.
The problem is you're ultra-compartimentalizing people (yay made up word of the day!) People that post on blogs can go out and see movies. People that see movies can log onto the internet and post on/watch blogs The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, people can be bat shit conservitave insane lunatics who don't do either. You need a lot better research then "I think people..." or you run the risk of ending up in the same situation as Romney was on election night Note: to clarify I'm not just dismissing your argument out of hand and think the majority of people can't be swayed by the movie. I havn't done any research either. You may very well be right... but I do think that you should be prepared to admit you could be just as wrong as you're warning other people in the thread that they could be wrong.
Well, thankfully, we'll never see a metric of whether I'm wrong or not, but if the movie changes even one person's mind I'm perfectly willing to accept the win. Nyah. That being said I think everyone here should try and see the movie, and then revisit the thread. Because I'm not a denier, and I already *know* what's happening with the glaciers and icecaps, and the movie still shocked me and took my breath away. The immediacy of watching it cannot be conveyed in text.
I am not familiar with a single person who goes against the mainstream view on AGW who doesn't parrot the lines repeated on those blogs. I'm sorry but I really don't think you understand the problem. People deny AGW because it fulfills some need in them; either some sort of anti-Government streak, the love of a conspiracy, or plain and simple the desire to be right about something that almost everyone else is wrong about, just to feel superior. I can't tell you how many hours I've wasted trying to educate people on AGW but the fact is the percentage of people who can be persuaded with hard facts is vanishingly small. What you're left with is a core of people who cannot be convinced.
And yet you are still missing my point, which is that this film will not persuade with facts, but with that ever more reliable gut reaction. Which we all know, especially from BECAUSE BLOGS, gut reaction is often far more important to someone's point of view than facts.
OK dude. This film is going to magically persuade a whole bunch of crazies who have shown themselves to be unpersuadable thus far. I hope you're right. I'm almost certain you're wrong.
If we are not talking about the crazies, then we are talking about a set of people all of whom accept AGW.
It might persuade some of the "well, yeah the globe is warming but it's not our fault" folks. Some of them must be just misinformed.
I'm not sure whether or not Charles' optimistic predictions are correct, but I don't think they're baseless. Imagery is a much more powerful persuader, for large groups of people, than reasoning or evidence. A large part of the problem of persuading people of the seriousness of global warming is, how do you convey that, eg, ocean temperatures at a depth of 700m rising by 0.1 C is a terrible problem? "What does that even look like?" If footage of colossal glaciers rapidly disappearing helps to dramatise and illustrate just how powerful the changes taking place in our atmosphere really are, that may well change a lot of people's minds. It may "sensitise" them to things they had already heard or half-heard without really paying attention or following what they meant.
Well, Charles got his one person, so he can retire from the thread: I happen to understand, what he means. He might be too optimistic, but I think that a number of people like this lady are easily convinced by 'personalities' because the subject is otherwise way too complex for them to even grasp - getting them to see with their own eyes with a movie like this might convince them. Charles is probably too optimistic about how many of these people there are or how many will ever "waste" time watching something like this - especially if those same personalities tell them not to, because it's biased.
What a horrible, piece of shit excuse for a human being. Yes, she saw the light, and yes, she might end up becoming a decent human. But these are the people that pragmatists have to convince in order to make their case for global warming/Obamacare/any rational issue. You folk have your work cut out for you. I don't know whether to salute you, pity you, or just say that you're wasting your time. But one thing I am sure of: I don't envy you. "If you believe differently from me, you need to step outside of my house." Fuck you, lady. You're the problem.
