[Closed] PSA Frozen Planet: the global warming epsiode

oi, you can't park a sub there! 😯

It didn't really tell us anything we didn't already know did it?

Look at how wonderful this place is.
I hope humans don't spoil it.
Think yourself privileged that you've been able to see me come here.

That sort of thing?

I do find the whole style of these things a bit hypocritical.

Love the fact that the old boy beat the scientist. Though he did miss one in 1985 😆 😆

The program does make me want a bigger tv and hd though 😈

Beautiful programme as always - but where was the controversy kimbers?

Brilliant series and I thought last nights programme was excellent and quite eyeopening.

Not sure what the controversy was either?

I missed the first 10 mins but in the bits I saw I don't think he said anything about climate change being manmade - he just talked about observable changes and the effects it was having.

Not sure what the telegraph were complaining about, but I think that there have been accusations of censorship in the US because they are 'choosing not to show this episode'.

Dave

Yep. The US and others have bought rights to show the whole series - [i]except this episode[/i].

The US and others have bought rights to show the whole series - except this episode.

😯

Really? That is quite mental and very depressing.

I guess that, on principle, the BBC could have refused to do the deal....but I guess it has to pay for further exotic adventures.

the official line I read was that that episode was optional because it contains a lot of sirdavid talking to camera, and in a lot of the world (US included) they don't know who he is.

Apparently some of the footage was merged into the previous episodes, but obviously not the monologues about climate change (I haven't seen the episode yet).

Dave

Apparently [url= http://io9.com/5865542/american-broadcasts-of-frozen-planet-will-include-controversial-climate-change-episode ]they are going to show the 'controversial' climate change episode in the US[/url], but it is causing quite a stir. :/

They're also replacing David Attenborough with Alex Baldwin on the first six episodes. WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT? Why would you replace the man who coined the popular name 'Titan Aram' for the Amorphophallus titanum, because he felt that repeatedly referring to the 'Giant Mishapen Penis' in Latin wouldn't be appropriate?

very depressing! druidh

i agree teamhurtmore all seemed blindingly obvious truths to me ,

plenty of people disagree
[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/8940694/Frozen-Planet-episode-seven-BBC-One-review.html ]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/8940694/Frozen-Planet-episode-seven-BBC-One-review.html[/url]

Beautiful programme as always - but where was the controversy kimbers?

I think it's down to showing how much the ice is actually receding, compared to a decade or two ago. I was actually quite stunned/shocked.

Wow - kimbers, that DT article is really struggling to find something interesting. Either incredible chippy or uninspired. When the talk was of controversy, I was expecting DA to come out strongly on the man-made causes. In the end apart from genuflecting to the altar of the BBC's agends with the cut to the oil rig, it seemed very balanced and informative with the odd bit of humour as well. Booker and the DT have made some useful contributions to the climate debate but like most things they take their points too far and trying to attack this programme merely makes them look a little silly imo.

@teamhurtmore - agreed.. if it hadn't have been in the telegraph, and he hadn't admitted to being a 'natural sceptic', I would have been hard pressed to tell whether they were for or against theories of man made climate change.

They seemed to be complaining that he was balanced, and then criticised him for giving credence to someone who isn't a scientist - surely from their sceptical point of view that was a godsend, and they could have used it to assert that scientists don't know best.

Dave

It is amazing how people comprehend the same article differently, I don't think read as a whole there is any criticism of the programme and at the end he was only highlighting an irony - not criticising.

Amorphophallus titanum

Booker and the DT have made some useful contributions to the climate debate

JY - it took you an hour to bite!! I threw the Booker comment in for a bit of naughty fun - you must have guessed that from my posts by now!! I was worried that it was a bit too balanced to cause a reaction 😉

Bit disappointing that the Durban conference is having such little coverage anywhere - I was looking forward to some cheeky climate debates. Booker did try to ignite something two weeks ago by misquoting a recent report that questioned the impact of man made activity on tornados (I think) but not even that caused a murmur!

* shakes fist*

I think none of expect our politicians to achieve anything tbh even if there was unanimity about AGW or anything else for that matter as they are basically shit. I suppose as much chance of accord between politicians as between forumites.

I think we should fire the worlds leading politicians into space so they can see how thin that atmosphere is then refuse to let them back onto the planet until they agree to sort it.

JY - you are too pessimistic. Merkozy have just issued a statement explaining why atheists are so angry. 😉

there is a height joke to be made there but tbh I am not going to bring myself down to that level

JY - I see that Chrisopher Booker tried to make an issue of the program in today's ST, but never really seemed to be going for the jugular. Probably 'cos there was so little to get aggitated about. Unlike him to be so calm in his CC reporting though!!

OOI - is there "any" validity in his comments on the Antarctic Penisula (genuine ? BTW!!)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8947796/Frozen-Planet-gave-us-beautiful-images-but-an-unbalanced-picture.html