November 9, 2016 - 19:20
I want to say that Oreskes and Conway's tale was a powerful warning- but I'm afraid its already more than that. Because, like they say, we do know- but the radical change which might help doesn't seem to be anywhere in sight. The article, as well as the yesterday's election has made me rethink what I said in class, disparaging the usefulness of protest in "All Over Creation". Climate change isn't caused by the actions of individuals, but as Oreskes and Conway acknowledge by societies as a whole. Recycling or changing our consumption patterns isn't enough, the use of fossil fuels is integrated into every aspect of our lives and it would take government policies and funding to fight. Is it possible that such change can only be enacted by a loud, emotionally appealing message that might press for such policy changes? But at the same time, haven't we been swamped already by those messages to no avail? it seems ironic to advocate an emotional reaction to a story that was, itself, an emotional reaction. But what else is there to do? Education doesn't seem to be whats lacking. This story reiterates a common message, which is, after all, its point