PDA

View Full Version : This Must Be The "Going Green" Episode..



airrick
November 23rd, 2008, 12:55 AM
Not sure if anyone noticed.. like we could miss it.. but Sci Fi has been pushing this environmental stuff for a couple of weeks now. The logo on the screen is green right now and they are doing all the little Ads during commercial breaks talking about going green.

I dont have a problem with it, matter of fact its kinda cool. I noticed that this weeks Ghost Hunters had a small segment @ the start where they mentioned something about a "green" dishwasher and I bet a lot of other shows had a "green" theme.

Do you guys find it kinda cool and ironic that this episode was aired during this Sci Fi "going green" week? I wonder if the entire purpose wasnt just to forward Keller and McKay but to help share knowledge about the environment. That would account for some of the special appearances in the show, Bill Nye for example. Kinda helps get some extra names when they are doing it for a bigger purpose.. and the money helps too..

Ezi_May
November 23rd, 2008, 12:59 AM
It's part of Universal's green week.
http://www.greenisuniversal.com/about.php

Nadji
November 23rd, 2008, 01:11 AM
It was written with a Green theme in mind. Joe mentioned it in his blog during his remnants breakdown.

http://josephmallozzi.wordpress.com/

airrick
November 23rd, 2008, 01:23 AM
It was written with a Green theme in mind. Joe mentioned it in his blog during his remnants breakdown.

http://josephmallozzi.wordpress.com/


Eh, I missed that one.. either way it was a very cool thing to tie this all together with other shows as well.. :)

Major_Griff
November 23rd, 2008, 02:18 AM
Did you notice at the end, Rodney's little "We all need to do our part to end global warming". Definitely green week.

talyn2k1
November 23rd, 2008, 08:39 AM
Did you notice at the end, Rodney's little "We all need to do our part to end global warming". Definitely green week.

It didn't bother me at all that the episode was green-themed up until that line, which just echoes of the usual self-righteous propaganda statements that seem to be constantly rammed down our throats these days.

I think they could've done the episode's green-theme justice without that line at the end, which was just forced in to appease the green crowd.

airrick
November 23rd, 2008, 01:17 PM
It didn't bother me at all that the episode was green-themed up until that line, which just echoes of the usual self-righteous propaganda statements that seem to be constantly rammed down our throats these days.

I think they could've done the episode's green-theme justice without that line at the end, which was just forced in to appease the green crowd.

Well to me it was kinda clear thats what they were doing because several other shows.. even the "reality" series were giving us little injections of the green treatment this week

Daedalus-304
November 23rd, 2008, 01:28 PM
I think they could've done the episode's green-theme justice without that line at the end, which was just forced in to appease the green crowd.

That line just seemed forced and cheesy. It was good episode otherwise.

Armada Master
November 24th, 2008, 12:12 AM
Ugh...the GW crap was nauseating...

Giantevilhead
November 24th, 2008, 12:33 AM
The moral of this episode: trying to solve global warming will create a problem that's 100 times worse so we shouldn't try to fix it at all.

SerenaSerenity
November 24th, 2008, 10:54 AM
I think it was a good idea. Even the we all have to do our part thing.

And the fact that it got messed up just showed us really that one person can't solve the problem on his/her own and emphasized that we all need to work together to solve the problem. *nod nod* My own personal opinion of course.

KnightCrusader
November 25th, 2008, 05:05 PM
Even though I realized it was Green Week, they did a good job getting the theme in there without making it huge. They just said "we should all do our part" and talked about cooling the planet. I can stomach that.

You think that is bad? Go watch the other NBC shows. They destroyed Knight Rider on Green Week because they ran it into the ground. Ugh.

Infinite-Possibilities
November 27th, 2008, 08:48 AM
It was only a little throwaway line at the end, that Rodney delivered in the same tone he always does. It's not a big part of the epiosde's plot.

Discotrash
November 27th, 2008, 01:34 PM
It was only a little throwaway line at the end, that Rodney delivered in the same tone he always does. It's not a big part of the epiosde's plot.

The line was pretty forced and drew attention to itself. It sort of brought me out of the episode and made me think, "Yes. I'm watching television. They're doing this because of Green Week." That said, I thought it was an excellent episode, and I'm pleased that they did something environmentally themed—even if it was at the behest of the network. I did notice the green Sci Fi logo, but up to that point they did a good job of not presenting their message too explicitly.

Anthony
December 1st, 2008, 07:52 PM
People still think Humans are causing catastrophic global warming? Ha... the science behind that has been disproven over and over again.

Green week = ridiculous.

Madeleine
December 2nd, 2008, 09:22 AM
People still think Humans are causing catastrophic global warming? Ha... the science behind that has been disproven over and over again.

It has only been disproven by people like talk show hosts and politicians though. Not by proper scientists.

Mitchell82
December 2nd, 2008, 05:37 PM
People still think Humans are causing catastrophic global warming? Ha... the science behind that has been disproven over and over again.

Green week = ridiculous.

Um wrong. It has not been scientifically debunked.

Anthony
December 2nd, 2008, 06:50 PM
It has only been disproven by people like talk show hosts and politicians though. Not by proper scientists.

Not by proper scientists? I'll name a few from the top of my head.

Dr. John Christy (Atmospheric Scientist)
Dr. Roy Spencer (Atmospheric Scientist, also used to work for NASA and won many awards))
Dr. Vincent Gray (Former IPCC lead author and reviewer)
Dr. Fred Singer (Atmospheric Scientist)
William Kininmonth (Meteorologist, over 40 years experience)

They are highly qualified scientists who all disagree with catastrophic warming and have disproven it, and that's just from the top of my head ;)

The media have hijacked this whole global warming thing, the media hype one side of the story and shun anything to the contrary.

Mitchell82
December 2nd, 2008, 07:12 PM
Not by proper scientists? I'll name a few from the top of my head.

Dr. John Christy (Atmospheric Scientist)
Dr. Roy Spencer (Atmospheric Scientist, also used to work for NASA and won many awards))
Dr. Vincent Gray (Former IPCC lead author and reviewer)
Dr. Fred Singer (Atmospheric Scientist)
William Kininmonth (Meteorologist, over 40 years experience)

They are highly qualified scientists who all disagree with catastrophic warming and have disproven it, and that's just from the top of my head ;)

The media have hijacked this whole global warming thing, the media hype one side of the story and shun anything to the contrary.
Those are a few hacks paid by the government to debunk it. Actual atmospheric proof states otherwise.

jelgate
December 2nd, 2008, 07:38 PM
People people. The reason this is so conterversial because their is evidence to support it and evidence to disprove it:P

Anthony
December 3rd, 2008, 04:20 AM
Those are a few hacks paid by the government to debunk it. Actual atmospheric proof states otherwise.

Haha. Data speaks for itself. But it's actually the governments who are trying to put all these C02 reducing schemes in place. Yep, the alarmists continue to claim this global warming is occurring much faster than models predicted (which would initially show inaccuracy in the modelling), but yet the early models all over-estimated temperature rise. The earth has not warmed in 10 years, and over the last 6 years the temperatures have slightly cooled also. The temperatures over the last 150 years have not been anything outside of normal trends and fluctuations.

I mean, in the 20th century temperatures only rose by 0.7 degrees celcius and we were coming out of a little ice age. Big deal.

Sure C02 has an effect on temperature, but we would need to double the C02 in the atmosphere to get a 1 degree Celsius rise in temperature, which will be around the year 2100 mark.

More C02 is also a good thing, C02 is essential for life, vegetation thrives on it. Vegetation needs sunlight, heat, water and C02. Greenhouses usually have an increased C02 level of 1000ppm to make the plants grow more efficiently.

I love this topic.

jenks
December 3rd, 2008, 07:13 AM
Haha. Data speaks for itself. But it's actually the governments who are trying to put all these C02 reducing schemes in place. Yep, the alarmists continue to claim this global warming is occurring much faster than models predicted (which would initially show inaccuracy in the modelling), but yet the early models all over-estimated temperature rise.

No, actually the hockey stick graph has predicted the change in temperature remarkably accurately and the rise in temperature is striking. I see you've watched one of those sensationalist documentaries and lapped up every second of it, congratulations.


The earth has not warmed in 10 years, and over the last 6 years the temperatures have slightly cooled also. The temperatures over the last 150 years have not been anything outside of normal trends and fluctuations.

Both completely incorrect. Where are you getting this rubbish? I supposed you haven't heard anything about record ice melting in the Arctic or glaciers retreating all over the world either? Look at this graph, and educate yourself:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ed/Hockey_stick_chart_ipcc_large.jpg


Sure C02 has an effect on temperature, but we would need to double the C02 in the atmosphere to get a 1 degree Celsius rise in temperature, which will be around the year 2100 mark.

Baseless assertion, again, nonsense.


More C02 is also a good thing, C02 is essential for life, vegetation thrives on it. Vegetation needs sunlight, heat, water and C02. Greenhouses usually have an increased C02 level of 1000ppm to make the plants grow more efficiently.

More C02 in the atmosphere makes the seas more acidic, which is catastrophic as it would kill animals that absorb more carbon dioxide than all trees on Earth, meaning that there'd be even more C02 in the atmosphere and we'd be even more screwed.


I love this topic.

I wonder if you'll love it when I ask the question all conspiracy theorists dread... what is the motive? Why the hell would governments around the world spend billions on preventing global warming if it didn't exist? Why voluntarily damage their economies? And how the hell are have they got virtually the entire scientific community in on it too?


People people. The reason this is so conterversial because their is evidence to support it and evidence to disprove it:P

There isn't evidence to disprove it though, and there is no real controversy either, not within the scientific community anyway. The only places were people still seems to be having the wool pulled over their eyes is the US, Canada and Australia, oh and Russia, not prizes for guessing why.

Pandora's_Box
December 3rd, 2008, 07:16 AM
Bah! I can't green you, jenks. Too bad, because it would be so appropriate.

Pandora's_Box
December 3rd, 2008, 07:31 AM
For anyone actually interested in statistics and fact:

Atmospheric Concentrations of Greenhouse Gases in Geological Time and in Recent Years (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentac_majorghg.html#fig1)

Temperature Change (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recenttc.html)

Precipitation and Storm Changes (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentpsc.html)

Sea Level Changes (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentslc.html)

stargatefan234
December 6th, 2008, 07:41 AM
I'm not USA based and didn't know about "The Green Week" and even i noticed when Mckay said, "We all have to do our part to stop global warming".

Other than that one line, good episode

nx01a
December 8th, 2008, 03:44 PM
No. Actually, the 'going green' episode was 'The Seed'. :P

Anthony
December 8th, 2008, 06:10 PM
No, actually the hockey stick graph has predicted the change in temperature remarkably accurately and the rise in temperature is striking. I see you've watched one of those sensationalist documentaries and lapped up every second of it, congratulations.



Both completely incorrect. Where are you getting this rubbish? I supposed you haven't heard anything about record ice melting in the Arctic or glaciers retreating all over the world either? Look at this graph, and educate yourself:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ed/Hockey_stick_chart_ipcc_large.jpg



Baseless assertion, again, nonsense.



More C02 in the atmosphere makes the seas more acidic, which is catastrophic as it would kill animals that absorb more carbon dioxide than all trees on Earth, meaning that there'd be even more C02 in the atmosphere and we'd be even more screwed.



I wonder if you'll love it when I ask the question all conspiracy theorists dread... what is the motive? Why the hell would governments around the world spend billions on preventing global warming if it didn't exist? Why voluntarily damage their economies? And how the hell are have they got virtually the entire scientific community in on it too?



There isn't evidence to disprove it though, and there is no real controversy either, not within the scientific community anyway. The only places were people still seems to be having the wool pulled over their eyes is the US, Canada and Australia, oh and Russia, not prizes for guessing why.

Some of Dr. Roy Spencer's research:
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm#satellite-temps

Also, last year Antarctica set a record size, this year it did not grow as big, but the trend is not decreasing:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.south.jpg

The Arctic last winter also grew to its largest size in 6 years:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.jpg

And in 2008 global sea ice was not abnormally low, it was fairly average:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

This website is good:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

Here is a list of peer-reviewed articles that are contrary to catastrophic man made warming:

http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2008/04/peer-reviewed-articles-skeptical-of-man.html

The Hockey Stick graph is incorrect, even the IPCC leave it out of their reports now:

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/11/deconstructing-the-hockey-stick.html

Dr. Fred Singer on Climate Change, this is a very good watch and he explains things very well:

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=BnFfkwmg1K4

Also, you ask that why the governments would spend billions of dollars on preventing all this?

Billions of dollars were also spent on the Y2K bug, but nothing happened.

The science is far from settled. Heck, the weather prediction in Melbourne today was for 26 degrees and cloud increasing throughout the day. Now it's less than 20 degrees and raining!

Madeleine
December 9th, 2008, 12:40 AM
Billions of dollars were also spent on the Y2K bug, but nothing happened.

Wasn't that rather the point of spending all the money? So that nothing would happen?

jenks
December 9th, 2008, 01:41 PM
Also, you ask that why the governments would spend billions of dollars on preventing all this?

Billions of dollars were also spent on the Y2K bug, but nothing happened.

I never happened because billions were spent.


The science is far from settled. Heck, the weather prediction in Melbourne today was for 26 degrees and cloud increasing throughout the day. Now it's less than 20 degrees and raining!

Not sure what that has to do with anything. I don't have the time to read all those links, though I did Google Roy Spencer, and this quote has left me doubting his scientific credibility.


"Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as 'fact,' I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. . . . In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college."

You're still yet to say why the government would dream up this global conspiracy, still no ideas?

Anthony
December 9th, 2008, 04:55 PM
Wasn't that rather the point of spending all the money? So that nothing would happen?

Things still should have happened, because the world was not 100 percent fool proof from what was supposedly meant to happen from the Y2K bug.

Basically money was spent and people panicked, and the scenarios people thought were going to happen never did.

Anthony
December 9th, 2008, 05:00 PM
I never happened because billions were spent.



Not sure what that has to do with anything. I don't have the time to read all those links, though I did Google Roy Spencer, and this quote has left me doubting his scientific credibility.



You're still yet to say why the government would dream up this global conspiracy, still no ideas?

Look at Roy Spencer's research on the science of Global Warming, whether he believes in Evolution or Intelligent Design, big deal. He is an Atmospheric Scientist, look at his research in that field.

Not all governments have jumped on the bandwagon, the new New Zealand government is skeptical, as was the previous Australian government, as is the Indian government, and the Czech Republic government and I believe the new Canadian government.

Other governments have merely signed the Kyoto protocol out of symbolism and they are all talk, because the people are demanding 'action', so the governments respond to the people and media influence. But if sought through the talk, you will see emissions continue to rise even though Kyoto has been signed for many years by governments and nothing really has been done.

It's funny how the biggest climate alarmists are the biggest C02 emitters. Al Gore, Tim Flannery... all the other people who fly private jets to Climate conferences in the middle of nowhere, ie, Poznan and Bali.

I would have thought if they took this seriously they would set up an online video conference rather than have 10,000 people fly to a remote location.

jenks
December 9th, 2008, 07:18 PM
The Canadian and Australian governments are reluctant to admit the implications of global warming because their economies depends a lot on fossil fuels, the Indians and Chinese are wary because it will slow their growth. If the science were at all shaky, governments would be discrediting it left, right and centre, as it really does them no favours at all. The fact that they're actually conceding that it's a real problem, despite the massive economic implications should go a long way to demonstrate how serious this problem is. There's absolutely no motive for them to be making this up, and even less motive for the overwhelming majority of climate scientists to be making it up either. Think about it.

Anthony
December 9th, 2008, 10:46 PM
How big of a problem is this? I look around, and the Global Warming scare has been going on from about 1988, and the world is in pretty good shape.

A warming of 0.7 degrees C in the 20th century is nothing to worry about. Since the mid 19th century the earth has been warming because we came out of a little ice age, there was a cooling from 1945 to 1975, but the 'concern' for catastrophic warming really is the warming from 1975 to 1998 temperature spike, the last 6 years the earth has been slightly cooling although C02 continues to increase.

Also, early climate models from the 90's all failed to predict todays temperatures.

If you watch the Fred Singer and Roy Spencer video's, it makes things pretty clear, sure it will take about an hour to watch both, but it's worth it. Then if you can discredit the science, go for it.

People like Al Gore will try and keep this scare going (Al Gore also avoids debates, as to many well known Alarmists, ie, Tim Flannery, James Hansen), I mean after all, he's made about 30 million dollars since his scientifically incorrect fiction movie released and gets paid a 200,000 dollar appearance fee, and also flies around the world in his private jet, and one of his 3 mansions use 20 times the electricity in one year compared to the average American household.

Governments will jump on board because they will win votes, it's populism. But once the public lose interest and realise it's a hoax, governments will follow. Members of government get paid well, they will say many things and do many things to keep their seats.

jenks
December 10th, 2008, 04:33 AM
[...]

Governments will jump on board because they will win votes, it's populism. But once the public lose interest and realise it's a hoax, governments will follow. Members of government get paid well, they will say many things and do many things to keep their seats.

The reason people are concerned about global warming is because of the mountains of data proving it and the admission of governments world wide that it's a problem, these admissions came long before the phenomenon was even in the public conciousness. And there's just no way virtually every government on the planet has come together to pull this off, because that's what it would take. I'm sorry mate but it just doesn't make sense, politicians would never do this just to gain votes (and many of them don't even need votes), and even if they did they'd never get almost the entire scientific community to fall in line, they're not capable of it. No government, let alone almost all of them would do with, not when if what you say is correct, the science can be easily refuted, but the problem is, of course, it can't.

Anthony
December 10th, 2008, 04:07 PM
I could post many more links to data and research that are contrary to the sensationalist theories, but I will post 1 link to various quotes by qualified scientists from all over the globe, some who have worked for NASA and other IPCC members and a Nobel Prize winner, this will show the "debate" is not over, and the science is not at all settled. From there, it is up to you:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/banking_on_global_warming/

And it's also highly incorrect to say only a small amount of Scientists disagree with the catastrophic theories, the media has had a very very big part in this, and the media plays a very powerful middle man. The majority of the scientists in the world don't get media reputation, or mention.

Anthony
December 11th, 2008, 04:39 AM
And this very good article, by Tim Ball:

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/6855

jenks
December 11th, 2008, 06:29 AM
And this very good article, by Tim Ball:

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/6855

Within the first paragraph he's said something ridiculous already, he's not doing to well!

"CO2 is not causing warming or climate change. It is not a toxic substance or a pollutant."

CO2 can't help but warm the climate, it's impossible for it not to. And it is also a pollutant, it's making the sea more acidic which is causing major problems. I find it hard to take this guy seriously knowing that he's funded by Oil companies and his lying is so blatant that a layman like me can spot it so easily.

Use some common sense. This 'conspiracy' benefits no one, yet the 'conspiracy theory' does. Think about it.

Anthony
December 14th, 2008, 07:30 PM
Within the first paragraph he's said something ridiculous already, he's not doing to well!

"CO2 is not causing warming or climate change. It is not a toxic substance or a pollutant."

CO2 can't help but warm the climate, it's impossible for it not to. And it is also a pollutant, it's making the sea more acidic which is causing major problems. I find it hard to take this guy seriously knowing that he's funded by Oil companies and his lying is so blatant that a layman like me can spot it so easily.

Use some common sense. This 'conspiracy' benefits no one, yet the 'conspiracy theory' does. Think about it.

Have a look at this!

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

C02 is not a pollutant, it's a natural and essential part of the atmosphere. It's like calling Oxygen a pollutant.

Yes, an increase in C02 will have a warming effect, but the warming effect it has is very small and insignificant, because water vapour and clouds are the main climate drivers. Water vapour is the most prominent greenhouse gas, and the most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.

Funded by oil companies? Come on, that excuse is a little old. Even the oil companies have jumped on the green band wagon. It's not that wise to listen to everything Al Gore says.

jenks
December 15th, 2008, 01:30 PM
Have a look at this!

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

C02 is not a pollutant, it's a natural and essential part of the atmosphere. It's like calling Oxygen a pollutant.

The more CO2 in the atmosphere the more CO2 is absorbed into the sea making ti more acidic, this is catastrophic for wildlife.


Yes, an increase in C02 will have a warming effect, but the warming effect it has is very small and insignificant, because water vapour and clouds are the main climate drivers. Water vapour is the most prominent greenhouse gas, and the most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.

It only takes a small change in the composition in the atmosphere to have massive effects on the climate, especially from out point of view.


Funded by oil companies? Come on, that excuse is a little old.

Yes, and it's no less true the more it's said. He's a scientist well known for his corporate funding, and their ulterior motives.


Even the oil companies have jumped on the green band wagon. It's not that wise to listen to everything Al Gore says.

Of course they have, because they know its got to the point where the science is irrefutable. They know it's imperative we move away from such energy sources, and they know that no amount of misinformation and propaganda will save them now, they either adapt of get left behind.

Anthony
December 15th, 2008, 10:06 PM
Haha. Alright, just wait 5 years time and this whole thing will have blown over.

It is kind of amusing from my perspective to watch the loon greens, until you have to start paying more for ridiculous things.

jenks
December 16th, 2008, 12:08 AM
Yes, of course, all these billions being spent on an imaginary phenomenon that all government secretly know is BS is just a fad! Silly me. :rolleyes: Always funny to see a conspiracy theorist calling everyone else the loons ;)