It's an interesting debate from a PR perspective. There are and always will be, firm supporters and non-supporters on both sides of the climate change debate.
Yet, films or information presented about climate change that are only one-sided, do little good to further the debate. It only increases the distance and opposition of both sides. If you want to add value, you need to present both sides fairly. Although people to decide for themselves. Allow them into the discussion process, and you will increase their buy in.
By creating a film like this one, it is actually counter-productive to the climate denier stance. To see why, take a look at the comments about this film on You Tube.
There are only two evident sides: People who are saying: "Yes! I knew climate change was a hoax!" and then those disclaiming the validity of the arguments in the film.
I for one, obviously, are on the supportive side that climate change is real. And reasonably, watching this video did not change my stance on the issue whatsoever.
But it did bring up some interesting points:
1. I completely agree that the IPCC and environmentalists have an invested interest.
But this is because EVERYONE has an invested interest of some sort. To simply argue that we don't is naive. Humans are self-interested and self-serving!
But to forget that climate change deniers also have a invested interest is also naive. Does the oil and coal industries have a monetary investment in the climate change debate? Yes. They stand to loose a ton of money if there is increasing political movement to cap any fossil fuel development.
2. To attack environmentalists and suggest we do not care about the developing world is a low-blow.
Yes, of course we are concerned about various problems arising from industrialization of the developing world. But this isn't just about greenhouse gas emissions. You think we don't like coal just because it is one of the biggest carbon dioxide emitters? It also creates smog and health problems too.
But the film tries to pull an emotional string with its viewers in that climate change supporters are hurting the development world, by telling them to only develop renewable energy.
Oh no! We are apparently telling African schools to decide between using a light, or the refrigerator. You can't have both! We're so cruel aren't we?!
Are we supposed to believe that climate change deniers care more about the developing world than climate change supporters? For example, you expect me to believe that a large oil company wanting to develop Africa's oil resources does so to alleviate it's suffering? Please. Most companies care about the bottom line: profits and shareholder value. If they happen to go beyond profit making, its usually because their stakeholders are demanding it.
Bottom line, most of us want the developed world to consume less and the developing world to develop better than we did, with less pollution, waste and health problems than we did.
3. Science that is presented as simple facts have no place in either side of the debate.
To make a claim that volcanoes for example, create more carbon dioxide emissions than human-made emissions and stopping there is too simplified.
What also is emitted from volcanoes? Particles. Did you know that when a volcano explodes, that these particles can actually block out the sun? In many instances, volcano eruptions produce a cooling effect.
My purpose is to not to discuss the details of volcanoes, but to simply point out: The science behind climate change is complicated.
There are numerous factors to consider. And to take only a few arguments in isolation without consideration of the bigger picture is simply not credible. Apply this to both sides of the debate. People taking everything at face value in An Inconvenient Truth without looking at it from a critical view point is also wrong.
My support of science of climate change did not arise from watching one video or picking up one book. In fact, I consider myself well educated in the area. I have looked at numerous journals, completed several courses about Climate Change and read several books from both sides. In no way I am claiming to be an expert on the matter, but I have at the very least support my view by seeking both sides of the debate.
4. The purpose of science is to seek the truth. Therefore, its important to support scientists on both sides of the debate.
Science, by its very definition is designed to progress. We need the best scientists to offer their expert opinions and continually monitor the effects. Yet, when scientists resign from the IPCC and do not offer their valuable opinions to the entire body of research, this is counterproductive. Especially when they are used in the film and taken out of context.
The IPCC is a complicated organization. Agreeing on the complicated science is an immensely difficult task. No one is proclaiming they are perfect. No science ever is, especially within a political arena.
But would I take the report of several thousand international scientists over a few deniers? Yes, I do.
In summary, its important to debate both sides and always add value to the conversation. No one wants to hear a one-sided argument anything except for those already on your side. Don't just preach to your followers, try to engage the rest of society critically, thoughtfully and as unbiased as humanly possible. And this advice goes to both sides.
Have something to say? I welcome all well-researched and credible comments.
