Given that Randy Olson is not only a director but also the founder of the Shifting Baselines Ocean Media Project as well as my co-blogger, you might expect that I have favorable things to say about his latest film--and I do. It was a delight to watch Sizzle and equally delightful to be privy to the evolution of the film from an idea to interview clips to a full-length feature...comedy?
Sizzle is indeed funny. But it is so much more that it becomes difficult to categorize, which is part of its strength. From serious statements by scientists to dazzling polar bear shots, from Olson's mother Muffy Moose out clubbing to a sobering finale with Katrina victims in New Orleans' Ninth Ward, Sizzle wrings a new twist in what has become a wet blanket of a topic: global warming.
Olson challenges the audience to abandon the idea of genre with a half-cast of hired actors, including Mitch Silpa (the infamous David Blaine look-alike and the garrulous Officer Phillip Pick-O), and the other half is real-life scientists and communicators (though some are more entitled to speak on the topic of global warming than others). With this recipe, there is truly something for everyone.
In this world of half-genres, the climate skeptics almost seem like actors because they are so convincing (which is part of Olson's point). The skeptics might be good communicators but, unfortunately, as Olson points out, they are of the same group of miscreants who denied the fact that smoking causes cancer and/or that CFCs damaged the atmosphere. One of the film's arch skeptics, Dr. Chilingarian, was a continued source of amusement and his facts were almost as crooked as his fuzzy mustache.
But just how were these goons given a voice on the subject of climate change? Dr. Noemi Oreskes of the University of California San Diego reminds us (in a shifting baselines moment) that, back in the 1960s, the pubic and even President Lyndon Johnson once took climate scientists seriously. Then there came the era of Reaganomics corporate strategy, and climate skepticism and...Presto!.
While there are tactical skeptics (who say things such as "nobody can predict the future"), there are also antidotes to this lingo that scientists can and do employ (e.g., the fact that climate models developed back in the 1980s have largely predicted the patterns we see today). In the end, the skeptics will be remembered only for being skeptics while scientist turned filmmaker Randy Olson will undoubtedly be remembered for his insightful commentary on science communications.
- Log in to post comments
Logic 101 -- ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy. AGW skeptics = smoking causing cancer deniers? Give me a break. And you are a PHd candidate? I have an MA in Comparative Religion and no professor I ever had would let me get away with such drivel. If you have a point to make provide evidence with examples that are not cherry picked from the extremes.
"(e.g., the fact that climate models developed back in the 1980s have largely predicted the patterns we see today)."
This is NOT factually correct. Actually the Earth has cooled over the past 10yrs while CO2 continues to go up. A fact that the models do NOT predict:
http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Letter_UN_Sec_Gen_Ban_Ki-moon.pdf
Wow . . . based on the factual inaccuracies in your writing, or maybe just outright lies, it seems the requirements for a PH. D. have been seriously lowered.
The climate models are working, predicting what is actually happening. Uh huh.
I'd bet you still think the Hockey Stick is real.
You can believe the Climate Models or the real world data, but not both.
Yep, it sure looks like the Earth is cooling---global temperature data from 4 sources show no warming:
http://bp3.blogger.com/__VkzVMn3cHA/SFs25eMZegI/AAAAAAAAAC8/pDT5GEKQTUA…
Where is the crisis? Why do the climate models all showing warming?
Bob B - What a way to convince people of your viewpoint. Putting up a link to a picture with no caption, citations or any sort of references as to where the data came from. Not knowing anything about the the data, it already seems to be somewhat out of context and possibly falsely generated. Not too many scientists would publish a graph where the word "Anomoly" in the title is misspelled. And, building on that point, it is a graph of temperature anomalies, meaning that any point above zero means a temperature higher than baseline was recorded (baseline is often a historical average). Since basically all points on that graph were above the zero baseline marker, this does suggest that temperature are warmer than the recent past. But, again, I can't really tell much of anything about what the graph means because of the lack of background information and credible evidence that this data set is accurate.
Also, so interesting to notice that if one had chosen a 9 year data set instead of an 11 year data set (one which missed the huge anomaly in 1997-1998), there would actually be a rising trend. Perhaps the same would be true if you are looking at a 15 year data set which decreases the weighting of that single event in the data set. Gotta love selective data crunching...
Dear CC---you can get the data from most places and plot it yourself;
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.htm
UAH,RSS and Hadrcut are easily available.
Lucia does a good job of showing the IPCC projections have been falsified:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/
But the AGW crowd keeps on telling the public to panic, even though the Earth hasn;t been increasing temp for over ten years
Lake Superior's water levels disturbingly normal and cold in mid-summer.
http://wluctv6.com/news/news_blog_post.aspx?id=159186
- because average never gets a headline, that's why.
Sorry Ms. Jacquet, we are not impressed.
Rather than throwing mud around and showing off your hero
Naomi Oreskes you'd better come up with the science that proves your point.
I am afraid you won't have it, there isn't any.
All you have is flawed computer models that can not even predict the past, let alone the future.
Fudging the numbers is apparently acceptable practise.
Nobody lost his job...let the Funding Stream not be stopped by any of these acts of incompetence.
Believe People! Believe! No need for evidence!
Kool Aid anyone?
Junkscience.com? Isn't that the one run by FOX news commentataor and oil industry lobbyist Steve Milloy? The guy who wrote: "Explanations of human evolution are not likely to move beyond the stage of hypothesis or conjecture."? The guy who lobbied for asbestos companies?
Way to go getting accurate data, dude. Not.
Laugh all you want at Steve Milloy, Paul Murray
His site has a $ 500,000 prize waiting for any scientist
that provides a paper that proves without a doubt that
Carbon Dioxide is the culprit of Global warming as advertised.
So far, exactly zero entries have been received since the start of this contest in March 2007. You'd think that a few of these alarmists could use an extra half million bucks, by just putting on paper what they claim is so
cristal clear.
Half baked fudged work such as that brilliant paper from Team Hockey Stick need not apply.
Do you have the evidence? Write your report and apply for that award.
If you, or anybody else wins that money I will convert.
Paul Murray--Dude. Go to the RSS,UAH and Hadcrut sites yourself and see the data is the same. Then if you have the brains or rudimentary skills in EXCEL go plot the data for yourself. Oh you can;t can you? All you can do is sit back and try to discredit data because of your perceived political leanings.
Lets ignore the patent nonsense spouted by the short-sighted, ignorant, and/or gullible global warming denialists (GWDs), whose juvenile claims have been soundly refuted elsewhere, and focus on the topic of this blog, which is Olsons documentary.
It seems that Olsons target in Sizzle is the same as it was in Flock of Dodos, which is the apparent inability of scientists to communicate effectively.
He thinks hes making the case that the opposition (the creation-ID-ists/GWDs) are quite simply better communicators than are the allies (the evolutionists/global warming experts). This is Olsons fallacy.
So how does Olson communicate this communication failure? Ive read all the blog reviews of Sizzle listed on sci-blogs front page, and it seems to me that the only way Olson has found to communicate is with stereotypes, disingenuity and a Big Easy Lie. This is most definitely the way the creationists/GWDs do it, but is it the best way to do it? I seriously doubt it.
Well see how the black community and the gay community respond to the stereotyping theyve garnered. What I found most interesting in the reviews was how few of the scientists who reviewed Sizzle commented on the stereotyping of scientists, which was almost as insulting as that evidently perpetrated on gays and blacks.
Instead of insulting scientists, thereby setting a poor example of how to communicate (especially to scientists), why didnt Olson use this film as a prime showcase of how he thinks scientists ought to be communicating? Evidently the café interview of Oreskes was the only instance of this and rather than offer more of that, he whisked everyone away to the Big Easy Lie.
Instead of setting up inauthentic or misleading interviews, which is exactly what Ben Stein did in Expelled, why didnt Olson set up interviews with people who are good communicators or set up his interviews in an atmosphere which would promote good communication from the scientists he did showcase?
Clearly his message fell on deaf or partially deaf ears with all-too-many of the scientists who reviewed the film. These are scientists who are in the business of communication as evidenced by the fact that they are blogging. If his message fails at a significant rate amongst intelligent, interested and successful communicators here, then how on Earth does he imagine that his film will be received with clarity and good humor in the scientific community at large, especially when he starts out by insulting them?
And why mislead about what the problem is? Scientific evidence is important. Equally important is how we know how to accurately interpret it. The problem is that you see neither the creationists nor the GWDs attacking the evolutionists/global warming experts by saying theyre communicating poorly. Theyre attacking the science or the interpretation of this science. The correct response to this is not to whine that were badly framing. The response is to show (in easily understood ways if were aiming at the lay population) that the science is good and to show with equal clarity how we know that the science is good.
But theres a bigger problem here. Olson thinks that simply resolving poor communication will fix the problem. It wont. The creationists/GWDs are preaching to the choir. Theyre not winning new converts, theyre merely galvanizing the scientifically ignorant (as many of comments to this blog show conclusively). Theyre not presenting science, nor overturning established science (although that is one of their goals, by whatever means they can think up).
What they are doing rather effectively is not leveling the playing field, but plowing it up and cultivating the weeds of doubt.
The way to fix this is to categorically insist on sound science education in schools and to countenance absolutely no equivocation. Nothing else is going to work in and of itself.
What certainly isnt going to work is the Big Easy Lie, whereby instead of bringing everyone face-to-face with the unequivocal fact of global warming, we whisk them off to the tragedy of New Orleans, which had nothing whatsoever to do with global warming.
What happened in New Orleans would have happened if a hurricane like Katrina had hit where it did regardless of whether the planet was warming, cooling, or going nowhere.
You can argue all you like about whether hurricanes are becoming more numerous, more intense, or putting the wind up people because of global warming, but whether they are nor not had zero to do with the flooding of a major American city and the incontrovertibly disgusting lack of preparedness for it and response to it.
Lets by all means educate people about whats going on, but lets not do it in the evidently confusing, disseminating and misleading fashion which Sizzle appears to adopt.
Ian - You kind of lost your credibility in your first sentence by saying Sizzle is a documentary. It isn't.
Ian, the fact that Outfest will be the first festival to show the film, this weekend in LA, actually shows quite a bit of support from the gay community, dontcha think?
Erik, Orion Grassroots Network
Plus it's already been accepted to the Chicago Gay and Lesbian Film Festival, which makes 2 of the top 5 gay film festivals in the country. NY, SF, and Miami will all be next spring. More importantly, a lot of gay men watched early cuts of the film to make certain it wasn't offensive to the gay community in general.
I've heard this one before...let's see, equating us climate realists with Nazis ("deniers") and cigarette CEOs. Why is it that you so-called really smart scientists just throw names at us "dumb" scientists? Why don't you ACTUALLY DEBATE based on science, instead of throwing words around like "consensus," "denier," "flat-earther," "skeptic," "IPCC," etc?
Why won't you debate Dr. Richard Lindzen at MIT? Because you're all a bunch of Kool-Aid-drinking lunatics who've been brainwashed by agenda-driven professors. You do understand that many scientists of the IPCC "consensus" have stated their opinions were distorted, ignored, or changed outright (Dr. Lindzen being one). This has grown into the "drink 8 glasses of water per day" myth, and the media's propaganda machine is directly responsible.
In REAL science (not politically-tainted science), there's ALWAY DEBATE. It's never turned off (even when Al Gore says to), and professionals don't ostracize their cohorts for a contrary opinion. If we realists are "deniers" then you alarmists are like those religious zealots who tortured Galileo (the "Great Denier") for bucking the "consensus" of his day and DENYING THAT THE EARTH WAS THE CENTER OF THE KNOWN UNIVERSE.
"Lets ignore the patent nonsense spouted by the short-sighted, ignorant, and/or gullible global warming denialists (GWDs), whose juvenile claims have been soundly refuted elsewhere, and focus on the topic of this blog, which is Olsons documentary.
So your PROOF of this is where?????
I am prepared to go line--by line with you over any AGW info you think you may have.
The facts are on my side---the Earth has cooled for the past--6-10yrs
No warming crisis here. The data continues to gather in the skeptics favor.
Are you a man are are you a Gore groupie with brain dead intellect??????
Oh--this got cut off---this is for Ian---or any Gore groupie.
Jennifer, go into fashion modeling. You'll make a fortune. Give up science, "Go For The Gold"
Emmett S: That's why I put the word "documentary" in quotes. Duhh. Please read for comprehension. You might learn something other than blind arrogance.
Erik: I suspect that it shows far more support for a film about global warming than it does for any particular tone in the film. That's why I indicated we need to wait and see what the reaction is instead of making assumptions about that. That's why I focused on the insulting tone which was evidently taken towards scientists rather than pursued what gays and blacks may or may not think.
It is, however, worth bearing in mind that even subtle insults, when let slde or tolerated, can eventually accumulate into an ugly larger picture where unwarranted patronizing and insulting is seen as a norm.
Bob B: Where I live, it hasn't rained in a week. Does that mean that rain is all done with now and it will never rain again? Please, get a clue.
When you can get over your obsessive compulsion with your misinformation over the last decade's temperatures, which means nothing in terms of a massive phenomenon like global climate change, and focus on both getting your facts straight and on what's actually visibly happening in the world, you might learn something. Until then you're not worth any time other than what it took to type this.
Ian--you obviously know nothing of science and data
"When you can get over your obsessive compulsion with your misinformation over the last decade's temperatures,"
You simply go to the WEB sites RSS,UAH that gather the global temperature data and read it---now that's real hard isn;t it?
I guess you are incapable of that. So if and when you can actually do that, come back here and we can argue over the data.
If you're a clueless hack, sure. If you actually want to understand the data, you need to apply statistics. There are right ways to do that, and many, many wrong ways. Calculating a linear trend over a single time period with an obvious outlier near one end is not generally accepted as a right way, oddly enough.
MartinM--this is how you do it:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/result-of-boring-series-gavins-clo…
For those people who actually are in the know, this is being discussed pretty widely. It is now accepted that the Earth has cooled for the past 10yrs and for the past 6-7 the IPCC projections are falsified.
Myth on consensus of global warming explodes!
http://www.dailytech.com/Myth+of+Consensus+Explodes+APS+Opens+Global+Wa…
There are four main temperature outlets for global mean temperature. GISS is the odd one out. UHA, RSS and HadCRUT3v are the others. These are the outlets from which all scientists on both sides draw their data. There can be no disagreement on that fact. I am afraid that they all show a cooling trend in the last six years, with no warming since 1998. Those who spout silliness about global warming have in the main tended to adopt the term "climate change". Since the only thing constant about climate is change, why do we need to get excited about it? Could it be that someone's found a moral crusade? Could they by any chance have created a false dicotomy in which the goodies are the AGW believers and the baddies, deniers and associated with big oil? What nonsense.
Junkscience.com? Isn't that the one run by FOX news commentataor and oil industry lobbyist Steve Milloy? The guy who wrote: "Explanations of human evolution are not likely to move beyond the stage of hypothesis or conjecture."? The guy who lobbied for asbestos companies?
I think people differ greatly on this issue. For example, if it were completely unidentifiable as my own, I would have no problem with a picture of my naked ass being posted on the Internet. Others would be absolutely horrified by the prospect.
I think people differ greatly on this issue. For example, if it were completely unidentifiable as my own, I would have no problem with a picture of my naked ass being posted on the Internet. Others would be absolutely horrified by the prospect.