BBC's 'Frozen Planet'...

B_Hickboy

Sexy Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2005
Posts
10,059
Media
0
Likes
60
Points
183
Location
That twinge in your intestines
Studies are generally analyses of the data carried out by people, drawing conclusions. Papers will, almost always, be mostly analysis. Employing incorrect statistical analyses to a dataset can have a drastic effect on the results. Data can be made to give, intentionally or not, a misleading message about the process being studied.

I am glad you are so optimistic about the average person's ability to garner an in-depth understanding of a complex scientific topic like climate change with only "a little education". I do not share that optimism, sadly.

Also, is there really the need for the antagonistic tone?
Is there?

Some people would take a sneer as "antagonistic", to use your term. But then, as you assume the mantle of "Science", you don't need to care about your own tone, and have the right to give everybody else a dressing down about theirs.

Your superiority exists only in your own mind.
 

bobbyboyle

Just Browsing
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Posts
245
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
51
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
Your superiority exists only in your own mind.
It doesn't exist there either. I fail to see when I have given anyone a dressing down, but apologise if you have felt that. You presumed to tell me about the scientific method and misinterpreted my comments on consensus with regards to politics/media as being with regards to science (perhaps I wasn't clear enough, again, I apologise). I was simply agreeing on your point and pointed out that I'm a scientific researcher, so as we might understand each other better and we could skip the explanations about the scientific method.

No superiority complex, no bragging, no dressing down. Just trying to participate in a discussion.
 
S

superbot

Guest
The point being,why would US networks be so hype-sensitive as to drop an episode of a nature documentary simply because it poses issues already in the public domain? Let people make up their own minds.
All very strange!!
 

Calboner

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Posts
9,024
Media
29
Likes
7,717
Points
433
Location
USA
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
..I'm amazed that this fantastic new documentary will be shown in the U.S MINUS the final episode,as it covers global warming,which apparently half of all Americans don't believe in.So to avoid 'upsetting' viewers it won't be shown.Does this seem possible??....:eek:
Possible, but not true (source):

Chris Tackett said:
We asked a few people at Discovery what the deal was with this Frozen Planet show and they explained that while the BBC is already airing its version of Frozen Planet, the Discovery Channel version is still being edited, since it is not scheduled to air in the US until sometime in the first quarter of 2012. . . .

As for the differences in specific episodes, there simply aren't (and never were) pre-determined episodes that both the BBC and Discovery were airing, so it's just not true that Discovery is only airing six and leaving out a whole seventh episode. . . .

Regarding the much-discussed seventh episode airing on the BBC, Discovery Channel says that there are a lot of programing decisions still to be made, but divulged that even if the footage is cut to be six episodes, as planned in the US, the essence of the BBC's seven episodes will be represented throughout the US version of the series. In other words, the reality of climate change will be present throughout the entire series.
 

OhWiseOne

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Posts
4,518
Media
251
Likes
2,967
Points
358
Location
Florida
Verification
View
Sexuality
60% Straight, 40% Gay
Gender
Male
The point being,why would US networks be so hype-sensitive as to drop an episode of a nature documentary simply because it poses issues already in the public domain? Let people make up their own minds.
All very strange!!
Ummm bad data possibly influence by the $'s that are being made on this fabrication.
 

Calboner

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Posts
9,024
Media
29
Likes
7,717
Points
433
Location
USA
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male

SilverTrain

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Posts
4,623
Media
82
Likes
1,312
Points
333
Location
USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
What people are getting rich on this "fabrication," and by what means?

Exactly.

And how about the inverse?

Who's getting rich(er) by denying that climate change is an issue, that the status quo need be maintained? The same ol' group of big, fat corporate behemoths, that's who.

The chosen status-quo-maintaining strategy is to demonize those calling for a responsible approach to the management of our planet. Somehow, responsible inquiry, conservation of resources, intelligent waste disposal, these become the sins, the crimes even. It's so outrageous that it's amazing how many people buy in to the "nothing to see here, move along!" mentality.

Just who is getting rich, indeed?
 

Fuzzy_

Legendary Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2011
Posts
4,253
Media
0
Likes
1,105
Points
258
Location
Wuziland
Gender
Male
Are the Global Warming denialists getting richer, or do they just trying to avoid the expense of going green or cleanup costs?
 

Calboner

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Posts
9,024
Media
29
Likes
7,717
Points
433
Location
USA
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate - Forbes

Climategate 2.0...so much for all that "data" that "proves" global warming is caused by humans...follow the money...
I wonder how "following the money" is supposed to discredit the findings of climate scientists concerning global warming, or even how it is supposed to impugn their motives in this particular case. That aside, I have looked into this so-called "Climategate 2.0," and find it to be every bit as fictitious as the original pseudo-scandal from which the name is borrowed. (For substantiation of that point about the original bogus "Climategate," see Phil Plait, "The Global Warming Emails Non-Event," Discover, 30 November 2009.) The writer, James Taylor, makes the following claims:
James Taylor in Forbes said:
Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.
Strong claims require strong substantiation. What substantiation do we get for these claims? As in the original fictitious scandal, the appearance of support for such claims is generated by taking quotations out of context and misrepresenting their meaning to readers. The details can be read in this piece by Phil Jones, one of the scientists whose e-mail messages were used, and in this piece at Media Matters.
 
S

superbot

Guest
Just watched another episode this evening.It is quite possibly the best Attenborough documentary to date.....Ah, for great tv!!
 

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
How so, O wise one?

Consider Newton's Laws of Motion? Why does the scientific community accept that theory under classical conditions? Because it has accumulated a publicly documented record for accuracy as determined by many different independent investigators.

It is not a consensus of opinion about the theory itself so much as an acknowledgment that many different independent investigators have corroborated the predictive accuracy of the theory. That corroboration is a matter of public record.

That is what is known as a scientific consensus and it is our only measure for the veracity of a scientific theory. In fact, this is the only part of the scientific method that is really valuable. It really doesn't matter how we come up with a theory, actually. Because ultimately, the theory will be evaluated by its ablility to produce accurate predictions about nature. And only then will it begin to accumulate independent corroboration (or not, if it is wrong).
 
Last edited:

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Ah, we are thinking the same, but in my mind, consensus and repeatability are independent of each other.

Yes, exactly. So let's call it a consensus of independent verification. And for anthropomorphic induced climate change, that kind of consensus exists.

In fact, even the Koch brothers funded professional skeptics are now in agreement.