Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

MindMover

(5,016 posts)
Wed Apr 25, 2012, 08:18 PM Apr 2012

Activists urge Discovery to acknowledge climate change science

Forecast the Facts, the activist group that first confronted GM about its support of climate change doubters the Heartland Institute, now plans to muster a public campaign targeting the Discovery Channel. The purpose: to get Discovery to acknowledge the scientific consensus on man-made climate change in its programming.

The flap follows the recent airing of the final episode of Discovery’s lush exploration of the polar regions, “Frozen Planet.” The last of the seven-hour series, “On Thin Ice,” was devoted specifically to presenting evidence of climate change – including discussion of the challenges facing polar bears, collapsing ice shelves, diminishing habitat, and naturalist David Attenborough (Alec Baldwin is the narrator and host of the series) saying, “The days of the Arctic Ocean being covered by a continuous sheet of ice seem to be past. Whether or not that’s a good or bad thing, of course, depends on your point of view.”

Strangely missing from the narration, however, is any mention of the causes of climate change, even presented as theory. An April 20 story in the New York Times revealed that the producers made a deliberate choice not to present this material, anticipating criticism from the small minority of viewers who do not accept scientific opinion about human causes of global warming.

Series producer Vanessa Berlowitz told the New York Times that including the scientific theories “would have undermined the strength of an objective documentary, and would then have become utilized by people with political agendas.”

Daniel Souweine, campaign director at Forecast the Facts, contends that Discovery played into a political agenda, in fact, by not presenting this information.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/environment/la-me-gs-activist-pressure-discovery-to-acknowledge-climate-change-science-20120425,0,5096515.story?

3 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Activists urge Discovery to acknowledge climate change science (Original Post) MindMover Apr 2012 OP
Interesting claim... saras Apr 2012 #1
They were speaking of the economic benefits of an ice-free Arctic Ocean. Johnny Rico Apr 2012 #2
That's exactly the kind of damn foolishness I was talking about. saras Apr 2012 #3
 

saras

(6,670 posts)
1. Interesting claim...
Wed Apr 25, 2012, 11:15 PM
Apr 2012

"Whether or not that’s a good or bad thing, of course, depends on your point of view."

So, given that they are a science program, exactly what rational point of view looks on this as good? Is he suggesting that it might be good for tube worms or something? Or that wild right-wing fantasies about developing new marinas are reasonable points of view?

WTF???

Well, it might lead to the extermination of most mammalian life, but that may or may not be undesirable...

Well, torture can cause permanent mental damage and insanity, but that might be good or bad...

continue until Godwin...

 

Johnny Rico

(1,438 posts)
2. They were speaking of the economic benefits of an ice-free Arctic Ocean.
Wed Apr 25, 2012, 11:18 PM
Apr 2012

Specifically shipping, ease of extracting fossil fuels, and how some species would benefit from being able to inhabit expanded territories during the summer.

 

saras

(6,670 posts)
3. That's exactly the kind of damn foolishness I was talking about.
Wed Apr 25, 2012, 11:56 PM
Apr 2012

Who's going to be shipping if we can't preserve civilization through the process? It's barely started and we're already failing.

Fossil fuels? The rate of failure will rise exponentially - it's not going to be fucking CALM up there just because the ice melts. More energy into the system will lead to more, bigger storms. Good luck not spilling stuff.

The species that benefit from large-scale ecological disruption are almost always opportunist species - pests, invasives, undesirables. It might be good for jellyfish or red tide plankton, but there's no specific reason to suspect it will benefit any species that will in turn benefit us.

I also think they're overlooking what Cheney called the "unknown unknowns". We know that melting the ice will disrupt, in a large way, the whole polar system that creates weather. What that disruption will be like, we haven't the foggiest. But it will big, and like most disruptions, it will harm our complex cultural systems more than it helps them. Oh, and what happens to those ecologies if it gets warm enough that it's easy for species to cross oceans?

Kind of like the kid with a room full of horse shit, absolutely convinced there's a pony in there somewhere.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Activists urge Discovery ...