« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Earth Day 2012: The Day the Tide Turned

Happy Earth Day 2012, everyone! One day we may look back on this as the time when the tide began to recede – that being the tide of Anthropogenic Global Warming hysteria.

The canary in this metaphorical mine is the Discovery Channel, long a mass purveyor of AGW porn. In its new seven-part series “Frozen Planet” Discovery confronts distraught polar bears and calving glaciers in glorious High Definition, but nary a mention of the Scientific Consensus that can best be summed up as “Aaaaargghhh! We’re All Going to Die!!”

Because their marketers have discovered that people don’t buy that. Either they don’t agree or they’ve tired of the subject, but Discovery just can’t sell that brand of compost any more.

The article in The New York Times tiptoes around that fact, blaming the lack of AGW hysteria on the “politicization” of the issue and the 10% (sic) of us Flat Earthers who are conflicted between Scientific Consensus and Our Lying Eyes.


No Place for Heated Opinions

The vast majority of scientists agree that human activities are influencing changes to the climate — especially at the poles — and believe that the situation requires serious attention. That scientific consensus is absent from “Frozen Planet,” for reasons that shed light on the dilemma of commercial television, where the pursuit of ratings can sometimes clash with the quest for environmental and scientific education, particularly in issues, like global warming, that involve vociferous debate.

Including the scientific theories “would have undermined the strength of an objective documentary, and would then have become utilized by people with political agendas,” Vanessa Berlowitz, the series producer, said in an interview.

The people who are dismissive of human effect on climate change make up about 10 percent of the American population, according to … research, but they sometimes drown out the broader conversation about the subject, making themselves seem more numerous than they are.

How remarkable that a bunch of nuts, whackos and bloggers (but I repeat myself) have been able to derail the whole AGW train despite the fact that their voice has been virtually shut out of the mass media outlets who have been dishing up a steady diet of AGW-flavored tripe for a generation or more. (Note that Discovery Communications is an independent company and component of the S&P 500, but it was formerly owned by NBC Universal, at the time a subsidiary of Geeneral Electric.)

Then the Times tacks on this coda, as if completely unrelated from their editorial decision to soften the AGW hard-sell of “Frozen Planet”:

Coincidentally, Discovery Communications — which owns the Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, the Science Channel and others — announced in early April that it was shutting down Planet Green, a four-year-old channel that featured environmental programming. The channel floundered with low ratings and what executives said were a lack of entertaining eco-themed shows.

Planet Green has been swirling down the commode for a while. Best known for the compelling reality drama of “Living With Ed” (on the eco-extremism of Ed Begley, Jr.), the network of late has descended into warmed-over ripoffs of standard cable fare: “Born Dealers” (rummage sale mavens); “Dresscue Me” (the word “fashionista” is in the description); “Conviction Kitchen” (Iron Chef meets Leavenworth Prison); “Gutted” (in which hoarders get a chance to keep some of their stuff); and “The Fabulous Beekman Boys” (a reality show apparently based on the plot of “Green Acres”).

I can’t make this stuff up.

P.S. Don’t miss the “Frozen Planet” Marathon Earth Day Extravaganza, all eight episodes (David Attenborough, not Alec Baldwin narrates). 2-8 p.m. EDT. Sponsored by Marathon Oil. (Just kidding.)


Cross-posted.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • powertothepeople

    and I love when truth exposes hysteria.

  • citizenkh

    but never passed with my approval. Micro anthropogenic climate change is an established fact. Saltwater intrusion destroying coastal marshes via the Gulf Intercoastal Waterway is long established. Rise in humidity in Phoenix due watering of lawns is long established. Erosion of the Gulf Coast due dredging of close in offshore clam shell reefs to use for roads & driveways, and as a feedstock for lime kilns to make cement is established. Dredging a ship channel through a cypress swamp allowing saltwater intrusion to kill it hurt New Orleans much more during Katrina than anything else (the water level in New Orleans East was the exact same height for both Betsy & Katrina).

    That being said, the climate has long had cycles. This keeps things in balance. There is no such thing as AGW, at least to any degree of any concern.

    FYI, in his AGW pitch book, “Collapse” by Jared Diamond, he actually pointed out that cooling was the demise of the Norse colony on Greenland and published a photo of a Norse home sticking out of a glacier. He lauds the Japanese for preserving their forests by harvesting massive swaths of Amazon Rain Forests. How dumb can the good professor be?

  • jimnden

    Consensus among the “vast majority” of scientists and vociferous debate cited in the same paragraph? One would think the writer could use a different construction. Maybe they’re going for irony.

  • macbookben

    … I repost from YouTube a short excerpt of Michael Crichton’s “State of Fear” as read so mellifluously by the late Charlton Heston. His message is clear, that it is pure folly for mankind to subjugate nature (and nature’s God) to its commands.

  • mdavt

    I have been watching and enjoying this series and have noted the absence of a strong CAGW bias. I expect the final episode airing tonight, ‘On Thin Ice’, to be contain a fair amount of the nonsense, though. Perhaps they’ll be able to keep it balanced, but I have to believe there are just too many true believers involved in the production to pass up the opportunity to get in some licks in the last episode. To bolster this, a teaser on the Discovery Channel website includes ‘Polar Bears in Decline’, which anyone paying attention to the subject knows to be opposite the truth.

  • 6eorge Jetson

    that requires giving unlimited resources to the statist 1%ers that can improve conditions of life on the planet for themselves.

    </BackToThePresent>

  • bs61

    I believed that scientist just wanted to prove or not prove their theories… up until ClimateGate! The black balling of peer reviewers who dared to ask for the raw data and the VB program adding one to the temperature so it would match the hockey stick was all I needed.

    Thanks Red State for letting Steve post.

    Unfortunately I work for a company stupidly based in California – so for every toilet flushing or toilet paper saving initiative they issue, I do the exact opposite!

    • citizenkh

      after Hockey stick data was debunked by statisticians a decade ago.

    • RDCook

      A solution to the controversy might be to grant each side of the AGW argument several millions of dollars and then give them two years to compile all their information for a definitive report. Each side would then give an exact copy of all their information to the other side with no proprietary constraints. Each side would then have a year or two to peer review the other side?s information and either agree or identify errors or misinterpretation of the scientific data. The debate could be broadcast as a reality TV show with a moderator explaining scientific terms.
      I wonder which side would balk at this idea.

      • rbdwiggins

        that never happened should remove all doubt from your query…

        Lord Monckton is clearly “unafraid” to enter hostile territory.

        I suspect that Climategate I and II have already exposed too much of the Alarmist’s source material. Thank you, East Anglia whistleblower(s).

        Besides, the latest comprehensive report from the real world of climate already exists:

        Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2011 Interim Report

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    lack of hoopla over earth day itself. It simply is not on most people’s radar. Gee, it seems that a nation in a recession has more important things to think about, Who’da Thunk it?

    • http://stevemaley.com Steve Maley

      … will be this year’s big Red Progressive blowout.

  • johnt

    who live & think accordingly, it’s a marketing mistake to talk in decades, or for that matter, centuries. Big mistake, the Destructionists blundered on this one.
    As with the Obama thing, the hysterical are losing it, borderline as they were all along. Some “spokeman” offered that they should start burning down the homes of the deniers, didn’t specify whether or not the people should be inside.
    The inner Nazi never dies.

  • dudette

    …some earth day.

  • Wayne

    was another example of a change in strategy to appeal to the heart strings of the viewers rather than their intellect. One argument presented (in the form of an interview) was that the United States position on global warming is based on a two year election cycle rather than long range planning.

    I reacted with typical jaw dropping amazement to the idea that we should consider the election process as an impediment to advancing the idea that one solution to AGW is to push aside the founding principles of our republic. Or, any free society for that matter by 1) Establishing AGW as a fact without objective peer review, and 2) Rendering the voting public powerless to stop an act of national insanity by supplanting our individual rights with a generational policy of enslavement…..(argghhh)

    I can feel my blood pressure rising so I’m going to stop….

  • mkj350

    You spoke too soon. Although I don’t think they specifically mentioned AGW, It was all about how the ice shelves are breaking off and what a disaster it’s going to be when more and more of them break off and the penguin populations are diminishing (they didn’t know whether dying or relocating), and they’re doing tests to see if the ice shelves are melting from below, blah, blah, blah. I had to change channels. Listened as long as I could stand it. The other segments of the Frozen Planet series before last night were very good.

    • http://stevemaley.com Steve Maley

      …implied that this was the episode that ventured closest to catastrophic AGW. They even debated whether to air it at all, and then decided to make an Earth Day special out of it.

      I have the episode DVR’d at home, so I may watch it eventually.

  • metairiemike

    You forgot to mention that there WAS a 10th and last episode of Frozen Planet, shown in the UK but not in the US, that harped on man-made global warming. That episode was not shown in the US because it was deemed “inappropriate” for US audiences give our scepticism.
    See, Michelle, every once in a while you CAN be proud to be an American. We’re obviously smarter/less gullible than the average BBC viewer.

  • fishgod3

    and that is something to glotenover

  • fishgod3

    misspelled and missed the space bar,gloat over.See the irony.

  • ihateliberals

    Those of us informed people know what Dihydrogen monoxide really is. Water, H2O. some people are very easily led down the primrose path to destruction. Anyone tht has studied geology knows that the Earth goes through patterns of Global warming and Cooling and the colling period was over 22,000 years ago when Global warming started that we are still in and actually all most at the end of. The next solling period is due and may be worse than the last Ice Age. The lst Warming period some 60,000 years ago was much worse than this one. Seems the media tries to ignore the facts because facts always get in the way of liberal lies.

    • http://www.tooncesthecat.wordpress.com tooncesthecat

      just add a little C12H22O11 and disodium 6-hydroxy-5-((2-methoxy-5-methyl-4-sulfophenyl)azo)-2-naphthalenesulfonate to your Dihydrogen monoxide.

  • ihateliberals

    n/t

  • vnov5

    The problem with AGW is Al Gore. Had a non-partisan been the poster boy for AGW, there would not be the paranoia and dismissal from the Right that is reflected in this Article.

    I am sorry to the folks who would like it to be otherwise – for a host of various reasons – but AGW is a fact. The evidence is too overwhelming and voluminous to post here, but suffice it to say, global CO2 hasn’t broken the 300 ppm barrier in over 800,000 years. It is at 394 and rising rapidly. CO2 is a known greenhouse gas and (not surprisingly) the rise in global CO2 is having a measurable effect on global temperatures.

    The folks who look at climate-gate and decide that is all they need to know, or the folks who don’t even want to hear about the plethora of evidence for AGW need to rethink their position — especially if they are doing so because they view this subject as a lefty conspiracy/tree-hugger foolery.

    This should not be a political subject, and it pains me to constantly see it treated as one.

    • http://stevemaley.com Steve Maley

      It was Al Gore and his ilk who declared the science settled & started cramming Kyoto and Cap and Trade down everyone’s throats.

      Of course there was resistance.

      And then it turns out that Al positioned himself to profit handsomely from all the mandates and offsets.

      There has been a thumb on the scale all along.

      “…global CO2 hasn?t broken the 300 ppm barrier in over 800,000 years.” What about before that? The earth is 4.5 billion years old and at times the concentration of CO2 has been 20 times higher. During that 800,000 years there have been several ice ages — what caused them to start? What caused them to end so abruptly?

      • gekster

        Is that it is a fact that 10,000 years ago, where I am at in Michigan, it was under 2 miles of ice.
        I ask them where did it go.
        They all say the globe warmed up.
        I ask them how did it happen when there was no SUV’s back then.

        That’s when they change the subject.

        • earlgrey

          That is why it is so flat–glaciers. I just get a look of pity and a nod from my friends in high tech academic research. I guess I am just not smart enough to understandz

          • funwithknives

            Being born an Ignorant, Conservative Racist of Questionable Parentage will do that to a person.
            Built in mental processes,starting with a learning deficiency, and all that new-agey stuff……..

          • earlgrey

            When I met them. Yes, they probably have always viewed me as a little less smart because that is the nature of people that go into academics. Now though they are different. Both are more liberal, but they are definitely more elitist in their thinking and they seem to only associate with other academics. To some extent this is an hazard, but that doesn’t excuse them from considering simple common sense arguments that are backed by actual fact rather than exotic climate models. I bear no ill will. I am not insecure about my intelligence, or lack of it. It just is interesting to see how long term isolation in govt. funded research affects the mind.

      • vnov5

        Your point on Gore is the very one I was making: he is not the right person to speak on this subject – mostly because his involvement, for many, makes this a political issue. However, you should be aware that he was only saying the science is settled on this subject because it has been settled since at least 1979.

        The causes of ice ages, atmospheric composition over the course of the planet’s existence and various side-issue are interesting subjects. They are also, unfortunately, only used to confuse the subject (originally used by interests who did not want the rational response to AGW to upset their business models, and later by people parroting the talking point). They are not relevant to this subject (except in understanding the macro elements of climate science). Note: if you are interested in seeing what AGW will do over the course of the next 100 years, there are periods when the global CO2 levels have been in the ranges we will have shortly – ocean levels were 20+ feet higher for instance. For your benefit and the below comment: CO2 levels were at 190ppm coupled with regular cycles in Earth’s orientation to the sun – called Milankovitch cycles – were the cause of the last “ice age” and changes to both (Co2 at 280ppm) caused their end (these are well researched subjects, and like AGW, well understood by climate scientists).

        The facts of AGW are actually very simple and each of these is not in dispute: global CO2 levels have been steadily rising – and increasingly so – since the industrial revolution (other important parts of AGW are also rising (water vapor and methane)). Most of that rise is directly associated with human activity (more is indirectly related to it). That rise is causing predictable global warming. That rise in global temperature which will cause some serious problems for our future existence on this planet (changing crop yields, sea levels, more severe storms, weather fluctuations, much higher temperatures, etc.). I have children who will be living on a very different planet because some foolish businessmen care more about their short-term profits than the future of their kids. Politicians have been all too happy to help (for the same reason).

        That is why this should not be about politics – this debate should ONLY be carried out in the context of the science.

        • Finrod

          The whole problem with global warming theory is that what it says should be happening in the upper atmosphere is not borne out by temperature readings of the upper atmosphere as taken by satellites. Go look at anything they put out, the only temperature readings they will talk about are surface readings, because it’s only the surface temperature readings that show warming; the warming that their models predict should be happening in the upper atmosphere Just Isn’t There.

          Their solution? Pretend that the satellite temperature readings are wrong or don’t matter.

          That’s not science.

          • vnov5

            Here’s why: Like greenhouse glass, CO2 (and water vapor and methane) is almost transparent to visible light but not to thermal energy (IR). Light from the sun gets to the surface and heats the Earth. Some of that thermal energy is radiated back into space. The good and bad news is that our atmosphere holds some of the thermal energy at the surface (which keeps the Earth at a habitable temperature). Unfortuntely, too much of those “greenhouse” gases in the atmosphere and we have excessive temperatures. The reason the upper atmosphere is is not heating up at the same rate is the same reason the area inside the greehouse is hotter than the area above the glass.

        • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

          The primary one being that our world is actually warming. because you see, it isn’t, it really is not !

          Ice core samples prove that there is no ability of co2 to cause forcing. The periods in this planet’s past which were warmest correspond with low co2 and periods of mass glaciation correspond with much higher co2 concentration than today.

          Now, you have one point, Methane really is a very potent greenhouse gas, if it increased a lot then we might be in trouble. But the evidence for any large increase is spotty as well.

          • vnov5

            You need to do a little researching before you post something like this – it is manifestly incorrect.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            what is incorrect is nearly every lie put out by the hoaxers in the last ten years.

        • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

          then you should just go ahead and kill yourself now and put yourself out of your misery because the likelihood of anyone changing their lifestyles on such flimsy evidence is remote. And even if we all did beggar ourselves in the western nations, the emergent nations certainly would not.

          Unlike you, I don’t fall for the alarmists who have been trying to scare us to death about some kind of scare hoax or the other for decades. And if there is any truth to problems we may be causing ourselves in the future, I have confidence that free minds and free people can come up with a way to mitigate the problems

          • vnov5

            I am not worried about me – it is my grandchildren who will be paying the price for this stupidity. I will be dead before the worst of the consequences come to fruition.

          • gekster

            What is it they will face.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            nt

          • gekster

            And arn’t we fat enough already.
            I do notice that he hasn’t answered yet.
            Maybe like me he’s working in his car, err, bike right now and will get back later.

        • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

          I thought you guys all crawled into a hole when word got out that everyone was cooking the books. I guess there are still some True Believers™ around after all.

        • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

          and liars. That is, he’s a liar who tells lies. He’s done that since before 1979 when he pretended to be a conservative Democrat instead of the lying opportunist he is.

    • funwithknives

      economic when they started the utter insanity of carbon credits.
      1) None, repeat none of the stolen funds goes to carbon reduction in any meaningful way.
      the c

      • funwithknives

        to continue:2) the money in question goes to general fund accounts
        3) The levies against Airlines’ Co2 starts with the beginning of any trip, no matter the starting point. No account,or allowance is used to segregate “before and after” emissions {generated over the E U,vs the balance of said trip }

        InSoFar as your 800,000 years/300ppm allegation, where is more than one source for this? Peer reviewed, independently? Links?
        Please enlighten all us poor unfortunates as to how 94 parts in One Million makes a difference that can be tracked, plotted and definetively proven, over time.
        A recent letter to NASA from many former employees and associates questions many of Hansen’s methodologies and pre-supposed outcomes.
        There is no settled science in this question. Anyone stating absolutism is this debate,pro or con, leaves too much to doubt.

        Take Sun {radiation and spot} Cycles, for instance………….

        • vnov5

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth’s_atmosphere
          While this is Wiki – which will certainly get some laughs – the article is accurate and sourced. NOAA and others have more deep science on this subject if you would like to dig deeper. Sun spots are part of a short cycle that have very little to do with this subject.

          As far as this: “There is no settled science in this question.” I would be curious if you could point to a single peer-reviewed article by a climate scientist that asserts that AGW is not a fact. Or the Academy of Scientists of ANY country on the planet who says AGW is not a fact.

        • vnov5

          I apologize for not responding to your greater point: The EU et al using this subject to take money for themselves. It is an unfortunate quality of all problems that some people will try to make money off the problem without trying to fix it. That does not make the problem go away, especially this one. It just makes dealing with it a problem unto itself.

          • http://stevemaley.com Steve Maley

            “Note: if you are interested in seeing what AGW will do over the course of the next 100 years, there are periods when the global CO2 levels have been in the ranges we will have shortly ? ocean levels were 20+ feet higher for instance.”

            This statement implies that you believe that the one variable that matters in the global climate system is CO2 concentration. Dial in 0.03 mol% and you get “normal” sea levels; dial in 0.04% & you get sea level + 20 feet.

            I don’t believe it. CO2 is by any definition a trace gas. Lots of other variables matter: dust, water vapor, clouds, soot, other gases, solar output, ocean uptake etc. that control the complex dynamic system that is our atmosphere, along with its interactions with oceans & land masses.

            Mother Nature is full of lots of examples of negative feedbacks. Perhaps one of them explains why it’s not as warm now as was forecast 20 years ago.

            On the other hand, if the situation is as dire as you describe, we’re only an Indonesian Peat Fire or a really big volcano away from total destruction. If everything is that precariously balanced, there’s really nothing we can do.

            Oh, and 1979 was when the science was settled? I seem to remember Global Cooling alarmism was all the rage in the mid 70s — I guess Those guys didn’t get the memo.

          • arthurjake

            That is why it is called climate change now. Liberals can’t figure out if we will freeze or boil.

          • vnov5

            Sorry it took me a while to find this: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008152242.htm

            “I don’t beleive it” without more is just silly. Do some homework – please. We haven’t been north of 300ppm in 800,000+ years and we are at 345ppm and rising rapidly. This is not a “cycle” or sunspots or “flimsy” – it is man made and concrete — and we needed to start acting on it decades ago.

          • rbdwiggins

            can falsify Newton’s Second Law of Thermodynamics, they will forever be little more than greedy, agenda-driven political hacks.

            Simply stated: The planetary mechanism required to support their bogus theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming due to an increase in atmospheric CO2 can never exist.

            Note: The pre-trial discovery phase of Mann vs. Ball should prove to be very interesting…

          • funwithknives

            Just as fast as I can find at least two, for back-up.

            Wikipedia? Laughs? Why not quote Mr. Roberts Neighborhood?

            $$$ comment: SOME people? This ain’t SOME People ,vee. It IS a Vast Gov’t Conglomerate doing everything it can to jam funds into it’s maw and is using unsettled ‘science’ to move their agenda right along. EU has steadfastly stuck to their position while ignoring virtually every other voice in Europe that asks for some rational thought.
            The only occurence that will change their tune is when China, Russia and India, and US, start retaliating. Russia’s overflight permitting process alone will be real fun to watch. A one week boycott by America would be nice butI doubt our airlines have it in them. Too many cross-ticketing alliances exist to make it happen.

            Thanks for caring. Later, rest assured, pro or con.

  • http://www.twitter.com/AWG9_yoyo yoyo

    A “lack of entertaining eco-themed shows”.

    Are there any other kind?

    • arthurjake

      I like to save money as much as the next guy. I am smart enough to realize whatever saves me gas in my car or on my electric bill might be worth buying. This is why things like tankless hot water heaters and saving construction materials are popular. Environmentalist point to skewed numbers and crap logic while the free market makes things better for people everyday.

  • ken58

    I gave up on the Discovery Channel nature shows long ago as they all tended to be nothing but global warming propaganda. I was always amazed at how they always managed to work something about global warming in even when it had nothing whatsoever to do with the topic. So when I saw that the Discovery Channel was running a program entitled “Frozen Planet” I figured it would be nothing but non stop global warming baloney. Too late I learn that the show refrained from from this.