Apple Scores Rights to 'Losing Earth' Climate Change TV Project

[convergent]

"Losing Earth is an extremely important piece of [propaganda] and we are thrilled to [indoctrinate] a wider audience..."

There, fixed it.

Anybody who thinks they can change the way the earth fundamentally functions is delusional.

Climate change is REAL, the climate is always changing the Earth is forever changing.

Man made climate change is where the debate is;

Can anybody answer to what extent or specifically what percentage, is Man responsible for climate change?

Its the perfect ruse. No one can answer that question and no one can measure to what extent the trillions of dollars being fed to the government to control it have any impact.

The fact that Apple continues to go down this political path is more and more and more the reason why I'm happy with my decision to not be locked into their ecosystem.

 

[now i see it]

Uh boy. Just what we need. A new climate change TV show pushing an agenda. The inertia of 7 billion humans doing what humans do can not be changed by evangelists. The narrative for climate has become a religion. Believe or not believe.
Why at this point, after spending billions of dollars on climate research for years, we're left with the choice... Do you believe it or not?

 

[developer13245]

Science is not "settled" when scientists bury the data, models, and opposing theories.

I try to pollute less and not be wasteful because it just makes sense.

I've also accepted the new paradigm, "The Earth + Plastic" :

 

[ksnell]

I didn't justify racism. I justified mocking racism. Like I said, context matters.

Either that or we can just agree that all racist remarks are terrible.

 

[thespacekid]

I wonder if it will cover how if the US stopped all CO2 generation, there would be a very small effect on the global temperature or how the cost to do that could bankrupt the US.

 

[k2director]

The editorial and op-ed pages are just two pages in each edition of the paper, and the editorial board and staff are separated from and do not have any involvement with the production of the rest of the paper.

That’s the theory but in practice, the news reporting shows tremendous partisan bias. You can see it in the wording of headlines, the leading and closing paragraphs of a story, and the overall tone of the copy. And also simply the frequency of stories on a topic. For example, Trump is repeatedly linked to Mueller’s investigation of Russian interference in stories, even though for more than 1.5 years, no evidence has been produced. But the Times tries to infer something improper simply by reporting every inconsequential step of the investigation, and inferring connections to Trump through wording and conjecture. The Wall Street Journal is no fanboy of Trump’s but their coverage of Mueller’s never-ending, meandering investigation is not obsessive like the Times’ is.

Generally speaking, somewhere along the way, injecting politics into everything became a part of our culture, whereas before, it was more of a private matter. But today it’s front and center in the workplace, academia, the “Arts”. And in many corners of the press, it’s become acceptable, despite clearly undermining the press’ credibility with so many people. It’s tragic and it’s going to take a long time to recover, if it ever does.

 

[cfurlin]

And the earth will continue to be fine. It's the people we need to worry about, and they are in big trouble if something isn't done about this.

It's quite easy in the current climate to make the case that people aren't worth saving.

I suspect Mother Earth would like nothing more than to find some way of eradicating the parasites that live on her...maybe a cosmic dose of A-200.

 

[ksnell]

The editorial and op-ed pages are just two pages in each edition of the paper, and the editorial board and staff are separated from and do not have any involvement with the production of the rest of the paper.

So it is in the same paper but different departments, yet still she was hired by "The Times." I think this is a very bad look for them, and if they were trying to differentiate they would have changed the name by now. Just imagine if the situation were reversed - the media would be outraged.

All I am saying is it is important to be intellectually honest about the bias there, just like the bias with Fox News. Sarah Jeong is just one example, but here is one specifically related to their journalists. If all of their corrections and retractions tend to be in favor of President Trump, this tells me something. If they were genuine errors, wouldn't they statistically come out 50/50?

 

[coolbreeze]

Surely this project will be fair and balanced and not drive a political agenda, right?

Lol, jk. We all know it's purpose.

 

[eatrains]

Surely this project will be fair and balanced and not drive a political agenda, right?

Lol, jk. We all know it's purpose.

Climate change isn't political, it's settled science. There are no opposing sides, nothing to balance.

 

[coolbreeze]

Climate change isn't political, it's settled science. There are no opposing sides, nothing to balance.

What? Science is never settled...it's always changing.

Hell even the Denver Post thinks so...

https://www.denverpost.com/2017/05/05/keegan-settled-science/

Whatever your ideology, there are always opposing sides and things to balance when it comes to science. Too bad your mind is made up already. And I'm sure Al Gore's mansion is nice and cool, thanks to his A/C. Cool beans.

Hey, at least we can all agree that there are only two genders. Settle science, as some would say.

 

[Williesleg]

So boring, nothing happened except politicians got elected. Heck, even Al Gore is buying coastal property in California now.

Next up, fresh water shortages. Mark your calendars, next few years. That should polarize a whole new generation and get tons of new taxes, regulations, and people elected.

I'm thinking they might get Obama in there to be the Al Gore of fresh water. He'd be really good starring in that role.

 

[killr_b]

A computer company heads further and further down a path of political ideology. What could possibly go wrong?

 

[Zachari]

Pointing to cold winters as evidence against climate change gets you ridiculed (rightfully), but for some reason pointing to any disaster at all and calling it evidence for climate change is always considered acceptable.

I believe in climate change, just not this stupid narrative that you guys are trying to push. The earth’s climate has been change since it was formed and will continue long after we are all gone. If you show me a solution to climate change other than taxing the air I breath, I’ll maybe change my mind.

But let’s not pretend this is anything other than a massive money grab by the left. Per usual.

 

[omihek]

Science is true whether or not you believe in it.

The "scientists" from Galileo's time would like a word with you.

Also, "Science is true until new science proves it wrong." Fixed it for you.
[doublepost=1534899040][/doublepost]

The weird thing is that my professors at Harvard were talking about this when I was an undergraduate 35 years ago. I had no idea they were "dem politicians" or that my fellow students and I were "uneducated liberals."

Well, now you know.

 

[jerwin]

Hell even the Denver Post thinks so...

Doesn't Teresa Keegan realize that Michael Crichton died in 2008?

(It looks like that column (May 2017) was her last. Perhaps she failed to engage her readership.)

 

[eatrains]

What? Science is never settled...it's always changing.

Hell even the Denver Post thinks so...

https://www.denverpost.com/2017/05/05/keegan-settled-science/

Whatever your ideology, there are always opposing sides and things to balance when it comes to science. Too bad your mind is made up already. And I'm sure Al Gore's mansion is nice and cool, thanks to his A/C. Cool beans.

Hey, at least we can all agree that there are only two genders. Settle science, as some would say.

Yeah, and and there's an opposing side that thinks the sun revolves around the earth. (Oh, and try and learn the difference between sex and gender if you want anyone to take your thoughts on science seriously.)

 

[jerwin]

If you show me a solution to climate change other than taxing the air I breath,

you breathe carbon dioxide?

 

[ThunderSkunk]

On the one hand: "OH NO, every measurable aspect of the natural world is headed for a catastrophe that will make the earth unlivable for billions of humans!" - Humans
On the other: "oh darn." - Every other living thing on earth

The sooner humanity meets its fate, the better.
Good riddance to a species stupid enough to be this big a danger to itself and others. What a waste.

 

[CmdrLaForge]

Perhaps one could watch this show on their sealed, non-upgradeable, disposable appliance from the "green" company?

While it is true that easier repairable devices would also add to the overall ecological footprint the main issue here is CO2 and other green house gases which are emitted in too high numbers.

Humanity needs to change to renewable energy. Against this are people who profit from using fossil fuels and make billions of dollars which they use partially to influence public opinions where indeed science is pretty clear on this.
[doublepost=1534914334][/doublepost]

Man-made climate change is propaganda used to control the masses and was devised by the dem politicians so that uneducated liberals on the east and west coasts of this country would eat it up as another "cause" to fight for.

Anybody who thinks they can change the way the earth fundamentally functions is delusional.

Climate change is REAL, the climate is always changing the Earth is forever changing.

Man made climate change is where the debate is;

Can anybody answer to what extent or specifically what percentage, is Man responsible for climate change?

Both comments are clearly not scientific educated people. Either influenced by fossil fuels company’s or bots thereof.

You can go and educate yourself as there are plenty of resources. Just make sure they are not propaganda from the fossil fuel company’s which is very difficult as they use their billions of profit.
[doublepost=1534914425][/doublepost]

That’s the theory but in practice, the news reporting shows tremendous partisan bias. You can see it in the wording of headlines, the leading and closing paragraphs of a story, and the overall tone of the copy. And also simply the frequency of stories on a topic. For example, Trump is repeatedly linked to Mueller’s investigation of Russian interference in stories, even though for more than 1.5 years, no evidence has been produced. But the Times tries to infer something improper simply by reporting every inconsequential step of the investigation, and inferring connections to Trump through wording and conjecture. The Wall Street Journal is no fanboy of Trump’s but their coverage of Mueller’s never-ending, meandering investigation is not obsessive like the Times’ is.

Generally speaking, somewhere along the way, injecting politics into everything became a part of our culture, whereas before, it was more of a private matter. But today it’s front and center in the workplace, academia, the “Arts”. And in many corners of the press, it’s become acceptable, despite clearly undermining the press’ credibility with so many people. It’s tragic and it’s going to take a long time to recover, if it ever does.

Cohen plead guilty. Manaford has been verdicted being guilty by the Jury. Next: Trump.

 

[Bonte]

The fact that a discussion about climate change has to go into “politics, religion and social issues” is sad. It’s a fact, and now we’re starting to see the horrifying effects of it.

It's a fact we are killing the earth, the climate change moniker is the political vehicle to sell it to the public. So yes, climate change is politics.

And changing to more polluting renewable energy isn't going to help, biggest scam ever. Yes, politics again.

The currently most positive prospects are that Earths population will level off at 14 billion people, killing the earth. But we can't talk about that anymore, yes, politics.

Environmental protection = politics, sad but that's how it is.

 

[Jsameds]

Oh please. More of this climate change nonsense? The earth is fine, people.

Hahah no, no it's not.

 

[kingalexthe1st]

Here's the thing I notice -
Americans seem to think it's only America doing research in to Climate Change. Whenever I see comments about 'liberals being greedy' or 'a story by the left' I just think "You do realise this is being researched, VASTLY researched, by Japan, Australia, UK, Germany...well all of Europe, China, and the rest.....and they're all coming to the same conclusion."

This is only a political thing in the USA. You can't influence results of scientists in countries around the world.

As always, Randall Monroe puts it nicely : https://xkcd.com/1732/
Notice the sharp up-tick at the end.

 

[BaldiMac]

Either that or we can just agree that all racist remarks are terrible.

Unfortunately, we don't live in a black and white world. Context matters.

 

[The Cappy]

'The magazine article covers the 10-year period from 1979 to 1989, a decade when "humanity settled the science of climate change and came surprisingly close to finding a solution" but ultimately failed to act due to various political forces.'

Ridiculous. I'm old enough to remember the 70s. Back then, everyone was panicked about the coming global ICE AGE. Even now, all these years later, people who remember those headlines and that fear mongering has had a very hard time not being skeptical about what honestly sounds exactly the same as now in the global warming debate. (A bit of casual googling produces this interesting compilation of 1970s era ice age doom... https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/01/global-cooling-compilation/ ) No matter what you think about the evidence for global warming, ANYONE arguing that in 1979, "humanity" considered any aspect of this question "settled" is engaging in shameless historical revisionism. (Full disclosure: I find the evidence compelling. But I agree with Tracinski that the debate is not being conducted in an honest manner... http://thefederalist.com/2014/02/26/the-original-sin-of-global-warming/)
[doublepost=1534949382][/doublepost]

Here's the thing I notice -
Americans seem to think it's only America doing research in to Climate Change. Whenever I see comments about 'liberals being greedy' or 'a story by the left' I just think "You do realise this is being researched, VASTLY researched, by Japan, Australa, UK, Germany...well all of Europe, China, and the rest.....and they're all coming to the same conclusion."

This is only a political thing in the USA. You can't influence results of scientists in countries around the world.

As always, Randall Monroe puts it nicely : https://xkcd.com/1732/
Notice the sharp up-tick at the end.

"This is only a political thing in the USA. You can't influence results of scientists in countries around the world." You have a very provincial and insular view of the world if you really think that's true.