EXPLODING SCHOOL CHILDREN : Global Warming Propaganda Campaign Backfires, page 19

reply to post by Pentothal

---

I think its pretty extreme and does get the message across, however this isn't going to get any more people involved with participating in climate change...

In order for people to understand and participate they need to be shown how / what they can do to contribute! Instead of these lame viral ads maybe create a video supporting people and giving them other rational choices if people don't choose to do their bit!

The majority of the population is ignorant and this ad is fighting back with ignorance!

reply to post by Pentothal

---

I think its pretty extreme and does get the message across, however this isn't going to get any more people involved with participating in climate change...

In order for people to understand and participate they need to be shown how / what they can do to contribute! Instead of these lame viral ads maybe create a video supporting people and giving them other rational choices if people don't choose to do their bit!

The majority of the population is ignorant and this ad is fighting back with ignorance!

reply to post by ATS4dummies

---

Well said!

reply to post by Recouper

---

Having watched the thread and it's many differing views:

I am not offended by blood and gore. I am concerned about the context of the blood and gore, the message seems to have sinister overtones. It has an overtly devisive message that normalises the exclusion of those that hold opinions that differ from the so called 'correct' one. It also advocates violence, albeit in an OTT way. People hide behind the supposed humour in defence of this.

This was a very well planned and thought out piece. It's message is clear.

reply to post by Pentothal

---

Hmmm, I couldn't find something like this funny. I wouldn't hold it against people who might find similar imagery funny within different context and I certainly have no bad judgment for those who are not offended by blood and gore. Personally, I'm not really offended by blood and gore, it's just I find it rather upsetting. At the risk of rambling, I remember the worst experience I had from watching a movie and that was "Battle Royale" out of Japan. I had a downer from that for days, but when I told my wife about it, she said that movie is very good and has a very pertinent message to it making it worth seeing. The point is I agree with her, but I still feel a hint of grief when I remember back to watching that movie and I would never watch it again.

However, campaign ads lack legal rating, so I wouldn't think bad of anyone who might be offended by the sudden exposure to such blood and gore while watching one. It seems to me that you think the same on this point as you note that you are concerned with the context (correct me if I'm misunderstanding you).

As far as the sinister overtones and the overtly divisive message, that's indeed what I heard when watching. So I think it's worrying and I'm thankful you brought it to ATS for us to openly discuss and debate.

Originally posted by Recouper
reply to post by Pentothal

---

Hmmm, I couldn't find something like this funny. I wouldn't hold it against people who might find similar imagery funny within different context and I certainly have no bad judgment for those who are not offended by blood and gore.

It was intended by the creators to be funny! Can you believe that?

reply to post by Pentothal

---

Weird indeed. So you think it's reasonable that I'm left wondering about their head space..? And considering some of the people who got involved where celebrities and musical artists who generally have quite a loud voice in our society, I'm slightly concerned.

reply to post by Pentothal

Hmm I think the underlying message is you dont want to be the odd one out,HSBC bank is one organisation who like to use this kind of NLP in their training sessions,one of the first things done in training is to ask the trainees what group they belong too,I cant remember what the 3 or 4 types were however you end up with two main types of person and eventually the lesser or weaker of the two groups will amalganate with the stronger and join them,heaven help you if you are strong enough to stand your ground in your own corner isolated from the rest as it does just make you look a little foolish (crazy) for doing so, anyway all this from an organisation who had a road show earlier this year in which the management came on stage and talked about how good they were with their vision,how the employees helped them acheive it and at the end closed with a popular pop song and asked them to sing it out loud and shake hands then pat each other on the back and congratulate the management for doing so well, if that isnt reinforcing NLP or a classic example of brainwashing I dont know what is and I wear pink knickers. Anyhoo the intention isnt to slag of someone else's employer in a public forum but to point out how people can be critisized for not fitting in with the norm at least the norm which is the perception of your peers at that particular moment being the fact they have all bonded in one common notion going forward,"otherwise known as sink or swim",that is the underlying message and will hit youngsters pretty hard,one way of getting the younger generation to unite and perceive everything the same, after all what is perception other than someone else's idea.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

---

All you have shown is to be ignorant of the facts. Every one of those claims you excerpted has been debunked by REAL scientists. From the claim that "95% of scientists endorse the consensus" which is a lie.

I have proven in past threads that many scientific groups are just touting the AGW bandwagon just to get more funds.
The position written in the websites of scientific groups which claim are a consensus on AGW does not speak for the majority of the scientists which are part of such groups....it only speaks about the opinions from the small groups of boards of directors which are more interested in getting more grants than in true science when it comes to Climate Change.

Here you go, actual opinion polls of professional climatologists, not board directors or random chemists:
en.wikipedia.org...

97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[

A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. A summary from the survey states that: It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.[95]

That research made by Wilson was only from 1978 -2002, and the research showed that until the end of the research the sun's output HAD BEEN INCREASING, and not decreasing like the AGW fans like to claim.

Directly from your link:

The new study shows that the TSI has increased by about 0.1 percent over 24 years. That is not enough to cause notable climate change, Willson and his colleagues say, unless the rate of change were maintained for a century or more.

All other studies I have found claimed that TSI stayed relatively constant or slightly decreased over the last 30 years. TSI directly measured by sattelites may differ from TSI computed from suns intensity on Earth because it does not take into account that higher TSI increases albedo (promotes cloud formation - nucleation). That is negative feedback mechanism which decreases effect of changing TSI on our climate, so ALL studies taking into account actual energy that reaches lower levels of athmosphere show constant or decreasing TSI - www.skepticalscience.com...

www.mpg.de...

Since the middle of the last century, the Sun is in a phase of unusually high activity, as indicated by frequent occurrences of sunspots, gas eruptions, and radiation storms. Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research (MPS) in Katlenburg-Lindau (Germany) and at the University of Oulu (Finland) have come to this conclusion after they have succeeded in reconstructing the solar activity based on the sunspot frequency since 850 AD. To this end, they have combined historical sunspot records with measurements of the frequency of radioactive isotopes in ice cores from Greenland and the Antarctic. As the scientists have reported in the renowned scientific journal, Physical Review Letters, since 1940 the mean sunspot number is higher than it has ever been in the last thousand years and two and a half times higher than the long term average. The temporal variation in the solar activity displays a similarity to that of the mean temperature of the Earth. These scientific results therefore bring the influence of the Sun on the terrestrial climate, and in particular its contribution to the global warming of the 20th century, into the forefront of current interest. However, researchers at the MPS have shown that the Sun can be responsible for, at most, only a small part of the warming over the last 20-30 years. They took the measured and calculated variations in the solar brightness over the last 150 years and compared them to the temperature of the Earth. Although the changes in the two values tend to follow each other for roughly the first 120 years, the Earth’s temperature has risen dramatically in the last 30 years while the solar brightness has not appreciably increased in this time.

These findings bring the question as to what is the connection between variations in solar activity and the terrestrial climate into the focal point of current research. The influence of the Sun on the Earth is seen increasingly as one cause of the observed global warming since 1900, along with the emission of the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, from the combustion of coal, gas, and oil. "Just how large this role is, must still be investigated, since, according to our latest knowledge on the variations of the solar magnetic field, the significant increase in the Earth’s temperature since 1980 is indeed to be ascribed to the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide," says Prof. Sami K. Solanki, solar physicist and director at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research.

solarphysics.livingreviews.org...

The solar contribution is assessed to be in the range 0.06 – 0.30 Wm–2. Note that when calculating solar radiative forcing it is necessary to scale the total solar irradiance at the Earth by a factor taking into account geometric considerations as well as the planetary albedo. Thus the RF due to a change in TSI of 1 Wm–2 is about 1/6 Wm–2, or a change in TSI of 0.7 Wm–2 since 1750 is equivalent to RF = 0.12 Wm–2. The actual variations in TSI over the past few centuries is very uncertain (see Section 4.2) and the change in TSI depends crucially on the starting date (chosen as 1750 by the IPCC to represent the pre-industrial atmosphere): choice of earlier or later in the 18th century would have given an increased solar RF. Thus the value of solar radiative forcing in the IPCC figure is largely indicative. Taking a value of the climate sensitivity parameter of 0.6 K (Wm–2)–1 suggests that a global average surface warming of less than 0.1 K since 1750 could be ascribed to the Sun.

www.physorg.com...

"We cannot jump to any conclusions based on what we have found during this comparatively short period and we need to carry out further studies to explore the Sun's activity, and the patterns that we have uncovered, on longer timescales. However, if further studies find the same pattern over a longer period of time, this could suggest that we may have overestimated the Sun's role in warming the planet, rather than underestimating it."

www.atmos.washington.edu...

There are many interesting palaeoclimate studies that suggest that solar variability had an influence on pre-industrial climate. There are also some detection–attribution studies using global climate models that suggest there was a detectable influence of solar variability in the first half of the twentieth century and that the solar radiative forcing variations were amplified by some mechanism that is, as yet, unknown. However, these findings are not relevant to any debates about modern climate change. Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified.

Variations in solar output simply do not have the required power to explain recent climate change, even if they were slightly increasing as shown in your link. (1960-2010).

This is the problem with people like you.. You want to claim that mankind caused ALL the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels, but atmospheric CO2 levels have risen naturally many times in the past. Only a small percentage of that increase is anthropogenic, but again you people need to try to "scare" those who are not informed.

Show me actual scientific studies which quantify and prove that only a small portion of increase in anthropogenic, because every study I found on the subject has shown the contrary (at least 50% of the increase is definitely anthropogenic).

www.skepticalscience.com...

www.skepticalscience.com...

The CO2 that nature emits (from the ocean and vegetation) is balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Therefore human emissions upset the natural balance, rising CO2 to levels not seen in at least 800,000 years. In fact, human emit 26 gigatonnes of CO2 per year while CO2 in the atmosphere is rising by only 15 gigatonnes per year - much of human CO2 emissions is being absorbed by natural sinks.

Additional confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity comes from examining the ratio of carbon isotopes (eg. carbon atoms with differing numbers of neutrons) found in the atmosphere. Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes from fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring (Ghosh 2003). The C13/C12 ratio correlates with the trend in global emissions.

Yes, it was hotter in the distant past, so its perfectly safe to double the amount of atmospheric CO2 in just 200 years and rapidly change the climate even if now all life and human settlemements are adapted to current conditions. Its the same logic like saying its OK to blow up whole planet with nuclear weapons, because in the distant past it was just a ball of molten rock - if our planet suddenly reverted to climate conditions that were here milions of years ago, it would be catastrophic.

About 40% of human CO2 emissions are being absorbed, mostly by vegetation and the oceans. The rest remains in the atmosphere. As a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20.000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years.

As I have already said, Its the RATE of change that is important here, not absolute values. Naturally occuring cycles would never change CO2 levels and climate so rapidly. If CO2 would rise from preindustrial 280 ppm to current 390 or even higher ppm in natural time span (10 000 years), there would be no problem. But we have managed to do it in less than 200 years.

www.skepticalscience.com...

When CO2 levels were higher in the past, solar levels were also lower. The combined effect of sun and CO2 matches well with climate.

For example the Earth's magnetic field, and the Sun's magnetic field have also been shown to affect the climate.

Not significantly enough to explain the observed changes.
www.skepticalscience.com...

Desertification is mainly due to annual-plow agriculture.

Source? Are you saying that the whole sahara desert is caused by bad agriculture?
Desertification is MAINLY due to temperatures. I am not saying that other effects do not contribute, but its really lame excuse to say "bad agriculture contributed a bit to desertification, so its perfectly safe to add another powerful forcing agent causing it (temperature), becasue not all desertification was directly casued by temperature".

domestic livestock is causing global warming from methane emissions. And through the destruction of habitat is driving extinction.

www.skepticalscience.com...

Methane emissions from livestock contribute max. 2% to observed global warming ( www.animal-science.org... ). Also, its not fossil source, so its natural and in balance with methane sinks (does not add to the cycle in the long run).

So far you haven't mentioned even 1. The cons you mentioned were only marginally related to "global warming", which we already know is mainly driven by methane from factory meat farms.

So far you have not refuted even 1 of these, or shown that they are only "marginally" related to GW:
-Decreasing human water supplies, increased fire frequency, ecosystem change and expanded deserts (Solomon 2009)
-Decline in rice yields due to warmer nighttime minimum temperatures (Peng 2004, Tao 2008)
-Increase of Western United States wildfire activity, associated with higher temperatures and earlier spring snowmelt (Westerling 2006)
-Encroachment of shrubs into grasslands, rendering rangeland unsuitable for domestic livestock grazing (Morgan 2007)
-Decreased water supply in the Colorado River Basin (McCabe 2007)
-Decreasing water supply to the Murray-Darling Basin (Cai 2008)

..methane from factory meat farms? Are you really making this up on the fly?

Oh noooo..... rainforests, and animals were doing fine with temperatures 3-5C higher than today's?..... Who would have thought this?...... Well, I guess ANOTHER lie of the AGWers is dead.... BTW, the above DOES NOT PROVE that CO2 is the cause of the warming claimed by the AGW fans, it just shows that giant forests and animals have existed and thrived with warmer temperatures than at present.

It is absolutely IRRELEVANT that life existed even with higher temperatures in the past, no one is saying it wasnt, it was adapted to such temperature and climate. But what would happen if you SUDDENLY decreased the temperature by 3-5 degrees? For the life and climate adapted to warm conditions it would be catastrophic change. Exactly what would happen to current life and climate if we so suddenly increase the temperature now. Its not so much about the absolute level of CO2 and temerature but THE RATE OF CHANGE. Got it already? Increasing CO2 by 38% in 15 000 years is NOT the same like increasing it in 200 years. Increasing it by 400% to prehistoric levels by burning all fossil fuels in 400 years time frame cannot in any way be compared to change of the same amount occuring in natural time frames.

We are living in a carbon based world, and in fact the Earth is STILL CO2 starved... It is another fact that the green biomass of the Earth, and even the oceans has been increasing, and this means MORE FOOD for animals, and mankind.

Its not that simple. The increase in CO2 would bring both positive and negative changes in crop amount and quality:
en.wikipedia.org...
www.scidev.net...

Even if the net effect on vegetation is positive, it would not offset the negative effects on climate mentioned above.

You can't have it both ways. Either you have predominantly positive feed back mechanisms which mean we will all fry or the negative and positive feed backs cancel each other out in which case you have little or no warming.

Why? You cannot imagine positive feed back mechanism which significantly amplifies something but still does not cause it to rise without bound? (multiplication by fixed constant)? There are many systems that work that way.
Here is a breakdown of the process for you:
1. CO2 rises by some amount causing temperature to go up by x.
2. this rise causes water vapor content to go up by y%.
3. this increase in turn causes further rise in temperature by, lets say x/2
4. this rise causes water vapor to go up by y/2%
5.this increase causes temperature to go up by x/4
6. this rise causes water vapor to go up by y/4%
7. this causes temperature to increase by x/8
And so on till the effect diminishes..

and so on. If we integrate all temperature rises caused by feedback: x/2 + x/4 + x/8 etc. we get significant increase in addition to original x caused by co2 alone. Empirical studies show it roughly doubles it, so I was not that off in the above example

Originally posted by Clavicula
reply to post by Maslo

---

Furtermore increases in water vapour content also affects the albedo through cloud cover which is a strong negative feedback effect that is currently largely unknown and only sparesly incorporated in the current climate models.

Try thinking it through instead of regurtitating realclimate and scepticalsciense.

Increases in temperature also considerably raise the dew point, so even if absolute humidity (the % of water vapor) raises, the relative humidity (measure of likehood of cloud formation) actually decreases (the atmospheres capacity to hold water vapor uncondensed increases with temperature). With the increasing temperature, there would actually be LESS clouds, because water vapor would not condense into them, but rather stay evaporated in the atmosphere. Thats why fog (clouds) forms much more likely in colder weather than in tropical weather - basic meteorology (physics).
No increase in CONDENSED water vapor, no increase in albedo.

There is also another positive feedback effect:
climateprogress.org...

Who is not thinking here?

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower

---

Good point, you know. They arrested some men that filmed a private Koran burning under the pretense of :racial hatred:. The men had posted the video on you tube...

Maybe they might have actually burned a real Koran, instead of a fake one....

I think this display of exploding kids should qualify as a hate crime...

reply to post by Maslo

---

While I am not an expert, nor claim to be...are you aware that many of the leading scientists in the Uk, in fact an entire body of them have just recently, as of last week retreated on thier stance about Global Warming?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Who Controls Our Children? /The secret War Against America
  Posted 6 days ago with 38 member flags

Let\'s Ban Television!
  Posted 2 days ago with 20 member flags

FOX News Guides Al Qaeda Assassins To Seal Team Member\'s Doorstep
  Posted 18 days ago with 12 member flags

Are all these deaths a coincidence or is there more to the picture?
  Posted 2 days ago with 8 member flags

School. My son is Failing some subjects. Should I worry?
  Posted 7 days ago with 7 member flags

Elementary School dumps homework!
  Posted 4 days ago with 7 member flags

My Letter to Michael Gove
  Posted 15 days ago with 3 member flags

When the teacher is out of control.... there is a solution
  Posted 4 days ago with 2 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: