‘Do Not Look at Heaven’ Confirms the Depression of Being a Scientist

Late of 2018, filmmaker Adam McKay was talking to journalist David Sirota about the lack of a radio show on what he sees as the biggest issue at the time: climate change. Price IPCC reports had just arrived, predicting a widespread upheaval even at 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit[globalwarming—globalfoodshortagesenvironmentaldegradationandrisingtemperatures—andMcKaywas“disillusioned”

Sirota told him: That spark was a movie concept, Do not look up, which aired on Netflix this week following a short play. Leonardo DiCaprio and Jennifer Lawrence play astronomers Randall Mindy and Kate Dibiasky, who stumble upon a comet that collides with Earth, but struggle to think deeply. Instead, the people, the politicians, and the media in his film are just like us — like the young man in a burning restaurant who wants to finish his game.

For scientists working in the field, Do not look upThe partially covered illustration of the weather crisis strikes hard near our home. For years, they have been warning about global warming, and it is only the last few years that governments have begun to listen. Piers Forster, professor of climate science at the University of Leeds, comments: “I found Leonardo DiCaprio to be a tweed bearer because he was often confused because people did not see the scientific evidence behind him. “And what really surprises you is where people come from and their different perspectives.”

While the film focuses on governments and the media, scientists are not getting the better of it – as DiCaprio’s version of the Oval Office explains to the President (played by Meryl Streep), begins. talking about the orbital movement and the Oort cloud, and I end up confusing the topic: that a giant comet is going to destroy the Earth. Journalists call this burying lede.

Joanna Haigh, former professor of astronomy at Imperial College London, states: “It is very frustrating when she retires from her career in 2019. to. He said: “I think one problem is that the scientists themselves are compiling such huge margins of reports. “You would not expect the average person to have the time or energy to read such material.”

There is evidence in the video of how important information is reduced due to the uncertainty that occurs in the scientific method — experts are not 100 percent sure, they speak dependent on time and p-values. Forster said: “We are the worst of the worst and we tend to jump at what we don’t know. “We are also bad at not telling people what to do in this matter. We must begin by stating what we know and offering solutions. ”


This can also be viewed on his page it comes from from.

Climatologists are making steady progress in communicating their message, even though — thanks to the fact that climate change is no longer a well-known problem taking place thousands of miles above the Earth; and floods in Northern England, fierce wildfires are raging in California, the slow collapse of the Sahara.

Over the last few decades, the language we use to talk about this problem has shifted from climate change (global warming) to uncertainty (climate change) to catastrophic events (climate crisis) – but visible actions are still behind. “Maybe it’s a scientific problem, really,” says Haigh. “He could have made it clear, but then you don’t want to be a wolf. You have to be careful what you say.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *