dunbar wrote:This thread took off, mostly thanks to Al Gore's creation... now that's an inconvenient truth.
Underrated post.
Searched query: al gore
ignored: al
Return to “Movies as Catalysts for Positive Change”
dunbar wrote:This thread took off, mostly thanks to Al Gore's creation... now that's an inconvenient truth.
That's a separate argument from whether or not it exists and is man-made, though.Pickpocket wrote:Suture Self wrote:Pickpocket wrote:Yes, that must be why Obama tweeted out that 97% of scientists agree because the government is in the camp of the non believers. That must be why the government gives out carbon credits. That must be why the government profits off of you thinking this way. That must be why the people who get paid by the government agree with the government. I'm sorry you're a conformist, but please, try to wake up.
Wake up, America. Climate change was invented by the government. All the scientists are in on it.
And here you are contriving my words. I never said they invented it, I said they profit off of it. You think Al Gore hasn't made millions off of this shit? He's a board member on a fucking carbon credit company you sheep! You think a professor getting government money is going to question that? Will you bite the hand that feeds you?
Suture Self wrote:Pickpocket wrote:Yes, that must be why Obama tweeted out that 97% of scientists agree because the government is in the camp of the non believers. That must be why the government gives out carbon credits. That must be why the government profits off of you thinking this way. That must be why the people who get paid by the government agree with the government. I'm sorry you're a conformist, but please, try to wake up.
Wake up, America. Climate change was invented by the government. All the scientists are in on it.
Suture Self wrote:Pickpocket wrote:Suture Self wrote:I think you guys have a much looser definition of what you mean by "impact" than I do. When I think of something having a positive impact, I'm thinking about an actual change in beliefs, or actual policy change, or a shift in the status quo. In that sense, at least in America, I don't think An Inconvenient Truth did much, although I'm a little more open now that Dardan has provided some quality rebuttals. However, I think, if we're framing this in terms of what good its done for the cause of climate change, I think, in America, one could make the argument that it had a negative effect, or at the very least failed to gain the traction it deserved. I seriously think Al Gore was an awful decision. It should have been a scientist.
What the actual fuck dude? Now Dardan has provided quality rebuttals but before you said "Please realize you're quoting an undergrad paper and a pop-science magazine." Unbelievable. Dardan, I guess since you're a liberal what you say has more credence than some stone age thinker like me.
You talked about goodreads and IMDB ratings and box office performance. Dardan showed me some convincing polls as well as the film's tangible impact in Australia. His rebuttal was more convincing, that's all.
Read my second point again.DrewTheDude wrote:Suture Self wrote:Okay, a couple things, because we seem to be talking past each other.
- An Inconvenient Truth wasn't the turning point for the issue "becoming politicized" at all, because, like I pointed out, those gears were already grinding long before its release due to fossil fuel industry lobbying and propaganda. The response to An Inconvenient Truth might have revealed how truly politicized the issue was, but it wasn't the catalyst for making the issue politicized, ya dig? By 2006 the issue was already unbelievably divisive in America, with or without an Al Gore documentary.
- Politicians talking about climate change doesn't make the issue politicized so of course you're not wrong about Nixon and NATO. Science has always had normative implications and played a role in political discourse and decision making. What I'm taking you to mean by the issue being politicized is that the issue became partisan. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Did I not mention that there was some politicization of the subject before the movie? Was that not my ENTIRE point in bringing up the Nixon/NATO conferences? At this point you're ignoring the arguments I've made so why should I bother making the same argument again?
Suture Self wrote:Okay, a couple things, because we seem to be talking past each other.
- An Inconvenient Truth wasn't the turning point for the issue "becoming politicized" at all, because, like I pointed out, those gears were already grinding long before its release due to fossil fuel industry lobbying and propaganda. The response to An Inconvenient Truth might have revealed how truly politicized the issue was, but it wasn't the catalyst for making the issue politicized, ya dig? By 2006 the issue was already unbelievably divisive in America, with or without an Al Gore documentary.
- Politicians talking about climate change doesn't make the issue politicized so of course you're not wrong about Nixon and NATO. Science has always had normative implications and played a role in political discourse and decision making. What I'm taking you to mean by the issue being politicized is that the issue became partisan. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Pickpocket wrote:Suture Self wrote:I think you guys have a much looser definition of what you mean by "impact" than I do. When I think of something having a positive impact, I'm thinking about an actual change in beliefs, or actual policy change, or a shift in the status quo. In that sense, at least in America, I don't think An Inconvenient Truth did much, although I'm a little more open now that Dardan has provided some quality rebuttals. However, I think, if we're framing this in terms of what good its done for the cause of climate change, I think, in America, one could make the argument that it had a negative effect, or at the very least failed to gain the traction it deserved. I seriously think Al Gore was an awful decision. It should have been a scientist.
What the actual fuck dude? Now Dardan has provided quality rebuttals but before you said "Please realize you're quoting an undergrad paper and a pop-science magazine." Unbelievable. Dardan, I guess since you're a liberal what you say has more credence than some stone age thinker like me.
Suture Self wrote:Lol, they teach Bill Nye in schools, too. They show a lot of videos in school. Does this mean it had an impact? No. It just means teachers are too lazy to teach actual climate science. If this is your proof that it's had a significant impact on public awareness concerning the realities of climate change, I'm not convinced.
Suture Self wrote:The media is definitely complicit in making climate change a wedge issue, don't get me wrong. That's actually part of my point. Public awareness of climate change being a wedge issue isn't public awareness of the reality of climate change. The media loves framing it as a wedge issue.
Suture Self wrote:I think you guys have a much looser definition of what you mean by "impact" than I do. When I think of something having a positive impact, I'm thinking about an actual change in beliefs, or actual policy change, or a shift in the status quo. In that sense, at least in America, I don't think An Inconvenient Truth did much, although I'm a little more open now that Dardan has provided some quality rebuttals. However, I think, if we're framing this in terms of what good its done for the cause of climate change, I think, in America, one could make the argument that it had a negative effect, or at the very least failed to gain the traction it deserved. I seriously think Al Gore was an awful decision. It should have been a scientist.
Dardan wrote:
https://reason.com/archives/2014/06/13/ ... n-liberals
The divide in emotion and intelligence is more complex than left vs. right. It depends on what kind of liberal you are and what kind of right-winger you are. And even then, this generalization is way too strong.