Discovery Channel reversed course on Tuesday when it announced that it would air all seven parts of a BBC series about Earth’s polar regions, including a final episode about climate change, which it originally said it would forgo.
In mid-November, the BBC drew criticism for giving foreign television networks the option not to buy the final episode, “On Thin Ice,” when purchasing rights to air its latest nature and wildlife series, Frozen Planet. At the time, the Corporation said that over thirty networks had licensed the series, but a third of them, including Discovery Channel, which co-produced Frozen Planet, had opted out.
The Telegraph and the Daily Mail, two British newspapers, suggested that Discovery Channel’s abstention reflected a desire to avoid provoking skeptics of manmade climate change in the US. When the station announced that Frozen Plant would premiere on March 18, 2012, it added that:
The series’ seventh episode, hosted on camera by British naturalist David Attenborough, will investigate what rising temperatures will mean for the people and wildlife that live there - and for the rest of the planet.
At press time, nearly 84,000 people had signed a Change.org petition to air the episode. Discovery Channel hasn’t elaborated on its decision, although a Los Angeles Times blog reported Tuesday that:
The ruckus surprised Discovery executives, who had not screened all of the episodes until last week.
“Up until today we had not made any programming or scheduling decisions, and today we made our announcement,” said Katherine Nelson, Discovery Channel spokeswoman.
The Telegraph predicted that “The airing of the final episode of Frozen Planet will have a huge impact on the ongoing debate about global warming,” although it’s unclear how much of “On Thin Ice” will focus on the impacts of climate change versus mankind’s contribution to climate change.
Media Matters, a liberal watchdog of the conservative press, highlighted a comment that Attenborough, the episode’s narrator, made in a hearing of the UK’s House of Lords regarding governance and regulation of the BBC last May. Asked if it was true that he would make “a big statement regarded as controversial” at the end of Frozen Planet, Attenborough replied:
I don’t believe it’s controversial, the only controversial element in climate change is to what degree it’s anthropocentric, what degree humans have been responsible, but the facts of climate change are scientifically established facts and I don’t think we go beyond that.
The comment does make the eighty-five-year-old documentarian sound a bit wishy-washy on the subject, but Media Matters is undoubtedly making too much of it. Attenborough penned an op-ed for The Independent back in May 2006, in which he acknowledged that he’d been “skeptical about climate change” before going on to say:
Now I do not have any doubt at all. I think climate change is the major challenge facing the world. I have waited until the proof was conclusive that it was humanity changing the climate.
Media Matters also highlighted a comment made during a radio interview by Dr. Mark Brandon, a polar oceanographer at The Open University who served as an academic consultant on the series, in which he said:
If you were to imagine an episode where people just talked about, you know, humans are doing this, humans are doing that, that wouldn’t fit in with the rest of the story. What would make perfect sense if you’re telling the story of the polar regions is to talk about how they’re changing in the context of the animals and the environments that you’ve shown through the previous six hours of episodes.
- 1
- 2
Attenborough is one heck of a documentarian and his footage is often so incomparable, that many american nature programs don't even try, choosing instead to license it.
And I believe he was one of the voices used in the bbc program 'science under attack' where he expressed his reservations about humanity, in its search for progress through growth, was losing its connection to the nature on which it is dependant for survival. And because the idea of threatening growth is so alien to our ideas of free economics and free choice, people tend to distrust the science that shows we've hit our limits.
Cue troll patrol arrival in 3.. 2.. 1..
#1 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 7 Dec 2011 at 07:52 PM
Ah, Penelope Ann Miller.
I might have gotten the Attenborogh reference mixed up. It wasn't attack on science and I'll be fricasseed if I could remember exactly where it was.
Whoopsie.
#2 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 8 Dec 2011 at 03:02 AM
"It emerged yesterday a key scene from the hit BBC series showing a polar bear tending her newborn cubs was filmed in a zoo using fake snow.
Mixing real Arctic shots with zoo scenes, documentary makers fooled the audience into believing the footage was gathered by intrepid cameramen in the brutal sub-zero wilderness.
It was actually filmed from the comfort of a wildlife park enclosure using bears in a man-made wood den."
http://thegwpf.org/uk-news/4540-frozen-planet-fakery-row-polar-bear-filmed-in-zoo-using-fake-snow.html
#3 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 12 Dec 2011 at 03:28 PM
Of all the picky bs.
So tell us padi. this disproves global warming how?
And does this mean you guys are going to go on a jihad against every nature documentary that attempts to show an angle of nature that is not practical within the wild?
This has been done for decades eg:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhsKUKFctCw
Where was the outrage?! It's only now, when global warming enters the discussion, now that "fine upstanding citizens" find an opportunity to put global warming and scandal in yet another sentence, that the footage became an issue.
This wasn't exactly hidden from the public since they released the method of the footage themselves a month ago on their own website.
You know if tenth of the energy was put into researching these people who are breaking into email servers, accepting money for and plagiarizing research, and publishing information based on blatant misquotes and untruths, the discussion would be quite different.
Instead we've got people who are combing polar bear footage because its program covers the wrong subject and the credibility of anyone connected with it must be destroyed.
Not the liars, plagiarists, thieves and the poisoned industries which fund them, but scientists and now documentary film makers. You're going to savage them over polar bear shots because you don't like their commentary. In that context, the only words that come to mind are, "Have you no sense of decency, sir? Have you left no sense of decency?"
#4 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 12 Dec 2011 at 04:30 PM
The main thing that disproves "global warming" is the lack of global warming.
"I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying where’s the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away." Warmingist in Chief, Phil Jones
Indeed, as Phil Jones was forced to concede, there hasn't been any statistically significant warming in the last 15 years.
Furthermore, as he was also forced to concede, the Medieval Warm Period could well have been a global and obviously non-anthropogenic event.
So, Thimbles, as I wrote before - if you can come up with the name of a computer model that can (i) account for the global warming during the Medieval Warm Period, (ii) produce Mike "Nature Trick" Mann's "hockey stick" temperature increase due to anthropogenic CO2, and (iii) also account for the lack of statistically significant global warming during the last 15 years.... Let's have the name!
We're all ears!....
Crickets chirping.... Chirpity derp derp.
Just deal with the R E A L I T Y.. Namely that there is no AGW computer model capable of reflecting actual conditions in Realityville.
This is why they need to do silly things like lie about glacial melt rates and "hide the decline" in the tree ring temperature record.
#5 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 12 Dec 2011 at 05:21 PM
"So, Thimbles, as I wrote before - if you can come up with the name of a computer model that can (i) account for the global warming during the Medieval Warm Period, (ii) produce Mike "Nature Trick" Mann's "hockey stick" temperature increase due to anthropogenic CO2, and (iii) also account for the lack of statistically significant global warming during the last 15 years.... Let's have the name!"
Do you know what you're asking for? A computer model's ">name? *shakes head*
The actual conditions all have explanations for them that I have previously explained and you have repeatedly ignored.
Furthermore, I put a challenge to you in that thread:
http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/uea_e-mails_fail_to_provoke.php#comment-54728
"Have you proved AGW wrong? If so, prove it. Show us your invalidities. Give us your alternative explanations. Produce for us some evidence. Try to get the causual relationships right. :/
Do that or shut up. Science isn't gossip over emails, it's work. Do some work then talk."
Explain the 10° arctic anomalies, the measurable increase in temperature in both oceans and atmosphere, the increase in ocean acidity for which there is no explanation other than increased levels of GHG's, and the hottest decade on record during a record solar minimum using a testable mechanism other than Anthropogenic Global Warming.
When you've done that, then we can talk about polar bear footage, computer model business cards, Mike's "nature trick", the medieval weather event, "scientifically significant" warming, how causality works, and whatever else you might want to discuss instead of our rapidly warming planet and the gases which are responsible.
Until then, try to absorb enough information to make a proper challenge before making it.
#6 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 12 Dec 2011 at 08:57 PM
Thimbles wrote: "Have you proved AGW wrong?"
padikiller responds: Typical burden shifting that belies a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method. The proponent of a theory bears the burden of supporting it with data.
In science, NOTHING is "proven"... Take the speed of light, for example - which has recently been called into question.
The climate is proving AGW wrong. It isn't warming as the alarmists predicted it would. In science, data rules... Not theories Whether we're measuring the speed of light, or reading thermometers.
Thimbles continued: "Explain the 10° arctic anomalies, the measurable increase in temperature in both oceans and atmosphere, the increase in ocean acidity for which there is no explanation other than increased levels of GHG's, and the hottest decade on record during a record solar minimum using a testable mechanism other than Anthropogenic Global Warming."
padikiller responds: During the Medieval Warm Period? Is that what you're talking about? I can't explain how the Earth warmed enough to let the Vikings settle Greenland, and then cooled into the Little Ice Age.
How do YOU explain the arctic anomalies during the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age?
HUH?
If instead you mean the supposed "anomalies" today, then we do not have the means to even accurately determine an "average global temperature" and we lack data to detect any significant trend. Accurate temperature measurements exist for only about the last 150 years - a blink of the eye in 4.5 billion history of the Earth. We do not understand forcing or feedback mechanisms. We do not understand CO2 absorption or recapture rates. Finally, if one believes the Chicken Little ranting of the Warmingists, then the Earth has increased its average global temperature from 288.0 K to 288.8 K in the last 150 years - a tiny "increase" that, as a Nobel prize winning physicist recently noted, coincided with the single largest increase in human prosperity around the globe.
If AGW were "proven"... By a "consensus"... There would be answers to the following questions:
1. What is the ideal average global temperature?
2. What CO2 concentration will maintain this ideal average temperature?
But there aren't answers to these questions, because there is no scientific basis for the claims of the alarmists.
As for the "gossip" in emails - we're talking about scientists sucking down AGW grant money who conspire to elude FOIA requests, who conspire with media to bash skeptics, who conspire to retaliate against skeptics who publish papers and who also conspire to retaliate against publishers who accept peer-reviewed papers from skeptics. We're also talking about scientists who openly acknowledge the errors and uncertainty in important papers by leading peers (like Mike Mann, in particular) - information that never made it into the IPCC reports based on these papers.
Finally, were talking about a frank admission of the political interference into the supposedly "scientific" analysis of climate change - an admission by Warmingist in Chief Phil Jones that the IPCC's authors were chosen not on merit, but instead to appease the developing world, despite the fact that half of these "authors" weren't capable of producing a decent paper.
In sum... We're talking about the greatest anti-capitalist con game the world has ever seen. And the world is starting to see it for what it is. I predict that Mike Mann's UVA emails will be released soon and when they are, they will put down the AGW nonsense once and for all.
#7 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 13 Dec 2011 at 09:10 AM
Science at Work, Illustrated: Scientists admit that data does not support hurricane forecasting:
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/mobile/story.html?id=5847032
"Two top U.S. hurricane forecasters, revered like rock stars in Deep South hurricane country, are quitting the practice because it doesn’t work.
William Gray and Phil Klotzbach say a look back shows their past 20 years of forecasts had no value."
#8 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 13 Dec 2011 at 11:13 AM
"padikiller responds: During the Medieval Warm Period? Is that what you're talking about? I can't explain how the Earth warmed enough to let the Vikings settle Greenland, and then cooled into the Little Ice Age.
How do YOU explain the arctic anomalies during the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age?"
Two potential explanations, 1) there is data that suggests that the warmer temperature shift in the north was offset by a colder temperature shift in the south, therefore the cause might have been a shift in jet streams or something else which produced a local disruption in climate, but no change in global conditions.
2) solar activity during this time was recorded as unusual. Therefore a fluctuation in solar activity might well have been responsible for the little ice age and for the warm period.
During the last decade, the hottest on record, solar activity has resembled the conditions during the little ice age, which suggests that the cause of this warming trend is not solar variability. We know as scientific fact that CO2 converts radiation into heat. We know that the amount of CO2 has increased by an enormous amount. If you choose to believe that the grouping of all the hottest years on record in the last decade is related to something else, like solar variability during the little ice age, you have to explain your reasons and prove it. If you choose to believe that the record the increase in levels of a chemical with known chemical properties is not creating the effect one expects based on those properties, you have to explain your reasons and prove it. You haven't done that, instead you've chosen to occupy yourself with "controversial" polar bear footage.
Now are you going to explain today's conditions in context with today's sun through a mechanism other than man made green house gas or are you going to deflect some more?
#9 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 13 Dec 2011 at 01:44 PM
Keep fiddling:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/shock-as-retreat-of-arctic-sea-ice-releases-deadly-greenhouse-gas-6276134.html
Millions of years of evolution undone by 2 stupid centuries, one of which is to come. Oh well, humanity had a good run.
#10 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 13 Dec 2011 at 03:03 PM
The plain and simple truth, as acknowledged by Chief Warmingist Phil Jones, is that Earth isn't warming in any statistically significant way.
This is just the R E A L I T Y.
You can't escape the facts, Thimbles.
The FACT of the matter is that, as Phil Jones candidly admitted, the IPCC is crammed with "scientists" chosen for political reasons to appease developing countries, half of whom Jones acknowledged to be incompetent. And we're supposed to rely on the reports of this corrupt outfit to craft policy?
The FACT of the matter is that, assuming that the Warmingists are right, the Earth has warmed from 288.0 K to 288.8 K in 150 years... A tiny increase that coincided with an unprecedented period of human prosperity
The FACT of the matter is that there is no reliable way to take the Earth's "average temperature" - this why the "scientists" play games with the temperature record to "hide the decline" as necessary.
Etc, etc. etc.
When you say that the last decade was the "hottest on record" you are talking about a comparison to the last 150 years. This is the equivalent of looking back from midnight on New Years to 11:59:59 pm - one second before - to draw conclusions about the entire year. It's just silly.
We don't know how much heat CO2 traps in the atmosphere. We don't know how feedback mechanisms work. We don't know how water vapor works with CO2 greenhouse effect. Etc. Etc. Etc.
I'm a skeptic BECAUSE of the facts - not in spite of them.
#11 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 13 Dec 2011 at 03:21 PM
Your statistically significance talking point is getting more out of date with each month of new data. Your "hide the decline" talking point was of of date the day it was published. Your .8° difference in Kelvin figure requires a cause in order to judge its relevance. If the cause is AGW and the GHG trends keep going up, then the .8° is going to turn into much more over time. Do you have an alternative cause?
And I still don't see you giving an alternative explanation for this:
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE7AS0MQ20111129
"The WMO, part of the United Nations, said the warmest 13 years of average global temperatures have all occurred in the 15 years since 1997. That has contributed to extreme weather conditions that increase the intensity of droughts and heavy precipitation across the world, it said.
"Global temperatures in 2011 are currently the tenth highest on record and are higher than any previous year with a La Nina event, which has a relative cooling influence," it said...
The WMO report said the extent of Arctic sea ice in 2011 was the second lowest on record, and its volume was the lowest."
I just see a guy who wants to cherry pick emails and gripe about polar bear footage. And I'm bored of that.
Get some new tricks.
#12 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 13 Dec 2011 at 04:08 PM
Thimbles wrote: The WMO, part of the United Nations, said the warmest 13 years of average global temperatures have all occurred in the 15 years since 1997. That has contributed to extreme weather conditions that increase the intensity of droughts and heavy precipitation across the world, it said.
"Global temperatures in 2011 are currently the tenth highest on record and are higher than any previous year with a La Nina event, which has a relative cooling influence," it said...
padikiller reiterates: Warmest on WHAT record, Thimbles?
We're talking about a 150 year lookback period. It's ridiculous to claim any trend on the basis of such a paucity of data.
Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Unquestionably (though not a strong one)
Is Anthropogenic CO2 contributing to the greenhouse effect? Certainly, though to a very small extent.
Is the Earth warming because of it? Maybe, but definitely not at the silly rates claimed by the Warmingists and possibly not at all.
Is warming a bad thing? Probably not.
In general, warm is good, biologically speaking. Warmer climate means more rain, and having more heat, more rain and more plant food in the atmosphere should go a long way towards feeding the ever growing population.
#13 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 13 Dec 2011 at 04:20 PM
Watch and learn, paddikiller.... watch and learn...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoSVoxwYrKI
#14 Posted by Yawn220, CJR on Wed 14 Dec 2011 at 05:32 PM
I didn’t know that Discovery was going to air the series until today. I am glad they reversed course and decided to air the finial episode. These Attenborough series are all amazing, featuring videography that is stunning. I wish they were able to produce these documentaries on a regular basis. I know they take years to film, but if more people saw how spectacular and wondrous the world is around us, we might be better shepherds and caretakers. Regardless of the global warming debate, we impact the world around us in a negative way on a daily basis. Loss of habitat and pollution has put life on the line for countless species. When everything else dies, what keeps us alive? On a lighter note, I am simply excited for another Attenborough series. I initially upgraded to a HDTV and HDDVR from DISH, my employer, to watch Planet Earth in all its glory. Since I have added Blue Planet to my collection of recordings and on March 18th I will begin to add Frozen Planet as well.
#15 Posted by Adam, CJR on Wed 29 Feb 2012 at 08:55 PM