A Sizzling Debate
Dec 09, 2009
No Comments
The past few weeks have been disheartening for those who believe climate change is a real problem. While I prefer to push clean technologies by arguing for energy independence and keeping our dollars at home, the scientific evidence behind climate change has always made sense to me. So depending on how you feel about the climate change debate, you may find this BBC News clip either uproariously hilarious or pathetically disturbing--or maybe both!Here's what I wish were discussed over this non-issue called "climate-gate."
-
At the risk of offending a certain demographic, the fact that Russian hackers were behind this farce should have been a red flag. You have a country with huge oil reserves and a culture that keeps spam filter developers in business. Enough said.
-
Why the strawman argument over paleoclimate data, one small part of the scientific research and debate over global warming?
-
As for the climate skeptics, why are the loudest voices backed by oil companies and AstroTurf organizations that purport to be grassroots--or advisers to senators like James Inhofe of Oklahoma?
-
I do not know if climate change, or as I prefer to say, climate volatility, is a certainty, a 90% possibility, or even has a 10% chance of wreaking havoc. But I do know that if I were told I'd have a 10% change of dying because of unhealthy habits, I'd sure as heck make some changes.
When you have a debate that pits scientists versus a well-oiled PR machine, it is clear who will look like the winner.
What is needed is an Atticus Finch-like statesman who has the integrity and stature that can deliver the message over why climate change is real. Maybe not: Atticus lost his court case . . . though I think he came out as the winner in the long run. Perhaps Oprah, but she backed Barack, so she won't work.
With these jumbled thoughts, I attended a film screening at UCLA the other night featuring Sizzle, a "global warming comedy" that tries to bring the scientific debate over climate change alive. I wanted to enjoy the film, but I could not. It just did not work.
Forget the crass stereotypes that lacked any witty humor: the vapid gay couple, the thugs from the hood, the blond ditz who loved polar bears but did not know her stats . . . and the joke about Tom Cruise being a scientist, I mean, a Scientologist (sorry, Arrested Development already had that joke down, which Jessica Walter sublimely delivered). And never mind the trip to New Orleans that was supposed to bring the climate change issue alive . . . only for the cast to arrive in the Lower Ninth Ward and engage in another round of Bush-bashing and bemoaning the federal government doing nothing, which we have all heard before. (So wait, if the feds had done something and prevented the levies from leaking and the city collapsing, then the "climate change is real" argument would not have worked, right?) The film was just too predictable: we knew Marion would interrupt an interview to say that climate change was bogus; only later the buy the argument and pick up his homies in a Prius. My colleague and I finally left during the discussion following the film, which was self-congratulatory, full of Al Gore-bashing, and therefore dragging out into an inconvenient bore.
I am just tired of these scientists getting bashed from the skeptics, accused of everything from being communists to lying in order to raise money for nefarious reasons.
But a real spokesman who is not polarizing, can articulate the case on climate change without being condescending, and has a voice that can resonate with folks from all walks of life just is not there yet.
Who's up for the task?
