Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The Conversation is worried that climate disaster films like Sharknado might damage the credibility of climate scientists, because sometimes the characters in such movies use scientific sounding language to discuss preposterous fictional climate disasters.
Why ‘Sharknado 4’ matters: Do climate disaster movies hurt the climate cause?
…
At their heart, however, the “Sharknado” films are stories about climate change, albeit in a way that is scientifically flawed to a comical degree. It’s a genre – climate disaster films – we decided to explore as an emerging mode of communication in society.
Fiction helps us understand reality
It’s explained in the original “Sharknado” that climate change has created an unusually strong tropical cyclone approaching Southern California. The sequels backed away from that explanation, whether out of a desire to avoid courting political controversy or simply because the creators felt that sharknados needed no explanation, we can’t be sure. But casting climate change as a catalyst for extreme, globally threatening natural disasters is a move characteristic of a small but growing genre of climate disaster films.
…
To get a better sense of how fictional disaster films shape environmental attitudes, I (Lauren) conducted an in-depth analysis of 18 disaster films featuring climate change. The results of my research show that most of these films make only tenuous connections between climate change and natural disasters, which affects how people react to them.
Terminology related to climate change and extreme weather is often misused, and it’s not uncommon to see films that use the term “climate change” or “global warming” to refer to completely different phenomena – some of which are physically impossible and could happen in no world. For example, one film uses climate change to discuss a buildup of methane gas in the atmosphere that is predicted to ignite, incinerating all life on Earth.
The results from focus groups I held with participants who watched one of three representative disaster films confirm that these scientifically dubious depictions of climate change dilute any perceived environmental message in climate disaster films. Most participants were unconvinced – often with good reason – that anything shown in the films could happen in the real world and did not see much of an environmental message.
…
It’s worth noting, however, that “The Day After Tomorrow” was an exception within the larger climate disaster film genre, both in terms of its production value and its (relatively) detailed discussion of climate change. Low-budget films like “Sharknado,” which stray very far afield from climate science, likely pose different possibilities for both misinformation and engagement with climate change. The question, then, is how to best tap into this potential while avoiding the pitfalls.
I suspect films like Sharknado are more about mockery of establishment climate narratives, than about promoting concern. The credibility of climate as an urgent issue has long since passed. When given a choice between different issues, people consistently rate climate as one of their lowest priorities.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If ‘The Day After Tommorrow” is the best of the bunch then they are in bad shape. I couldn’t help laughing through the whole movie. Completely preposterous.
“The Day After Tommorrow” =
warm: nice
ice: SCARY
Why worry about movies when Al Gore Mr. Mann the Ship of Fools etc. etc. is enhancing skepticism around the world?
I, for one, appreciate that The Conversation is coming around. They suspect Sharknado was a grotesque parody. They might be on to something.
And it is great to see “The Day After Tomorrow” upheld as the scientific gold standard by which those other films are judged, proving that climate is an easy game to play. Who knew that this was even possible? Waiter, can we see the code for the computer model please? Who knew that hurricanes would obligingly elongate and distort themselves like vermicious knids near the poles so they would appear to be circular on a Mercator projection map? But why stop there! Let’s tile the whole damned planet with himicanes, hericanes and ittybitty-canes, the better to resemble the eyes of a vengeful God! All white and wooly like that lamb with the howevermany eyes in the Book of Revelations. Those eyes are looking at YOU accusingly! Avert your gaze and buy carbon credits.
Before dismissing the impact of a climate disaster movie, I think we should remember a quote from Scott Adams: “You can never underestimate the stupidity of the general public”.
So… you’re a sharknado denier??
Ha ha…Their politics, and wanting to prosecute, sue, silence, and jail their opposition damaged their “climate credibility”
The Conversion sez:
At their heart, however, the “Sharknado” films are stories about climate change
No, those made-for-tv movies are just plain stupid.
Paraphrasing from above : “It’s not uncommon to … use the term “climate change” or “global warming” to refer to ….. phenomena – some of which are physically impossible and could happen in no world.”
Sounds like the typical alarmist claims to me – pretty much on the same level as Sharknado. Too funny !
I think it terribly unfair to be so down on Sharknado. It really could happen. I have a model……..
lol, Mr. Pattullo. And so do Huey, Dewey, and Louey (et al.) and The Seven Dwarfs (a.k.a. “the team”) and Daffy Duck and Wile E. Coyote and Little Bo-Peep and Wee Willie Winkie and about 3 dozen other clowns. And THEY ALL SAY THE SAME THING!
Such agreement cannot be mere coincidence.
Must be right.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! — Not. 🙂
Oh, and Mr. Pattullo, here’s the memo you missed: Whenever you talk about sharknado, remember, team, it is always “and this is highly certain to happen unless we build lots of windmills and all ride our bicycles everywhere we go.” Cheers.
All along I thought it was data manipulation, presentation of scenarios as predictions, manufactured consensus, sophomoric scare tactics and failed predictions that were wrecking the credibility of climate science.
Sit back and view the aftermath, climate science. Sharknado IS what you have become. Remember you thought it was a good idea to enlist the help of Hollywood in support of your cause.
Be careful what you ask for. Even Cameron can’t pull a rabbit out of this hat.
The Conversation is not even worth reading, might as well rad John Cook’s diary for all the difference of opinion there would be. They sanitise comments too weeks after you post. They purged my comments from the Gerghis article even though, cos FOI emails refuted what Gerghis was claiming in the article.
The Conversation clearly has a leftist agenda and it is rare to see anything that isn’t clearly out in ‘left field.’ However, I have not noticed any of my comments being deleted, even after several months. I offered a conservative viewpoint article on gun control and did not even get the courtesy of a “Thank you, but no thank you.” They are unapologetically liberal. Perhaps if some of this troupe were to comment on their climate articles they would get a dose of reality to deal with. They are really engaged in propaganda and they might be more selective in what they choose to publish if many people were to routinely take them to task.
This summer isn’t completely lost, as the second Lavalantula movie will be on SciFi next weekend. Cheers –
If the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, presented by Matt Damon, can use sciency words, there is no reason why Sharknado can’t.
That Sci-Fi Channel has really gone down hill in the last few years.
It’s sad, because there are probably more science fiction plots out there in book form than any other subject. Really good science fiction plots.
Some genius could turn these stories into a mountain of wealth, if they did it right, which means turning a good book, or short story, into a good screenplay, which is not automatic.
“That Sci-Fi Channel has really gone down hill in the last few years.”
it happened when they went from SciFi to Syfy aka the syphilis channel.
Off topic but you should watch Tales from the Script to find out how screenplays get bastardized by production. It was eye-opening.
Well Halibutnado would be more credible but who is going to be moved to climate action by the prospect of a month’s worth of fish dinners being dropped on them? Nope it’s going to have to be ‘Sharknado’s forever even if people look back on them as being silly.
Will NO ONE think of the Sharks?! I am aghast at the story….not once did they think of those poor sharks being sucked up into a tornado, or forced into low orbit, or made to actually USE the LA Freeway system filled with a torrential 6″ of fresh water! How many sharks have to die to get their message through! And lets NOT go into the immense sacrifice of the shark in the finale of the first Sharknado. That shark was killed just so the protagonist could escape from it’s stomach with a chainsaw! The sheer amount of animals that movie slaughtered was intolerable and their focus is getting an environmental message through?! HOW DARE THEY SLAUGHTER THE INNOCENT for the masses!
I think that about sums up the worth of the entire article don’t you? In all seriousness….there is a SHARKNADO 4!!! OMG! I can’t wait to pop the corn, sit back with a beer, and laugh myself silly…all while pointing out the ridiculousness of the situation, the shoddy post production and of course tearing apart Tara Reid’s complete lack of acting. Should be fun!
I feel their pain. Movies like “Ghostbusters”, and “Mars Attacks” hurt the science behind ghostology and ufology. These represent grave threats, and need to be taken seriously, but these movies actually cause more skepticism, not less. There oughta be a law.
‘Ghostbusters… Hurts the science’
True, look what ‘Spaceballs’ did to the Force. I just don’t believe anymore.
Look what “History of the World” did for history.
Does this t-shirt make me look fat? No, it is the fat that makes you look fat.
Here it is the same:
Does sharknado make them lose credibility? No, it is their bad science that makes them lose credibility.
Didn’t the shark in Sharknado make his film debut in the television series “Happy Days?”
You know..now that you mention it, it did!
Who knew that jumping the shark would come to climate scientology? Good catch!
The Day Of The Triffids was probably the best movie for advocating CO2 reduction.
The premise makes sense.
Slasher movies have really trashed the reputation and good name of psychopathic killers the world over.
🙂
There’s just too much freedom of speech in the world. We should prevent Hollywood and anyone else from writing scripts and creating content that hasn’t gone through a review board of scientists of some kind, and I mean a board that’s been carefully screened to assure the world’s governments that they follow consensus science. /s
Sharknado could be easily stopped with a sharknado tax. just like CAGW. In fact I was always a bit disappointed in Sigourney Weaver in not spotting the obvious merits of an Alien3 tax
They are still desperately looking for reasons why the sheeple haven’t bought the “climate change” meme. Yeah, it’s those darn climate disaster movies. Go with that.
As I remarked to the authors of The Conversation sharknado article (and strangely the only comment at the time), the real risk is that the public will come to distrust science because of all the ‘fiction’ that may not come true. I wish my crystal ball was a clear as all those forecasting CAGW.
the authors are a professor (I think) of Sociology and a Public Communications quack.
Sociology – the study of a group of people who don’t need studying by a group of people who do.