If we watch the "science catfight"video I posted yesterday which is an extract of the Colbert Report show of last March, we can't deny that Stephen Colbert's purpose is pretty the same as joshua Allen Harris except that the actual message is conveyed through the device of humor. In the video I posted yesterday, we can attend a debate between two quite famous scientists, Joe Bastardi and Brenda Ekwurzel. The actual theme of the debate revolves around the question : should be believe or not in global warming and after all in this whole climate change thing? First of all, let me remind you of the concept of the Colbert Report. In that show, Stephen Colbert plays the part of the conservative Fox news anchorman who only believes in God, Licoln, Action and the laws of market. In his show, Stephen Colbert parodies the political debates of his time. He's hilarious but "behind blue eyes" hides a clever man whose real aim is to rise people's awareness to the issues that really matters in the world. He kind of forces them to take sides which is clearly better than choosing apathy. He might not be as efficient as Joshua Allen Harris because he gets political and because Colbert Report is aired everyday so you can forget about all the topics he brought up on the table, but the effort is not entirely useless. With Harris you visualize global warming and with Stephen Colbert you become a real actor in the global warming debate so you can't pretend you don't know anything about it anymore.
No comments:
Post a Comment