Climate change episode of 'Frozen Planet' won't be aired in the US/other countries

Status
Not open for further replies.
TwiztidElf said:
Because if it is a hoax, the hoax is to make money not to make a better anything?
Click to expand...
Lulz, this is bullshit. If we really acted on trying to prevent climate change (as well as other problems related to destroying nature), we'd need to pretty much CUT CONSUMPTION of everything. That doesn't mean more money, it means LESS money. And that is one of the reasons there's so much opposition. Businesses don't want people to stop buying their products & some people want to continue living like there aren't 7 billion other human beings on Earth, buying as much useless shit as possible & consuming nature's offerings like there's no tomorrow.


The awesome power of the Universe has been changing the Earth without our help for billions of years.
Arrogant humans trying to make it stay the same as the last few hundred years?
Good luck with that.
Click to expand...
It's not about change happening, change IS natural. It's about the SPEED of that change (this in addition to the overpopulation problem is NOT a good combination). Based on our current knowledge, the speed isn't normal and pretty much all the competing non human-related theories have been shot down.

Why is it so hard to believe that humans could affect the atmosphere in a major way? I mean, we've caused HOLES IN THE OZONE to appear yearly because of (mostly past) CFC, halon etc. emissions that are about a gazillion times smaller than how much CO2 & other greenhouse gases is pumped up to the atmosphere every day.
 
Forgive me for sounding ignorant (I'm ignorant about American politics and cultural attitudes) but whenever you see these sorts of things they very much seem to say "the majority says" or "nearly half say"...is there a clear divisive line between people who believe in climate change and those who don't? The ideology differences between your two major parties seems huge. I'd like to know more.
 
Technosteve said:
China believes in climate change that's why they have invest to have 10% of power generation from renewable sources and has made solar cells so cheap the us companies are going bankrupt
Click to expand...

There is something really funny about China investing in solar cells. I've lived in China for 6 months and actually being able to see the sun is a somewhat rare and cherished experience in the big cities (except for all the chinese girls/vampires of course that won't go out except covered from head to toe in the middle of the summer.)
 
Does this not go against freedom of speech by "censoring" the show like this by not showing all episodes? Or does it even apply here?

I'm non-American, so just wondering.
 
QueenDee said:
Does this not go against freedom of speech by "censoring" the show like this by not showing all episodes? Or does it even apply here?

I'm non-American, so just wondering.
Click to expand...

Does it "go against freedom of speech" that GAF bans people for racist talk, trolling, posting porn, etc?
 
The BBC should tell them to get fucked if they want to air the program butchered to fit some narrow-minded views, but I guess there's that licensing/DVD/Blu-Ray money...

Also, some classic Daily Mail fuckwittery in one of the links. Reminds me of our local UKIP candidates flyer during the general election: "First and foremost, climate change is a myth used by the government to add new taxes".
 
They should air a less contentious Attenborough series.

Gxhrn.jpg
 
QueenDee said:
Does this not go against freedom of speech by "censoring" the show like this by not showing all episodes? Or does it even apply here?

I'm non-American, so just wondering.
Click to expand...
The government is not censoring this, so no.
 
nateeasy said:
Who gives a shit? Its a tv show.
Click to expand...
You don't get it bro, this information can only be found in this show, there is no other way of getting this information. TV tells me all I need to know about the world, books, and the Internet don't exist in this world.
 
Wow.

If it upsets someone, would that someone just.... switch to a different channel?

I mean, if we care so much about not upsetting views of people, then surely at a certain point, there will be no shows left to watch and no content to eat, beside things like weather reports (locally, no predictions!) and checking the time.
 
How is the BBC getting any blame for this?

They sell the series as 6 + 1 because

a) some non-English speaking countries would struggle to translate the 7th episode because Attenborough is on screen for much of it hence lip syncing issues etc
b) Attenborough is not famous in some countries so having him on there giving a meaningful monologue wouldn't be worthwhile.

Discovery part funded this project and they've chosen not to use the 7th episode because they decided Americans/US political situation couldn't handle it.

Curious what happens regards downloads and retail copies now.

The BBC doesn't decide what other broadcasters broadcast.
 
Akkad said:
You don't get it bro, this information can only be found in this show, there is no other way of getting this information. TV tells me all I need to know about the world, books, and the Internet don't exist in this world.
Click to expand...

it's the principle. Of course the information is out there, but almost no one goes looking for it.

A new show that could potentially help explain the situation to people who would otherwise not know these details is a good thing.

But it won't be shown in the states because it makes some people uncomfortable and they don't want to hear this - or want anyone else to hear it. this is the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and singing "la la la, can't hear you" on the playground.
 
Are they afraid that people would sue them for showing something that upsets them? Like that's ev- .... actually yeah, that would totally happen.
 
kaizoku said:
How is the BBC getting any blame for this?
t.
Click to expand...

frozen planet is a complete narrative building up to the last episode. it's a story told with the most amazing footage about how incredible nature in the coldest parts of our world is - penguins stealing from other penguins, polar bear mothers caring for their cubs, baby seals looking for their mothers, killer wales working in teams to capsize the blocks of ice that seals rest on to better hunt them, stunning imagery - and it's a story that ends with our complicity in destroying this through our pollution. by cutting it up into pieces it's allowing titanic to end before the iceberg crash, it takes away what it's trying to achieve. plus the bbc as a pubic broadcaster has a responsibility to serve the public, you can't cut off the sad ending in something as important as this.
 
Empty said:
frozen planet is a complete narrative building up to the last episode. it's a story told with the most amazing footage about how incredible nature in the coldest parts of our world is - penguins stealing from other penguins, polar bear mothers caring for their cubs, baby seals looking for their mothers, killer wales working in teams to capsize the blocks of ice that seals rest on to better hunt them, stunning imagery - and it's a story that ends with our complicity in destroying this through our pollution. by cutting it up into pieces it's allowing titanic to end before the iceberg crash, it takes away what it's trying to achieve. plus the bbc as a pubic broadcaster has a responsibility to serve the public, you can't cut off the sad ending in something as important as this.
Click to expand...
Sounds like it's a poor decision by the BBC to end it the way they did if they want to air it in other countries. People in other countries don't care to see the smarmy Attenborough sitting on a chair and spewing hyperbole for an hour. The ratings would tank and so the Discovery channel decided to combine the last two episodes into one. Smart move. And one third of other countries who bought this are doing the same thing. To try to say this decision is because of America's rejection of global warming is disingenuous at best.
 
Bulbo Urethral Baggins said:
Sounds like it's a poor decision by the BBC to end it the way they did if they want to air it in other countries. People in other countries don't care to see the smarmy Attenborough sitting on a chair and spewing hyperbole for an hour. The ratings would tank and so the Discovery channel decided to combine the last two episodes into one. Smart move. And one third of other countries who bought this are doing the same thing. To try to say this decision is because of America's rejection of global warming is disingenuous at best.
Click to expand...

Attenborough is probably the single least smarmy person on earth, so the descriptor only really fits if you presume that the content of his message is what makes it smarmy by definition, in which case you've undermined the final sentence because you've made it about the content, not the presentation. Of course, by denouncing it as hyperbole, you've also made it about the content, not the presentation.

You might as well have just replied "Man-made global warming is a sham hoax science propagated by dogmatic liberal environmentalists, it's good we're not airing their lies".
 
Bulbo Urethral Baggins said:
Sounds like it's a poor decision by the BBC to end it the way they did if they want to air it in other countries. People in other countries don't care to see the smarmy Attenborough sitting on a chair and spewing hyperbole for an hour. The ratings would tank and so the Discovery channel decided to combine the last two episodes into one. Smart move. And one third of other countries who bought this are doing the same thing. To try to say this decision is because of America's rejection of global warming is disingenuous at best.
Click to expand...

You say that the only reason BBC isn't airing Attenborough is because he's 'smarmy' and more importantly, 'spews hyperbole'. The episode in question is specifically dealing with global warming, so I can assume you mean he is spewing hyperbole concerning global warming.

Then you go on to say that claiming BBC did this because of America's rejection of global warming is 'disingenuous at best' which implies that you believe the people against cutting the last episode my have some nefarious ulterior motive behind the protestations.

But how can you reconcile those two statements? He is 'spewing hyperbole' about Global Warming, but the show wasn't cut because of Global Warming?

If America was embracing of the science behind man-caused global warming, then there would be no issue. This is what your post has told me.
 
marrec said:
You say that the only reason BBC isn't airing Attenborough is because he's 'smarmy' and more importantly, 'spews hyperbole'. The episode in question is specifically dealing with global warming, so I can assume you mean he is spewing hyperbole concerning global warming.

Then you go on to say that claiming BBC did this because of America's rejection of global warming is 'disingenuous at best' which implies that you believe the people against cutting the last episode my have some nefarious ulterior motive behind the protestations.

But how can you reconcile those two statements? He is 'spewing hyperbole' about Global Warming, but the show wasn't cut because of Global Warming?

If America was embracing of the science behind man-caused global warming, then there would be no issue. This is what your post has told me.
Click to expand...
What I'm trying to say is that all indications of why Discovery and other countries are cutting the last episode is because it's comprised of Attenborough sitting in front of a camera nearly the entire time. It won't sell here. He's mainly an unknown in this country. It's a business/ratings decision. The global warming message will be combined into episode 6. I don't see the big deal in all of this.

And yes. He's smarmy. Very.
 
Bulbo Urethral Baggins said:
What I'm trying to say is that all indications of why Discovery and other countries are cutting the last episode is because it's comprised of Attenborough sitting in front of a camera nearly the entire time. It won't sell here. He's mainly an unknown in this country. It's a business/ratings decision. The global warming message will be combined into episode 6. I don't see the big deal in all of this.
Click to expand...
But he's not going to be sitting in a chair lecturing for an hour. He travelled specifically to the Arctic to be on location for this finale. It'll be reminiscent of the more traditional format used by the Natural History Unit. For example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vll_2xH_SQY

This is the format in which the episode will be presented in and I can assure that the various 'Life' series that have utilised this presentation format have had very good ratings in the US; Life of Mammals in particular.
 
Bulbo Urethral Baggins said:
What I'm trying to say is that all indications of why Discovery and other countries are cutting the last episode is because it's comprised of Attenborough sitting in front of a camera nearly the entire time. It won't sell here. He's mainly an unknown in this country. It's a business/ratings decision. The global warming message will be combined into episode 6. I don't see the big deal in all of this.

And yes. He's smarmy. Very.
Click to expand...

This I can understand. As a business decision it's probably the best idea, Discovery more than anyone would know that presenting an argument based on facts and science doesn't go over so well here in America. Having someone monologue about the consequences of something that most Americans don't understand and will never try to understand is bad business.

But it's still shitty that America has gotten to the point where the public always needs some kind of emotional or visual attraction to a subject matter instead of intellectual. In a perfect world, an hour long episode of TV featuring a spoken essay by a well respected speaker on a matter of dire importance to the world would be accepted everywhere... but this is America. Fuck ya.
 
Funny thing about global warming is we're in the middle of an interglacial period....so an ice age will most definitely follow. I say we start warming up the planet :P

akira28 said:
War.
Click to expand...
I'm currently playing Darksiders :D
 
Bulbo Urethral Baggins said:
What I'm trying to say is that all indications of why Discovery and other countries are cutting the last episode is because it's comprised of Attenborough sitting in front of a camera nearly the entire time. It won't sell here. He's mainly an unknown in this country. It's a business/ratings decision. The global warming message will be combined into episode 6. I don't see the big deal in all of this.

And yes. He's smarmy. Very.
Click to expand...
You're mad if you really think that the man is smarmy in any way.
 
so basically, censorship to avoid Rick Perry's feelings from being hurt?

hmmh... i'm thinking, if there's a World War 3 in the coming decades, i think i'll try to join China's side. already trying to learn a bit of chinese, wo xuexi hanyu :)
 
If there are seven episodes, why would it take until the last one to make it apparent that there is significant ice loss in the Arctic and that human CO2 emissions are the primary cause? Should not the effects of AGW be completely obvious in the first six episodes?... Should not the video itself show AGW being correct and some old filmmaker telling the audience that it is indeed AGW- be unnecessary?...

I can't wait to see the melting ice (which it does, even throughout much of the Arctic during the summer) and some lazy polar bear laying on top of a ice chunk (polar bears can swim) less than a mile from the shore. I'm sure it will be the most educating experience of our time...


Buba Big Guns said:
As someone who has to take three atmospheric chemistry and air pollution classes a week...I think I just lost a few brain cells.

Seriously there is a shit load of information available about climate change. There is absolutely no reason to be this ignorant on such a big subject.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, dude, but many of those classes are taught with the assumption that much of the data (ice core info, previous temperature recordings) are close to 100% accurate. For many chemists, physicists, and engineers who are highly skeptical of AGW's likelihood, such data has been found to have high degrees of inaccuracy- not mention the "peculiar methods" of how the data has been statistically analyzed.
 
Wow, we got sold out for TV ratings.

Knowing the truth is less important than "upsetting viewers" and damaging that $$$$$flow.
It's a great, great time to be a cynic.
 
Something Wicked said:
If there are seven episodes, why would it take until the last one to make it apparent that there is significant ice loss in the Arctic and that human CO2 emissions are the primary cause? Should not the effects of AGW be completely obvious in the first six episodes?... Should not the video itself show AGW being correct and some old filmmaker telling the audience that it is indeed AGW- be unnecessary?...

I can't wait to see the melting ice (which it does, even throughout much of the Arctic during the summer) and some lazy polar bear laying on top of a ice chunk (polar bears can swim) less than a mile from the shore. I'm sure it will be the most educating experience of our time...




I'm sorry, dude, but many of those classes are taught with the assumption that much of the data (ice core info, previous temperature recordings) are close to 100% accurate. For many chemists, physicists, and engineers who are highly skeptical of AGW's likelihood, such data has been found to have high degrees of inaccuracy- not mention the "peculiar methods" of how the data has been statistically analyzed.
Click to expand...
Apparently you believe all of the various ways we determine past temperatures are wrong in almost precisely the same amounts?
 
I can't believe anybody finds Attenborough smarmy, I'm actually quite upset and shall have a cup of tea and slice of Victoria sponge to recompose myself.
 
Bulbo Urethral Baggins said:
smarmy Attenborough
Click to expand...
*facepalm*

PJV3 said:
I can't believe anybody finds Attenborough smarmy, I'm actually quite upset and shall have a cup of tea and slice of Victoria sponge to recompose myself.
Click to expand...
Heh. Course, he doesn't actually think that, he just says shit like that occasionally because it fits his narrative.
 
Edmond Dantès said:
But he's not going to be sitting in a chair lecturing for an hour. He travelled specifically to the Arctic to be on location for this finale. It'll be reminiscent of the more traditional format used by the Natural History Unit. For example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vll_2xH_SQY

This is the format in which the episode will be presented in and I can assure that the various 'Life' series that have utilised this presentation format have had very good ratings in the US; Life of Mammals in particular.
Click to expand...
When on location in the Arctic, will he be wearing shorts and a T shirt to show just how warm it is?
Seriously though... thanks for the info. But I don't see a conspiracy in this whole ordeal. And I'm still looking forward to seeing it.

oh oh. cyan is onto me...
 
KHarvey16 said:
Apparently you believe all of the various ways we determine past temperatures are wrong in almost precisely the same amounts?
Click to expand...

And I never said that, though it's a wonderful tactic to purposefully misread another's point to muddle the debate. I simply claimed the sources of data, which many atmospheric science students are given, are highly inaccurate making claims of a potential future multiple degree increase in "global mean temperature" unlikely or at least no concrete prediction can be made from such data.
 
Something Wicked said:
And I never said that, though it's a wonderful tactic to purposefully misread another's point to muddle the debate. I simply claimed the sources of data, which many atmospheric science students are given, are highly inaccurate making claims of a potential future multiple degree increase in "global mean temperature" unlikely or at least no concrete prediction can be made from such data.
Click to expand...

Umm...

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/adding-to-the-consensus-on-global-warming/
 
Something Wicked said:
And I never said that, though it's a wonderful tactic to purposefully misread another's point to muddle the debate. I simply claimed the sources of data, which many atmospheric science students are given, are highly inaccurate making claims of a potential future multiple degree increase in "global mean temperature" unlikely or at least no concrete prediction can be made from such data.
Click to expand...
Your position is that the data is inaccurate. If that is true, multiple sets and sources of data are inaccurate in the same way, since the data sets agree. How is that not a logical consequence of your statement?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

ITT we celebrate the greatest country on this planet...
|OT| Community 
26
1K
Melon Husk replied
TikTok has shut down in the US (UP: TikTok is in the process of restoring service in the US)
2 3 4 5 6
298
14K
phil_t98 replied
First episode of Saturday Night Live!
18
1K
ManaByte replied
And the number one movie in the country was called Ass
8
132
CGNoire replied
20 years ago, the TV pilot of LOST aired
2
62
3K
Just_one replied
Top Bottom