Our Planet - Sir David Attenborough

ThePrettyDamned

RandallFlagg said:

fretmeister said:

RandallFlagg said:

The decline of the natural world through human activity is an epic tragedy and needs attention but I would prefer to see the stunning dramatic filming without the political overtone messaging. I'm in two minds whether to watch this or not.

I would prefer to see the messaging it in a section at the end with an interview wth Attenborough, or as a standalone episode.

It’s not political.

its just true. Just like a warning to not go to an Ebola ravaged country isn’t political. Or don’t let your kids stick fingers in a socket.

science doesn’t give a fuck about how you like to vote. 2+2=4 whether you are hard right or hard left. 

But if scientists want to change behaviour they need politics.

Why should only scientists want to change behaviour? 

I work with a lot of educators and the work that goes into effectively communicating with people from all walks of life is immense, and yet still there is so much resistance - mainly for economic reasons. The recent Vale episode is nothing short of a fucking embarrassment to the human race and the knock on effects for generations will be felt, and possibly irreversible. The CEO's response? Not my fault, I listen to my technicians.

No. Take fucking responsibility. Fix it. Promote a more sustainable life. 

stan

Keiko 
"I dont understand what point you are trying to make really, unless you are one of those people who think global warming is a hoax. "

So I don`t have a point if i`m one of "those" people and not one of "us" nice politicaly correct  people who must be right ? 

I don`t think it`s a hoax but I do think it`s a scam to a large degree. Those `scientists` are very far from unanimous in their view on global warming.  too many have been caught out fiddling the data in persuit of their agendas.  too  many global warming advocates have made themselves rich...very rich in some cases, by pushing the global warming narrative.  It`s gotten to be almost a religion with left leaning liberals who put feelings over rational thought and then try to shut down any opposing views.

I`m not saying that there is zero truth in it but I try to educate myself by checking out opposing views. I don`t switch off my brain, and try to see who`s pushing an agenda, above all.  there`s nearly always a money trail involved that leads to the real reason for why we get manipulated.   That manipulation is the split of "us v them"  dichotomy that keeps us squabbling amongst ourselves and not seeing the true agenda playing out.   just like 2 party politics, it gives the illusion of democracy.
"We`re all in it together! "    Cameron was having a real laugh to himself when he  said that.  Who is "we" ?  `cause it sure ain`t you and me ....

David Attenborough said ....

" the British public is not 'wise' enough to have been given a say over Brexit."  he  said the vote from 17.4million British citizens to leave the EU had created a 'mess' and argued that the decision should have been left to MPs 'to vote on our behalf'.

"I mean, that's why we're in the mess we are with Brexit, is it not? Do we really want to live by this kind of referendum?'

He added: 'What we mean by parliamentary democracy is surely that we find someone we respect who we think is probably wiser than we are, who is prepared to take the responsibility of pondering difficult things and then trust him – or her – to vote on our behalf."

Really ? the politicians know best and their vote is worth more than our`s ?  Lol ... How`s that working out for you ?  nice chap but I reckon he`s losing his marbles.  either that or he can`t see what a wonderful job our politicians are making of things.
" Not wise enough to be given a say".  just hold that thought for a moment .....

ThePrettyDamned

Edit: nope

underdog

stan said:

Keiko 
"I dont understand what point you are trying to make really, unless you are one of those people who think global warming is a hoax. "

So I don`t have a point if i`m one of "those" people and not one of "us" nice politicaly correct  people who must be right ? 

I don`t think it`s a hoax but I do think it`s a scam to a large degree. Those `scientists` are very far from unanimous in their view on global warming.  too many have been caught out fiddling the data in persuit of their agendas.  too  many global warming advocates have made themselves rich...very rich in some cases, by pushing the global warming narrative.  It`s gotten to be almost a religion with left leaning liberals who put feelings over rational thought and then try to shut down any opposing views.

I`m not saying that there is zero truth in it but I try to educate myself by checking out opposing views. I don`t switch off my brain, and try to see who`s pushing an agenda, above all.  there`s nearly always a money trail involved that leads to the real reason for why we get manipulated.   That manipulation is the split of "us v them"  dichotomy that keeps us squabbling amongst ourselves and not seeing the true agenda playing out.   just like 2 party politics, it gives the illusion of democracy.
"We`re all in it together! "    Cameron was having a real laugh to himself when he  said that.  Who is "we" ?  `cause it sure ain`t you and me ....

David Attenborough said ....

" the British public is not 'wise' enough to have been given a say over Brexit."  he  said the vote from 17.4million British citizens to leave the EU had created a 'mess' and argued that the decision should have been left to MPs 'to vote on our behalf'.

"I mean, that's why we're in the mess we are with Brexit, is it not? Do we really want to live by this kind of referendum?'

He added: 'What we mean by parliamentary democracy is surely that we find someone we respect who we think is probably wiser than we are, who is prepared to take the responsibility of pondering difficult things and then trust him – or her – to vote on our behalf."

Really ? the politicians know best and their vote is worth more than our`s ?  Lol ... How`s that working out for you ?  nice chap but I reckon he`s losing his marbles.  either that or he can`t see what a wonderful job our politicians are making of things.
" Not wise enough to be given a say".  just hold that thought for a moment .....

He has a fair an valid point on that to be honest, though surely the solution would be to make an actual criminal offence for politicians to lie, problem solved 

Even if you think global warming isn't as big a deal, what about pollution of the earth, the air and the water? Deforestation? Animals hunted to extinction?

roberty

ThePrettyDamned said:

Edit: nope

All kinds of nope

Garthy

So a bloke who has millions of air miles under his belt is going to preach to me that I’m killing the planet? I’ll listen to people who do as they say we should not somebody who flies 8000 miles to whisper a 30 second clip infront of a penguin that’s  starving.

fretmeister

Scam?
Using the word scientist in inverted commas?
Left learning liberals?

You need a tin foil hat, STAT!



That level of certainty is greater than the germ theory of disease.

RandallFlagg

If the purpose of this program is to educate on the toil human activity is taking on the planet then I hope it's being translated into Mandarin and other languages and shown in China and other high polluting countries.

ThePrettyDamned

RandallFlagg said:

If the purpose of this program is to educate on the toil human activity is taking on the planet then I hope it's being translated into Mandarin and other languages and shown in China and other high polluting countries.

High polluting countries = all developed countries. 

Tragically, the effects are most felt in the places on earth that do not contribute to the problems on a large scale.

This means that our actions are not directly affecting our health, our economy and our biodiversity as much as they affect remote communities and developing countries. Doesn't seem right, does it? 

Attenborough is very popular in China. China is also being fairly receptive to global pressure to create sustainable energy and improve resource efficiency - not to say there isn't a long way to go, but pointing the finger at naughty China is really, really dumb.

Being dumb is stupid - best not do that. 

Instead, take action and support initiatives - lots of small changes add up, and have the knock on effect of encouraging naughty companies to take action as they will see their sales drop (eg burning coal will drop if there is an uptake of wind farms, tidal power and solar).

It will take a fuck off investment and will take decades to pay off, but the planet and the human race will be better for it. 

Edit: pollution of carbon isn't the only problem. Deforestation, disturbance to migration routes, the introduction of alien species, infrastructure development, water table disturbance - these are all real and happen around us. Understanding them, and ensuring we can reduce our impact on all of those things, is in everyone's best interest. 

WiresDreamDisasters

ThePrettyDamned said:

RandallFlagg said:

If the purpose of this program is to educate on the toil human activity is taking on the planet then I hope it's being translated into Mandarin and other languages and shown in China and other high polluting countries.

High polluting countries = all developed countries. 

Does the data support that?

https://ourworldindata.org/air-pollution

WiresDreamDisasters

Deforestation - https://humanprogress.org/dwworld?p=558&yf=1990&yl=2015&col=1

ThePrettyDamned

WiresDreamDisasters said:

ThePrettyDamned said:

RandallFlagg said:

If the purpose of this program is to educate on the toil human activity is taking on the planet then I hope it's being translated into Mandarin and other languages and shown in China and other high polluting countries.

High polluting countries = all developed countries. 

Does the data support that?

https://ourworldindata.org/air-pollution

Mostly it does - but only if you compare indicative data to causation - for example, China is highly polluting but primarily it is because more developed countries shifted manufacturing there. We have cleaner air because we don't manufacture all the shit we want and need - when we did, we had awful smog and air pollution. 

I have oversimplified but if anything the main point of all of this is that everything is connected - and that as a more developed country, we are better equipped to research and implement long term strategies for offsets and prevention. Pointing at other countries as being "worse" is only a symptom of a global issue - that a globalised economy has increased the strain on our planet. 

A good link for a general overview: https://www.unenvironment.org/explore-topics/resource-efficiency ;

Note that this is just one component of the programme as a whole, which is seen through the menu. It's massive, interlinked and largely has been caused through decades of development and uncontrolled globalisation, which was through not having an understanding of impacts. Now we have more understanding we can do better. And should  

WiresDreamDisasters

ThePrettyDamned said:

WiresDreamDisasters said:

ThePrettyDamned said:

RandallFlagg said:

If the purpose of this program is to educate on the toil human activity is taking on the planet then I hope it's being translated into Mandarin and other languages and shown in China and other high polluting countries.

High polluting countries = all developed countries. 

Does the data support that?

https://ourworldindata.org/air-pollution

Mostly it does - but only if you compare indicative data to causation - for example, China is highly polluting but primarily it is because more developed countries shifted manufacturing there. We have cleaner air because we don't manufacture all the shit we want and need - when we did, we had awful smog and air pollution. 

I have oversimplified but if anything the main point of all of this is that everything is connected - and that as a more developed country, we are better equipped to research and implement long term strategies for offsets and prevention. Pointing at other countries as being "worse" is only a symptom of a global issue - that a globalised economy has increased the strain on our planet. 

A good link for a general overview: https://www.unenvironment.org/explore-topics/resource-efficiency ;

Note that this is just one component of the programme as a whole, which is seen through the menu. It's massive, interlinked and largely has been caused through decades of development and uncontrolled globalisation, which was through not having an understanding of impacts. Now we have more understanding we can do better. And should  

Take CO2 emissions...

https://humanprogress.org/dwrank?p=228&yf=1960&yl=2014&high=3

In 1960 China were number 2 in the world for CO2 emissions. The USA was number 1. The UK was number 3.

In 2014 China was number 1. The USA was 2. But the UK was 15.

I can understand that if all UK manufacturing was moved to China, that would explain the drop to position 15. What I can't understand is if there wasn't a ton of Western manufacturing going on in China in 1960, why China were still number 2 in the world. How much manufacturing was being done in China in 1960?

WiresDreamDisasters

BTW this source was recently called "Randian bullshit" or something to that effect by a member recently. Which is so far off the mark it's not even funny.

Humanprogress.org is a reputable source and a highly respected one, with many respected members on it's board. They present all their data on the site for free too.

HumanProgress.org is a project of the Cato Institute with major support from the John Templeton Foundation and the Searle Freedom Trust, as well as additional funding from the Brinson Foundation and the Dian Graves Owen Foundation. The website requires no registration or membership. All of its content and features can be used free, but acknowledgment is always appreciated.

The Editors are responsible for the day-to-day operation of HumanProgress.org. The Board advises the Editors on the scope and quality of the data.

Marian Tupy
EditorSenior policy analyst, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity, Cato Institute

Chelsea Follett
Managing editorResearch associate, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity, Cato Institute

Jesse H. Ausubel
Board memberDirector, Program for the Human Environment, Rockefeller University

Angus Deaton
Board memberWinner of the 2015 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences and Professor Emeritus of Economics and International Affairs, Princeton University

Deepak Lal
Board memberProfessor Emeritus of International Development Studies, University of California at Los Angeles, and Professor Emeritus of Political Economy, University College London

Deirdre McCloskey
Board memberDistinguished Professor of Economics, History, English, and Communication, University of Illinois at Chicago

Johan Norberg
Board memberAuthor, lecturer, and documentary filmmaker

Mark Perry
Board memberProfessor of Finance and Business Economics, School of Management, University of Michigan-Flint

Steven Pinker
Board memberProfessor, Department of Psychology, Harvard College and Harvard University

Gale Pooley
Board memberAssociate Professor, Department of Economics, Brigham Young University - Hawaii

Matt Ridley
Board memberScientist, journalist, and businessman

Vernon Smith
Board memberWinner of the 2002 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences and Professor of Economics, Chapman University

Ian Vásquez
Board memberDirector, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity, Cato Institute

ThePrettyDamned

WiresDreamDisasters said:

ThePrettyDamned said:

WiresDreamDisasters said:

ThePrettyDamned said:

RandallFlagg said:

If the purpose of this program is to educate on the toil human activity is taking on the planet then I hope it's being translated into Mandarin and other languages and shown in China and other high polluting countries.

High polluting countries = all developed countries. 

Does the data support that?

https://ourworldindata.org/air-pollution

Mostly it does - but only if you compare indicative data to causation - for example, China is highly polluting but primarily it is because more developed countries shifted manufacturing there. We have cleaner air because we don't manufacture all the shit we want and need - when we did, we had awful smog and air pollution. 

I have oversimplified but if anything the main point of all of this is that everything is connected - and that as a more developed country, we are better equipped to research and implement long term strategies for offsets and prevention. Pointing at other countries as being "worse" is only a symptom of a global issue - that a globalised economy has increased the strain on our planet. 

A good link for a general overview: https://www.unenvironment.org/explore-topics/resource-efficiency ;

Note that this is just one component of the programme as a whole, which is seen through the menu. It's massive, interlinked and largely has been caused through decades of development and uncontrolled globalisation, which was through not having an understanding of impacts. Now we have more understanding we can do better. And should  

Take CO2 emissions...

https://humanprogress.org/dwrank?p=228&yf=1960&yl=2014&high=3

In 1960 China were number 2 in the world for CO2 emissions. The USA was number 1. The UK was number 3.

In 2014 China was number 1. The USA was 2. But the UK was 15.

I can understand that if all UK manufacturing was moved to China, that would explain the drop to position 15. What I can't understand is if there wasn't a ton of Western manufacturing going on in China in 1960, why China were still number 2 in the world. How much manufacturing was being done in China in 1960?

Not as much, but still a lot, and other countries began stabilising in emissions where China continued growing 

https://www.wri.org/blog/2014/05/history-carbon-dioxide-emissions

China are not good boys for sure. 

ThePrettyDamned

WiresDreamDisasters said:

BTW this source was recently called "Randian bullshit" or something to that effect by a member recently. Which is so far off the mark it's not even funny.

Humanprogress.org is a reputable source and a highly respected one, with many respected members on it's board. They present all their data on the site for free too.

HumanProgress.org is a project of the Cato Institute with major support from the John Templeton Foundation and the Searle Freedom Trust, as well as additional funding from the Brinson Foundation and the Dian Graves Owen Foundation. The website requires no registration or membership. All of its content and features can be used free, but acknowledgment is always appreciated.

The Editors are responsible for the day-to-day operation of HumanProgress.org. The Board advises the Editors on the scope and quality of the data.

Marian Tupy

Editor

Senior policy analyst, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity, Cato Institute

Chelsea Follett

Managing editor

Research associate, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity, Cato Institute

Jesse H. Ausubel

Board member

Director, Program for the Human Environment, Rockefeller University

Angus Deaton

Board member

Winner of the 2015 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences and Professor Emeritus of Economics and International Affairs, Princeton University

Deepak Lal

Board member

Professor Emeritus of International Development Studies, University of California at Los Angeles, and Professor Emeritus of Political Economy, University College London

Deirdre McCloskey

Board member

Distinguished Professor of Economics, History, English, and Communication, University of Illinois at Chicago

Johan Norberg

Board member

Author, lecturer, and documentary filmmaker

Mark Perry

Board member

Professor of Finance and Business Economics, School of Management, University of Michigan-Flint

Steven Pinker

Board member

Professor, Department of Psychology, Harvard College and Harvard University

Gale Pooley

Board member

Associate Professor, Department of Economics, Brigham Young University - Hawaii

Matt Ridley

Board member

Scientist, journalist, and businessman

Vernon Smith

Board member

Winner of the 2002 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences and Professor of Economics, Chapman University

Ian Vásquez

Board member

Director, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity, Cato Institute

Yes, it is a good source, especially for quick referencing. The problem with flat data is it is only part of story, where the other part is ongoing research today, all over the world  

Human progress is a good source though..   
I use un environment  WCMC reports, wwf, Nat geo, WRI etc. They're all good, but sometimes seem contradictory - which further highlights the nuance and complexity in these issues. 

I tend to stick to "we need to do better" because we are well equipped to do so, economically speaking. We also hold influence across the globe so can help others to do better also. Lots of small changes add up, from reducing waste water through to large scale development of renewable energy and more efficient recycling processes. 

ThePrettyDamned

Sorry buddy, my link has been expired and images removed... But trend data is available on a new platform here and the text is still useful 

https://www.climatewatchdata.org/ghg-emissions?source=31&version=1

RandallFlagg

No idea if this is correct but from the internet:

Top 5 most polluting countries

1. China (30%) The world's most populated country has an enormous export market, which has seen its industry grow to become a serious danger to the planet. ...
2. United States (15%) The world's biggest industrial and commercial power. ...
3. India (7%) ...
4. Russia (5%) ...
5. Japan (4%)

pmbomb

^^ bear in mind a lot of China's pollution is making goods we in the West consume - in effect we've exported our pollution to China.

An average Chinese person's personal carbon emissions are a fraction of ours. (same for India, Brazil etc). They're mostly quite poor.

I believe Australia should be on that list because they rely heavily on coal for power generation.

My source is the book "How Bad Are Bananas", which is fascinating, but I don't have it with me now to double check. https://profilebooks.com/how-bad-are-bananas.html (not an affiliate link in any way).

Apols if above already covered, haven't read whole thread.

& if you really want to scare the shit out of yourself, the book you need is https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/586541/the-uninhabitable-earth-by-david-wallace-wells/9780525576709/ - the banana book is the harmless gateway drug in comparison.

RandallFlagg

OK, just watched episode 2 and the tragedy of the walruses falling from cliffs they shouldn't have scaled because there is less sea ice than there was. I get it, the planet is changing and accept that human activity is accelerating or driving change.

But it's changed before, it's had extinction level events that killed the dinosaurs but over millions of years life rebuilds and finds a way. No-one is crying over the loss of the dinosaurs. 

Life will prevail, whether it be humans, or humans become extinct, todays species become extinct but new ones will prevail, life will find a way, wonderful prolific life.