EXPLODING SCHOOL CHILDREN : Global Warming Propaganda Campaign Backfires

reply to post by Raist


Raist - sorry for this reply to a totally unrelated post - I lost the one I actually wanted to reply to! LOL

So, I still don't think I've quite articulated my argument properly. I don't think you're intentionally ignoring what I'm saying so clearly I haven't made my point very well.

You're still arguing that this video, whether threatening or not, is aimed at people who do not believe in climate change. To threaten them into 'converting'. IT IS NOT.

It is aimed at the majority of europeans who totally accept climate change and the fact that we CAN do something about it, but who cannot be bothered. It's not trying to change their opinion, it's tying to spur them imto the action they already know they should be taking. The same argument can be made for many things. It could have a different tone and be aimed towards the people who know their dog is sick but don't take it to the vet through sheer laziness, or see their neighbour's house being broken into but don't call the police because they don't want to get involved. It's wanton laziness and head-in-sand burying that this film is trying to dissuade. It's not meant to convert people. There are very few people over here to covert unlike in the States.

reply to post by badw0lf


BADWolf - your response adds fuel to the fires suggesting that you are a 'sick and twisted' individual.

Why the hell would you poke fun, or lay the blame at the feet of, the person who was unwittingly exposed to this disgusting and shockingly violent propaganda with her ten year old children?

The producers dress this video up as a normal piece of British satire - then BAM - expoloding bodies (very realistic too).

How the %$£^ could someone be blamed for being surprised at this? Why the hell would people need to be suspicious, given the seemingly innocent packaging and message being presented (according to the title and screenshot)?

Children, who are unable to cope with that kind of graphic violence, should not be exposed to it. I will be writing to my kid's school and my local MP to make sure this horrendous piece of ^%$%& doesn't make it into our local schools.

It should be 18+ (or 'R'-rated) - and people should be made aware of that VERY CLEARLY - as in, in the title of the video - otherwise how could they expect the sickening ^%$^£ that was being presented?

BADWolf - you need to sort your head out mate. You're coming across as a very twisted and nasty piece of work. Is that the image you want to give people by any chance? Having seen a few of your posts here and there, I'm starting to think maybe it's a cultivated persona.

Fly.

reply to post by EnlightenUp


That's true. It will take time to get to the 500 mil. goal. But hey, 10:10's goal of wiping out 10% of the pop. (700 mil.) is a good start dont'cha think?
Bunch of pyschos.

reply to post by Clavicula

That is simply not true. All the so called "physics equations" used by IPCC in their assesment is back calculating the sensitivity based on the current temperature as if no change at all would be normal. The truth of the matter however is that the climate sensitivity of CO2 in isolation is quite small. This is admitted by the scientists themselves. The argument they apply is that the added CO2 causes "reinforcements" by the small additional heat creating addtional heating by added water vapour in the atmosphere. This mechanism is however not proven and highly speculative.

There is nothing controversial or speculative about this mechanism, its relaltively simple physics, and its well accepted in climatoscience community.

en.wikipedia.org...

Water vapor accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 66% for clear sky conditions and between 66% and 85% when including clouds.[8] Water vapor concentrations fluctuate regionally, but human activity does not significantly affect water vapor concentrations except at local scales, such as near irrigated fields. According to the Environmental Health Center of the National Safety Council, water vapor constitutes as much as 2% of the atmosphere.[31]

The Clausius-Clapeyron relation establishes that air can hold more water vapor per unit volume when it warms. This and other basic principles indicate that warming associated with increased concentrations of the other greenhouse gases also will increase the concentration of water vapor. Because water vapor is a greenhouse gas this results in further warming, a "positive feedback" that amplifies the original warming. This positive feedback does not result in runaway global warming because it is offset by other processes that induce negative feedbacks, which stabilizes average global temperatures.

www.realclimate.org...

When surface temperatures change (whether from CO2 or solar forcing or volcanos etc.), you can therefore expect water vapour to adjust quickly to reflect that. To first approximation, the water vapour adjusts to maintain constant relative humidity. It’s important to point out that this is a result of the models, not a built-in assumption. Since approximately constant relative humidity implies an increase in specific humidity for an increase in air temperatures, the total amount of water vapour will increase adding to the greenhouse trapping of long-wave radiation. This is the famed ‘water vapour feedback’. A closer look reveals that for a warming (in the GISS model at least) relative humidity increases slightly in the tropics, and decreases at mid latitudes.

How do we know that the magnitude of this feedback is correctly simulated? A good test case is the response to the Pinatubo eruption. This caused cooling for up to 3 years after the eruption – plenty of time for water vapour to equilibriate to the cooler sea surface temperatures. Thus if models can simulate the observed decrease of water vapour at this time, it would be a good sign that they are basically correct. A good paper that demonstrated this was Soden et al (2002) (and the accompanying comment by Tony DelGenio). They found that using the observed volcanic aerosols as forcing the model produced very similar cooling to that observed. Moreover, the water vapour in the total column and in the upper troposphere decreased in line with satellite observations, and helped to increase the cooling by about 60% – in line with projections for increasing greenhouse gases.

Originally posted by Clavicula
reply to post by Maslo

 

Qoutes from ScepticalScience. OK I get it now I see the error of my ways.

Whats wrong with SkepticalScience? Its like TalkOrigins archive for climatoskeptics Every argument is referenced to multiple scientific papers, they are not just made up.

reply to post by burntheships


A lot of those are service charges, no service is free. Running water, luxury, Electricity luxury, car luxury, pet tax odd but again a luxury, paved roads luxury, and smoking well that is a very good tax same with the alcohol tax we have here to discourage drinking in excess All things we don't need per say, buuuut things that in Developed nations are norms. We in developed nations are spoiled. You can complain about water taxes when you walk 3 miles to get fresh water, or live in a hut with no electricity or heating. Your privileged to have your cable TV, internet, phone service easy access to drinkable water.

Let's not forget that fossil fuels (including oil) have enormous external costs to the environment, and our health. We do not pay for the invasion of Iraq when we visit the gas pump, we don't pay for the healthcare of people who get respiratory illnesses from air pollution when we visit the gas pump, and we do not pay for environmental remediation when we visit the gas pump. If you're against 'artificially inflating' the price of fossil fuels then you must be against artificially deflating the price of fossil fuels, like we are now because we are effectively subsidizing fossil fuels with the environment, and our health.

Originally posted by Nickodemus
reply to post by Clavicula

 

Forget cheap polluting energy, go with free energy my friend, solar! Before you say panels are too expensive remember that is a function of supply and demand. Did I mention that it's free? No fuel!

I feel some of your views are very detached from reality but to each their own.

At the moment the cost of solar panels divided by the amount of electricity produced makes it one of the most expensive sources of electricity on the planet. Of course, solar panels are rapidly getting better, but the point is they're rather crappy at the moment.

reply to post by The Baby Seal Club


It's called decimation.

Decimation (Latin: decimatio; decem = "ten") was a form of military discipline used by officers in the Roman Army to punish mutinous or cowardly soldiers. The word decimation is derived from Latin meaning "removal of a tenth."

reply to post by Dr. N

It is over the top, most comedians are known for that, but they took the ball and ran away with this one
The breakdown of society is somewhat regained through joint conservation. I have noticed this, and our great grandchildren might.

This is wrong. What was the point of this? this video makes me want to call the ad company and tell them they don't know what they are doing. I could easly get people sold on an idea without grossing them out...

horrible... I guess the point they are making is..

If you don't play along with what they want you to do.. well .. you will be a mess on your classmates and a spill for the janitor.

Originally posted by Maslo

There is nothing controversial or speculative about this mechanism, its relaltively simple physics, and its well accepted in climatoscience community.

It may be accepted by some scientists, but it still makes no logical sense. What you are describing is a runaway warming effect, which if true would have happened many years ago and we would not be here. Since we are here (you do not doubt that do you?) there are clearly negative feed back mechanisms that counteract this which we currently do not have a full overview of.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Clavicula

www.realclimate.org...

When surface temperatures change (whether from CO2 or solar forcing or volcanos etc.), you can therefore expect water vapour to adjust quickly to reflect that. To first approximation, the water vapour adjusts to maintain constant relative humidity. It’s important to point out that this is a result of the models, not a built-in assumption. Since approximately constant relative humidity implies an increase in specific humidity for an increase in air temperatures, the total amount of water vapour will increase adding to the greenhouse trapping of long-wave radiation. This is the famed ‘water vapour feedback’. A closer look reveals that for a warming (in the GISS model at least) relative humidity increases slightly in the tropics, and decreases at mid latitudes.

How do we know that the magnitude of this feedback is correctly simulated? A good test case is the response to the Pinatubo eruption. This caused cooling for up to 3 years after the eruption – plenty of time for water vapour to equilibriate to the cooler sea surface temperatures. Thus if models can simulate the observed decrease of water vapour at this time, it would be a good sign that they are basically correct. A good paper that demonstrated this was Soden et al (2002) (and the accompanying comment by Tony DelGenio). They found that using the observed volcanic aerosols as forcing the model produced very similar cooling to that observed. Moreover, the water vapour in the total column and in the upper troposphere decreased in line with satellite observations, and helped to increase the cooling by about 60% – in line with projections for increasing greenhouse gases.

This is a good example of the logical fallacy "Post hoc ergo propter hoc". It does not constitue evidence of correlation however tempting that conlusion may be. A computer simulation is not the same as empirical evidence.

reply to post by Clavicula


Its not a runaway mechanism in any way. It merely amplifies temperature changes, but only to a certain, non-infinite extent.

The Clausius-Clapeyron relation establishes that air can hold more water vapor per unit volume when it warms. This and other basic principles indicate that warming associated with increased concentrations of the other greenhouse gases also will increase the concentration of water vapor. Because water vapor is a greenhouse gas this results in further warming, a "positive feedback" that amplifies the original warming. This positive feedback does not result in runaway global warming because it is offset by other processes that induce negative feedbacks, which stabilizes average global temperatures.

This is a good example of the logical fallacy "Post hoc ergo propter hoc". It does not constitue evidence of correlation however tempting that conlusion may be. A computer simulation is not the same as empirical evidence.

If the computer simulation or model programmed using only proven axioms simulates other observed physical event with reasonable accuracy, and this event was not directly coded into it (1), it is very persuasive evidence that the model is correct.

1.

To first approximation, the water vapour adjusts to maintain constant relative humidity. It’s important to point out that this is a result of the models, not a built-in assumption.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Clavicula

 

Its not a runaway mechanism in any way. It merely amplifies temperature changes, but only to a certain, non-infinite extent.

Well of cause it is not a runaway mechanism or we would have fried a long time ago. The effect of added CO2 is small and much less than any natural variation. When the various hemispheres go throug seasonal changes, the order of magnitude in temperature change are many times larger. This does however not show any signs of amplification.

Sorry that is just completely tasteless. So the message is that if you don't agree, you will be violently attacked by others? And that's OK? This is just so wrong on so many levels - what were they thinking?
School children being blown up by an adult for not agreeing with an idea? What does THAT remind you of? 20 years ago this ad would never had gotten past a typewritten script. Today, we just shrug and smile at explicit violence. Especially after the first scene, they continue to go with the gimmick yet two more times, even though you already know it's coming. So, right there they are baiting you with the REWARD of watching so you can see humans reduced to bloody gore. Not cool at all. Just shows where our society is at: desensitized and addicted to violence towards others.

reply to post by Clavicula

Well of cause it is not a runaway mechanism or we would have fried a long time ago. The effect of added CO2 is small and much less than any natural variation.

How exactly did you logically come from "its not a runaway mechanism" to "effect of added CO2 is insignificant"? Even if it is not runaway mechanism rising planetary temperature exponantially without bounds, its effect is still significant. It at least doubles the temperature rise caused by CO2 alone.

www.skepticalscience.com...

As water vapour is directly related to temperature, it's also a positive feedback - in fact, the largest positive feedback in the climate system (Soden 2005). As temperature rises, evaporation increases and more water vapour accumulates in the atmosphere. As a greenhouse gas, the water absorbs more heat, further warming the air and causing more evaporation. When CO2 is added to the atmosphere, as a greenhouse gas it has a warming effect. This causes more water to evaporate and warm the air to a higher, stabilized level. So the warming from CO2 has an amplified effect.

How much does water vapour amplify CO2 warming? Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would warm the globe around 1°C. Taken on its own, water vapour feedback roughly doubles the amount of CO2 warming. When other feedbacks are included (eg - loss of albedo due to melting ice), the total warming from a doubling of CO2 is around 3°C (Held 2000).

Theory, observations and climate models all show the increase in water vapor is around 6 to 7.5% per degree Celsius warming of the lower atmosphere. The observed changes in temperature, moisture, and atmospheric circulation fit together in an internally and physically consistent way. When skeptics cite water vapour as the most dominant greenhouse gas, they are actually invoking the positive feedback that makes our climate so sensitive to CO2 as well as another line of evidence for anthropogenic global warming.

www.skepticalscience.com...

Some global warming 'skeptics' argue that the Earth's climate sensitivity is so low that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in a surface temperature change on the order of 1°C or less, and that therefore global warming is nothing to worry about. However, values this low are inconsistent with numerous studies using a wide variety of methods, including (i) paleoclimate data, (ii) recent empirical data, and (iii) generally accepted climate models.

When the various hemispheres go throug seasonal changes, the order of magnitude in temperature change are many times larger. This does however not show any signs of amplification.

The climatosceptic argument from the above link (which is correct in itself but does not debunk manmade climate change or influence of CO2) proves you wrong.

"Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas. If you get a fall evening and the sky is clear, heat will escape, the temperature will drop. If there's cloud cover, the heat is trapped by water vapour and the temperature stays warm. If you go to In Salah in southern Algeria, they recorded at noon 52°C. By midnight, it's -3.6°C. It's caused because there is very little water vapour in the atmosphere and is a demonstration of water vapour as the most important greenhouse gas."

Water vapor IS the most important greenhouse gas. But we are indirectly increasing its level by increasing CO2 (temperature), so this water vapor argument originally intended by sceptics to debunk manmade climate change only provides further evidence for it.

That's a little too much isn't it?

reply to post by Dr. N


No, I understood what you were saying. I even posted as such, maybe I did not make myself clear enough, let me try again.

I understand that there are those who believe in climate change and that you believe that this is who the video is aimed at. My point though is that regardless if they believe or not they have the human right to not act if they so chose. It is not your or anyone else’s place to make them act. To threaten those who chose not to act is even worse. That is fascist and is just plain wrong. People have the right to be lazy and not do something others want them to do. You are interfering in their life if you do so and it is no different from making homosexuality illegal, or forcing someone to attend a religious service they wish not to attend.


I do not understand why it is so hard for some to understand that some people want to be left alone and chose to do what others view as wrong. People drink (alcohol) in excess everyday knowing that it is destroying their body, people do a lot of things they should not be doing. This video is (what I deem) a threat to those who chose not to participate. If someone does not want to it “might” make them a bad person but that is their choice leave them alone.

I do not care for anyone’s politics, I do not care for anyone’s agendas, I as many others are happy to live our lives the way we see fit. If that makes anyone “bad” so be it but that is each individuals choice. Just as the bigot has the right to hate someone for their skin color I have the right to think of them as a “bad” person. I do not though have the right nor could I really ever make them change their views. I also do not have the right to make them act in a manner they normally would not.

It is about personal rights. This video shows a great desire to step on one persons rights to fit their own agenda.



Added: I also do not have the right to hold a gun to my neighbors head to make them recycle, it is their choice to do it or not.


Raist

It is sick, and it shows how sick these people are.
Have you seen this Video ?



Here the message is : The Kids will be turned against you , just like it is stated in UN's Agenda 21....
'The Transfer of loyalty FROM the Family TO the State' , you see this everywhere, if you choose to see it ...
Or, like most 'awakend people' , the eyes are still closed....

reply to post by Greensage


wasn't it a mathmatical term "a fix" it was not a term to be taken litterally. statistically speaking non mathermaticians just hear fix not realising this term is used to normalise data sets by rulling out freakish runaways that can occour when modeling such a non linear senario.

reply to post by Pentothal


ok, I just watched the video until 1:34 minutes. I was shocked to say the least. I am now going to go outside and burn ALL of my used car oil in my backyard fire because of this video. By the way used car oil is a brilliant fire starter.