Because the science of climate change has been politicized and sidelined by less than good-faith arguments, reviving it & bringing it to the fore requires acts of advocacy that the discipline of science is structured never to need. And possibly recoils from. Which may be why climate advocates appear brash and unseemly, like self-righteous vegans. The nature of peer review and replicable findings in science means that there’s no place for championing a cause or arguing your way of thinking. The data speaks for itself. Unless the data is not allowed to speak.
David Opdyke’s never-ending and never-twice-the-same mutation of low-content sloganeering around climate policy showcases this process at work (“fair and balanced,” 2019). Through hours of parsing soundbites (initially on NPR while driving), Opdyke built a database of political-speak around climate policy and fed the stockpile into a script of code that mutates and reorders the phrases into an unending debate between two A.I. candidates represented by two facing LED screens. They say carefully-curated nothing forever. With actual language heard on-air. To wit:
“My opponent has completely misrepresented my position! We are not here to talk about individual responsibility. Good, hard working folks built this dam together. No law could have prevented the detection of as-yet unidentified chemicals downriver. They just did what was necessary. Agencies must redirect their priorities. My opponent just has different priorities.”
