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

[dragje]

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.

My thoughts exactly, it amazes me that even today various people state that global warming is a hoax. I personally think that politicians who deny global warming should be removed from office. Simply because by denying scientific facts these politicians endanger the world population. Most often, what makes it even worse, due to personal benefits for the short term, by accepting money from large companies to favour them with access to prohibited places in search for oil of new industrial factories.

 

[omihek]

Hahah no, no it's not.

Hahah yes, yes it is.

 

[canadianreader]

The earth went through cycles of climate changes maybe this one is just another cycle apart from the human effect

 

[kingalexthe1st]

You have a very provincial and insular view of the world if you really think that's true.

I'm referring to over 97% of scientists that agree that climate change is man-made. To influence that many world-wide scientists to that degree is not going to happen.
[doublepost=1534954530][/doublepost]

The earth went through cycles of climate changes maybe this one is just another cycle apart from the human effect

No one denies that. It's the rate of increase that clearly shows it's man-made. I'll link this again to demonstrate https://xkcd.com/1732/

 

[Irishman]

I think that started when it was called Global Warming. People took that literal and said, but wait, it's still cold! I was never one to be on the side of Al Gore and his agenda, but climate change is real. I lived in the rust belt and I can remember snows as a kid being 3-4 feet of snow a season, EASY! and 3-6" at a time. That seems to be tapering off to the point that even the winter season is being shortened. And what does come down is little snows here and there. And I mean, there has to be something said for the fires and floods of late.

Part of the confusion is the name, as you said, it made people expect to see a smooth, ever-increasing temperatures, without temperature drops of any kind, at any time.

Finally, we came to understand that basically this heat is infrared energy, trapped by CO2 and other greenhouse gases. As this energy rises, it has chaotic and extreme effects on the environment, and weather. That's why we can have record cold weather and snow storms, even though the overall weather over decadal time is warming.

 

[PG(Austin)]

That's why we can have record cold weather and snow storms, even though the overall weather over decadal time is warming.

Exactly, I was about to say, the weather is getting more extreme. The area I grew up now gets super fridged temps and a lot of ice now. And some locations that historically have snow now get record snowfall and on the other side of it some get snowfall where snowfall has rarely, if ever, been.

 

[Irishman]

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.

Documentation for your claim?

 

[PG(Austin)]

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.

I'm just glad the World is still flat....I mean why cloud things with facts.

And in case you hadn't noticed, the world doesn't stop at the coast of the U.S. U.S. politicians have no control over the rest of the World's scientists, studies and land mass. I think people of the U.S. think that, as the U.S., we control the world and all the information. Our politics dictate every other person on the planet. Sorry, but THAT is propaganda used to control the masses, devised by the politicians so that the uneducated people of the U.S. will eat it up on the nightly news, consequently re-electing them to collect, spend, redistribute and save for themselves as much of our money as possible.

 

[lec0rsaire]

As someone who works in the autonomy field, I'm going to go on record as saying Waterworld currently seems to have a much better chance of being prophetic than Terminator.

Be careful! These things can become self aware without you knowing!

 

[budselectjr]

I like the picture of the wildfires that were caused by the refusal to do basic fire prevention like controlled burns and clearing overgrowth and brush.

 

[PG(Austin)]

I like the picture of the wildfires that were caused by the refusal to do basic fire prevention like controlled burns and clearing overgrowth and brush.

Refusal? Really? You think these municipalities don't know what they are doing and are ignorantly refusing to do these things to let their communities burn, and lose firefighter's and citizen's lives? Or did you read that on a forum and take it as truth?

 

[PracticalMac]

Climate change reminds me of the Superman comics almost 100 years ago when Superman's father tried to warn his planet of future destruction.

Or what about the home world of Thanos and his attempts at warning? (See Infinity War movie)

Unlike Jarel (Superman's biological dad) and Thanos, instead of sounding the alarm, #45 is literally pouring on the coal.

(BTW, I posted about this article in MR-F a few weeks ago)

 

[jerwin]

#45 is literally pouring on the coal.

The New Republic avers that Trump’s Climate Plan Could Do More Damage Than No Plan At All.

Business as usual, of course, would lead to 2 -- 6 degrees of warming. Americans, please multiply by 1.8.

 

[GeneralChang]

Be careful! These things can become self aware without you knowing!

That would sure make my job a lot easier!

 

[budselectjr]

Refusal? Really? You think these municipalities don't know what they are doing and are ignorantly refusing to do these things to let their communities burn, and lose firefighter's and citizen's lives? Or did you read that on a forum and take it as truth?

The estimates say there are over 100 million dead trees in the forests of California. I read that on the New York Times.

So yeah, apparently they don’t know what they are doing. Lol.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/19/...ad-trees-prompt-fears-of-giant-wildfires.html

 

[jerwin]

So, how do you stop the bark beetles?

 

[wizard]

The big problem I have here is that the wild fires have nothing to do with global warming or any of that other unproven non sense. Most of California is a desert and as such will at times be very dry. Combine that with an excessive human population that seemingly is hell bent on unnatural surroundings, that is landscaping with plants that by their very nature turn into highly combustible fire fuel, it is no surprise at all that these places go up in flames on a moments notice.

In other words you can't link these fires to the threat of global warming because fires such as these have happened in this area for centuries. The big difference is the human population and the multitude of potential fire starters.

The next thing we are about to hear is that all of the recent earth quakes along the Rim of Fire are due to global warming. Like it is possible to offer up a learned opinion one day after such an event.
[doublepost=1534977470][/doublepost]

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

I wouldn't go so far as to say the Earth is fine, but yeah the hell bent desire on the global warming crowd to turn every disaster into proof of global warming is non sense. Some seem to eat this up though, gullible is probably the operative word.

As for the Earth, the Earth may be fine but mans place on it may not be all that desirable. The problem is over population which is going to create some really nasty wars all on its own as people compete for resources. In any event as man passes on into history I don't see any real problems for Earth. It will take some time to remove the scares but in the end nothing man does here on this planet is permanent.
[doublepost=1534977858][/doublepost]

Refusal? Really? You think these municipalities don't know what they are doing and are ignorantly refusing to do these things to let their communities burn, and lose firefighter's and citizen's lives? Or did you read that on a forum and take it as truth?

Actually yes! These communities are of course locally governed and it si these local people that try to maintain their communities as some sort of biblical garden.

It isn't this hard to understand just look at the picture attached which showed homes burnt down in what obviously was a highly wooded community. Those trees are nothing but fuel in an arid desert like environment and that is what most of California is. It would be no different in any of the other states that have an arid environment, you build houses in such forests and you are just asking for fires and loss of life. The only real difference is that some states have regulation that means something while California defer to the rich and famous.

 

[omihek]

I wouldn't go so far as to say the Earth is fine, but yeah the hell bent desire on the global warming crowd to turn every disaster into proof of global warming is non sense. Some seem to eat this up though, gullible is probably the operative word.

As for the Earth, the Earth may be fine but mans place on it may not be all that desirable. The problem is over population which is going to create some really nasty wars all on its own as people compete for resources. In any event as man passes on into history I don't see any real problems for Earth. It will take some time to remove the scares but in the end nothing man does here on this planet is permanent.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on your second point. The earth has plenty of resources for everyone. Overpopulation is even less of a problem than climate change, which isn't a problem at all.

 

[Irishman]

I'm going to have to disagree with you on your second point. The earth has plenty of resources for everyone. Overpopulation is even less of a problem than climate change, which isn't a problem at all.

I get where you're coming from. It's hard and stressful to think about some of these issues. Why do you believe that climate change "isn't a problem at all "?
[doublepost=1535030060][/doublepost]

Actually their bias is pretty evident. Have you seen the racist remarks tweeted by Sarah Jeong? The New York Times has decided to stand by her, and the fact that she is on the editorial board and helping to steer the ship says a lot. The Times would go nuts if another publication supported this kind of person and we all know it.

That's because she isn't THAT kind of person. She said that it was satire and they believe her.

We'll see if it affects her writing.
[doublepost=1535030756][/doublepost]

Also, "Science is true until new science proves it wrong." Fixed it for you.

And which actual, working climate scientists have proven AGW wrong?
[doublepost=1535031130][/doublepost]

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?

How many retractions/corrections have been offered by the NYT that have been in 45's favor?

Can you provide a link?
[doublepost=1535031215][/doublepost]

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

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

We do?!? Looks like I didn't get the memo on that one.

Well, it's a known fact that reality has a known liberal bias.
[doublepost=1535031568][/doublepost]

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.

Are you open to letting the science lead you on this topic, instead of your politics?

I'm willing to invest the time and effort to walk you through some things that explain why scientists are so certain that AGW is happening.

It might change your mind. It might not. Are you willing to give it a go?

 

[Jsameds]

Hahah yes, yes it is.

The scientific consensus disagrees with you.

 

[Irishman]

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

Why do you believe that politics are driving their actions and plans here?
[doublepost=1535032306][/doublepost]

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.

Zach,

I know you're passionate in your views, but in this case, on this topic , the reality is that human-driven climate change is everything but political. The reason that politicians are talking about it is a little complicated.

The hard part is that once scientists discovered that the threats are real, they also realized pretty fast that they were pretty ill-equipped to make the kinds of systemic changes that we would need to have a chance at slowing or arresting the warming.

They were kind of like Cassandra, trying to warn the world about a danger it couldn't see. The had to reach out to policy makers (not just libs, or the left), to make changes in a scale that could actually help. It's why IPCC was formed, to spread the word with clear instructions for policy makers to enact changes. (And if you'll read , none of those instructions are to tax the air you breathe )

I hope this puts some of your fears to rest.
[doublepost=1535032939][/doublepost]

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.

Good Lord, dude! How do you live being so cynical?!?
[doublepost=1535033532][/doublepost]

'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/

For the record, wattsupwiththat is a long-running blog founded by Anthony Watt, whose sole purpose is to deny the reality of human driven climate change. That means that they are a trash source. If you're using them for a source for your claim about what climate scientists were saying back then, I'd have to say that you're misremembering the 70's!
[doublepost=1535034092][/doublepost]

The earth went through cycles of climate changes maybe this one is just another cycle apart from the human effect

My understanding of what I have read is that, back in the 70's, climate scientists were expecting a cooling trend. When they began observing warming instead, they started looking for why. That was when they came to understand the human contribution via fossil fuel consumption made up the difference.

 

[PracticalMac]

The big problem I have here is that the wild fires have nothing to do with global warming or any of that other unproven non sense. Most of California is a desert and as such will at times be very dry. Combine that with an excessive human population that seemingly is hell bent on unnatural surroundings, that is landscaping with plants that by their very nature turn into highly combustible fire fuel, it is no surprise at all that these places go up in flames on a moments notice.

Pine trees do not grow in the desert (yes, I lived in CA for 4 years).

I 100% agree with you that mans global activities are creating situations, and it will continue to get worse.

Yes, you are basically admitting climate change is real by agreeing mans effects at regional level create unnatural situations. Logically, nearly every local level is changed by man, thus the entire world is changing.

Personally, I am seeing effects of climate change, and it is impacting me (although not too badly, yet).

 

[kingalexthe1st]

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.

This is grossly over-simplified. Widely-accepted scientific theories are rarely proved wrong entirely. They are mostly built upon, refined and expanded. For example, Newton wasn't wrong; his laws were expanded upon by Einstein. Darwin wasn't wrong, his ideas were expanded upon into the modern synthesis.