It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Raining Polar Bears SHOCK AD. (Warning: Graphic Content.)

page: 3
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Animal
i have nothing against the video.

I haven't actually seen the video (damn restrictions), so I can't say it disturbs me or anything. I really don't care if a CGI polar bear gets hurt though, so I'm pretty sure I wouldn't find it too offensive.

I havn't seen the Shell ad, either, but it sounds like a load of rubbish.



my suspicion is that many opposed to the video are more opposed to the message than the images.


I take it that you are not opposed to the message then.

Do you think it's accurate to say that cutting plane travel will have any effect on polar bears what so ever? Or is it simply unsubstantiated fear mongering (like an inconvenient truth)?




posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 



Originally posted by Animal
my suspicion is that many opposed to the video are more opposed to the message than the images.


I'm not generally opposed to any message, if it is presented rationally, accurately and in context.



To me, this ad achieves none of the above.

I dislike the manipulation, whether intentional or otherwise, intensely.


For example:




Passengers : greenhouse gases emissions per passenger.km, depending on the transportation means, in grams carbone equivalent. It is easy to see that cars and planes emit the same amount per passenger over the same distance.

Most data from ADEME & INRETS

Source.



And from another source:




Energy and Emissions in Transportation

Chester, now a post-doc, has gathered or, in cases where it didn’t exist, developed data for five modes of passenger travel—automobile, bus, heavy rail, light rail, and air. Based on those modes and the 12 sample vehicles (ranging from a Toyota Camry to a Boeing 747) used in his investigation, he provides an environmental inventory of more than 100 different components that affect energy use, contribute to greenhouse gases, and produce other direct human health impacting pollutants across the five modes. These include not only the manufacturing, maintenance, and operation of the specific vehicles, but also the building and maintenance of the infrastructure they require and the fuel they consume, from the oil field to the gas station. The inventory runs the gamut from a bus’s idling to an aircraft’s take-off and landing, from laying down rail tracks to roadway maintenance and pesticide use.

Then he normalized the numbers to determine the environmental performance of each vehicle per vehicle and passenger mile traveled. When factoring in the lifecycle of each mode, he found that energy and greenhouse gas emissions increase by 1.3 times for automobiles, 1.4 times for buses, 2.6 times for light rail, 2.1 times for heavy rail, and 1.3 times for air. Criteria pollutant and volatile organic compound emissions (sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and lead) rise a whopping 25 times for automobiles, seven times for buses, 220 times for light rail, 98 times for heavy rail, and 11 times for air.

Chester acknowledges that his study is not the first lifecycle assessment of passenger transportation, but he believes it is the most thorough to date.



Get it?

The IMPLIED significance of the ad's polar bear number distorts its context.

I object to the manipulation, and more so, to the manner of the manipulation.








[edit on 24-11-2009 by loam]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam
I object to the manipulation, and more so, to the manner of the manipulation.


I completely agree with your statement there. It's manipulation plain and simple.


This last point is important : if the plane is not full, the consumption per passenger.km increases, well the average filling rate of planes is not of 100% but closer to 70%. Practically, the real consumption per passenger is about 6 liters per 100 km.


Now I am very concerned about over-sized private jets, where they are flying very few people for such a large aircraft. I never liked the waste before this thread anyways.


[edit on 24-11-2009 by Nematode]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Edit To Add: After being called out by loam for making erroneous accusations I reviewed Loam's past contributions to ATS and have indeed proven him to be correct. Though my following post will remain unchanged I no longer support my own accusations. They are clearly unfounded.



Originally posted by loam
I'm not generally opposed to any message, if it is presented rationally, accurately and in context.


You must be continually frustrated in today's world. Where we are endlessly bombarded by the most asinine advertisements.

The polar-bear commercial must have simply been the straw that broke the camel's back, eh?



To me, this ad achieves none of the above.

I dislike the manipulation, whether intentional or otherwise, intensely.



So you must have a massive list of threads attacking the millions of advertisements that are intentionally manipulating you into wanting to buy and consume endless products are varying degrees of worth, correct?

I doubt it.

Your stance on the CO2 issue has been made clear by your presence here on ATS. Your stance on the issue and the fact that the media alerted you on the inappropriate nature of this video and you responded.


Falling polar bears put Plane Stupid cinema ad on course for controversy


Polar bears plummet from the sky in brutal and bloody cinema advert

Plane Stupid's shock ads linking flights with polar bear deaths could fall flat

Polar bears suffer brutal deaths in a new advert by climate change campaigners Plane Stupid

MEP complains about Plane Stupid polar bear TV ad

Falling Polar Bears Ad Causing Controversy

It is no surprise you found a controversy right where you were told to.

You say you don't like it because it is miss-leading? Becasue it is saying every flight kills the X amount of bears that fell from the sky? Well I did not see where they said that. The only figure they gave was the amount of CO2 produced, which happened to be the same as the avergae weight of a polar bear.

They then used CINEMA to convey the potential impacts of creating such large amounts of pollution - the death of polar bears via the melting of the arctic regions.

You then offer us examples of more straight forward presentations of the issue such as:


Energy and Emissions in Transportation

Chester, now a post-doc, has gathered or, in cases where it didn’t exist, developed data for five modes of passenger travel—automobile, bus, heavy rail, light rail, and air. Based on those modes and the 12 sample vehicles (ranging from a Toyota Camry to a Boeing 747) used in his investigation, he provides an environmental inventory of more than 100 different components that affect energy use, contribute to greenhouse gases, and produce other direct human health impacting pollutants across the five modes. These include not only the manufacturing, maintenance, and operation of the specific vehicles, but also the building and maintenance of the infrastructure they require and the fuel they consume, from the oil field to the gas station. The inventory runs the gamut from a bus’s idling to an aircraft’s take-off and landing, from laying down rail tracks to roadway maintenance and pesticide use.

Then he normalized the numbers to determine the environmental performance of each vehicle per vehicle and passenger mile traveled. When factoring in the lifecycle of each mode, he found that energy and greenhouse gas emissions increase by 1.3 times for automobiles, 1.4 times for buses, 2.6 times for light rail, 2.1 times for heavy rail, and 1.3 times for air. Criteria pollutant and volatile organic compound emissions (sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and lead) rise a whopping 25 times for automobiles, seven times for buses, 220 times for light rail, 98 times for heavy rail, and 11 times for air.

Chester acknowledges that his study is not the first lifecycle assessment of passenger transportation, but he believes it is the most thorough to date.


Tell me mate, in the above piece what audience was the author writing for and how many average Joes and Janes would even bother reading it?



The IMPLIED significance of the ad's polar bear number distorts its context.


No, I disagree. I think this is just the case you make to discredit and attack the commercial ( a rather weak case I might add).



I object to the manipulation, and more so, to the manner of the manipulation.


Yet, this is the first such thread I have seen you write in regards to the continual manipulation by the media.

Where are the threads bashing the bikini girl beer adds?

Where are the threads bashing the AXE shower gel adds that make boys think they will get laid if they use the product?

Where are the threads bashing the adds that make girls think that skinny is beautiful and using X product will help them achieve skinny?

No-where. Becasue this is not about disingenuous advertisement but about your opposition to the CONTENT. Your reaction was triggered by the sudden media attention the article got and you did as you were told, you reacted.

That is how I see it.


[edit on 24-11-2009 by Animal]

[edit on 24-11-2009 by Animal]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 



Originally posted by Animal
You must be continually frustrated in today's world. Where we are endlessly bombarded by the most asinine advertisements.


Indeed, I often am.




Originally posted by Animal
So you must have a massive list of threads attacking the millions of advertisements that are intentionally manipulating you into wanting to buy and consume endless products are varying degrees of worth, correct?

I doubt it.


Click on my profile. I think you will find ample evidence of my intense opposition to manipulation.

Of course, it's a whole lot easier to just assert a thing and not bother with the truth, huh? It tends to get in the way of the point you want to make...




Originally posted by Animal
Your stance on the CO2 issue has been made clear by your presence here on ATS.




What exactly do you assume that to be?


( Better check with ElectricUniverse )

If it is quite clear, I challenge you to find a SINGLE post of mine that articulates a stance other than my frequent confusion over what the science says with respect to causation. I have neither condemned anthropogenic assertions, nor their denials. I have only ever sought clarity, with as little politicization as possible. (So I'm an unrealistic idealist. Sue me.
)

Unlike your apparent willingness, I do not manufacture facts by pulling them out of my ass, as you make plainly obvious by your focus on me and your unfounded desire to paint me with falsehood.

I begin to see now why the source ad (which is the actual subject of this thread) appeals to you.




Originally posted by Animal
Your stance on the issue and the fact that the media alerted you on the inappropriate nature of this video and you responded.

...

It is no surprise you found a controversy right where you were told to.


I ran across the video in a blog. No commentary other than a single word: "Unbelievable."



But don't let that stop you from making the specious argument that I am somehow led around by the nose by those who know far better than I what I should think.


Should I just listen to you then?




Originally posted by Animal
You say you don't like it because it is miss-leading? Becasue it is saying every flight kills the X amount of bears that fell from the sky? Well I did not see where they said that. The only figure they gave was the amount of CO2 produced, which happened to be the same as the avergae weight of a polar bear.


I'm not confused about that.

But I'm surprised that you weren't, given your clear and obvious confusion about anything I've posted here or elsewhere.


Originally posted by Animal
You then offer us examples of more straight forward presentations of the issue such as:



Energy and Emissions in Transportation


Tell me mate, in the above piece what audience was the author writing for and how many average Joes and Janes would even bother reading it?


I guess you didn't bother to read it either...





Former Civil and Environmental Engineering grad student, Mikhail Chester, and his adviser, CEE Associate Professor Arpad Horvath, however, have taken a big step toward making it easier. Four years ago, when Chester started on the road toward a PhD, he set out to produce the first comprehensive environmental lifecycle assessment of passenger transportation modes in the U.S.

Horvath’s primary research area is lifecycle assessment. Under his guidance another former CEE grad student, Cristiano Facanha, had tackled the lifecycle of freight in the U.S. a few years earlier. Taking on passenger travel was an even more complex challenge because of the multitude of transportation options, and for Chester, one that would become his doctoral thesis.



In other words, the Civil and Environmental Engineering community. They are, after all, the ones who shape to some degree the structure and operation of our infrastructure.


Originally posted by Animal



The IMPLIED significance of the ad's polar bear number distorts its context.


No, I disagree. I think this is just the case you make to discredit and attack the commercial ( a rather weak case I might add).



I object to the manipulation, and more so, to the manner of the manipulation.


Yet, this is the first such thread I have seen you write in regards to the continual manipulation by the media.

Where are the threads bashing the bikini girl beer adds?

Where are the threads bashing the AXE shower gel adds that make boys think they will get laid if they use the product?

Where are the threads bashing the adds that make girls think that skinny is beautiful and using X product will help them achieve skinny?

No-where. Becasue this is not about disingenuous advertisement but about your opposition to the CONTENT. Your reaction was triggered by the sudden media attention the article got and you did as you were told, you reacted.

That is how I see it.



I've already addressed each of these points, above.

I have trouble understanding how anything I've written merits this kind of vehemence and vitriol from you.


Moreover, though I don't always agree with you, I often have.

But I never believed you just made stuff up!

Now, I see the substance of who you really are and my error in judgment.


Silly me.


[edit on 24-11-2009 by loam]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   
i fink it is a good advert, it is true dat we spoilin the planet and life on it. It opens peeps eyes and makes them fink about it.....



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Animal
Your stance on the CO2 issue has been made clear by your presence here on ATS. Your stance on the issue and the fact that the media alerted you on the inappropriate nature of this video and you responded.

Weak and unsubstantiated argument. And your stance on CO2 has been made clear by the way you've attacked this person. It goes both ways you know.



They then used CINEMA to convey the potential impacts of creating such large amounts of pollution - the death of polar bears via the melting of the arctic regions.

Is there any evidence at all that polar bears are suffering due to human emmissions? You should have already seen me show where a previous article was misleading in claiming that polar bears were in danger.


Originally posted by Animal

The IMPLIED significance of the ad's polar bear number distorts its context.


No, I disagree. I think this is just the case you make to discredit and attack the commercial ( a rather weak case I might add).

So you think it's accurate to portray polar bears in grave danger to further a political agenda when they're not?


Originally posted by Animal
Where are the threads bashing the bikini girl beer adds?
Where are the threads bashing the AXE shower gel adds that make boys think they will get laid if they use the product?
Where are the threads bashing the adds that make girls think that skinny is beautiful and using X product will help them achieve skinny?


Weak and irrelevent argument, and you know it.


Originally posted by Animal
Your reaction was triggered by the sudden media attention the article got and you did as you were told, you reacted.

How is this relevant to the discussion? You're negative reaction was triggered by your emotional ties to the subject, so how is that any different.



And historically, polar bears have thrived in temperatures even warmer than at present -- during the medieval warm period 1000 years ago and during the Holocene Climate Optimum between 5,000 and 9,000 years ago.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Polar bears have thrived during warmer climates because they are omnivores just like their cousin's the Brown and Black bears. Though Polar Bears eat seals more than any other food source at present, research shows that they have a varied diet when other foods are available including, fish, kelp, caribou, ducks, sea birds, the occasional beluga whale and musk ox and scavenged whale and walrus carcasses.

Alaska's polar bear population is stable, and Taylor's research shows that the Canadian polar bear population has increased 25 percent from 12,000 to 15,000 during the past decade with 11 of Canada's 13 polar bear populations stable or increasing in number. Where polar bear weight and numbers are declining, Taylor thinks too many bears competing for food, rather than arctic warming, is the cause. That's right, the problem confronting polar bears may overpopulation not extinction!

(Source - Polar Bears on Thin Ice, Not Really)



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


so why this ad? of all the opportunities to critique the use of advertisement to manipulate us why was it the bears falling from the sky that did it? my best guess remains content.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 



Originally posted by Animal
so why this ad?


Why not this ad?

Similar to your posts, it is not interested in truth...only compliance with a point of view.

I fully expect you to start throwing polar bears at me at any moment.




[edit on 24-11-2009 by loam]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Wow, How did they afford all of those polar bears??
I get the point of the video, but yeah it goes a little too far. Makes you think about the next time someone says "it's raining cats and dogs"...just an umbrella isn't gonna do the trick



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


Well after being challenged by loam to:

#1


Click on my profile. I think you will find ample evidence of my intense opposition to manipulation.

And that I:

#2


...I do not manufacture facts by pulling them out of my ass, as you make plainly obvious by your focus on me and your unfounded desire to paint me with falsehood.


I decided to review the list of loam's threads to try to prove my assertion that he has a clear history of arguing against anthropogenic climate change and this is his rationality for critiquing this thread.

What I found is that I was in error. My critique of loam and his intention for critiquing this ad was unfounded and should be disregarded.

My sincere apologies to loam for being disrespectful and for publicly questioning his honesty and integrity as well as to the wider ATS crew for wasting their time and detracting from the intelligent discussion of ideas.

Until next time




[edit on 24-11-2009 by Animal]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Animal
I was in error.


Now there is an applause worthy post IMO.


Intellectual honesty is in short supply these days.
Nice to see it surface once in a while.
.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   
I am doubting very much that a working class family nor a middle class family owns a private jet to fly around the world whenever they want.

Do they?

So who is the real culprit?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join