http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_275911.html
Controversial? Hell ya!!
Extreme? Definitely!!
At the same time, I find the artistic nature fascinating. The WWF denounced and turned the ad down, for obvious reasons.
Printable View
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_275911.html
Controversial? Hell ya!!
Extreme? Definitely!!
At the same time, I find the artistic nature fascinating. The WWF denounced and turned the ad down, for obvious reasons.
What are your thoughts about this, I'm trying to work out why you posted it.
Someone fakes an ad and attempts to pin it to an internationally renown organization.
Therefore....
According to GristFrom DDBQuote:
However, it seems that the ad was nevertheless entered for a 2009 industry award for public service from New York-based The One Club. Word in the Twittersphere was that it actually won a One Show merit award, but when Grist contacted The One Club to get the real story, One Club President Kevin Swanepoel responded with a resounding “heck-no-how-did-we-get-mixed-up-in-this?” More precisely, he said that though the ad had been entered into the contest, it was withdrawn by DDB Brazil. He said ads that are not actually published or approved by the client (such as this “spec ad”) are not eligible for awards.
Quote:
“The ‘Tsunami’ ad for World Wildlife Fund Brazil was created at DDB Brazil in December 2008. DDB Brazil apologizes to anyone who was offended or affected by the ad. It should never have been made and it does not portray the philosophy of the agency.”
This ad is stupid. Its message makes absolutely no sense, since it's essentially implying a link between humanity's respect for the planet and the occurance of tsunamis. Other than its, "you ought to recycle more unless you want people to die in tsunamis" message, I don't know what kind of point the crafters of this ad are trying to make.
It may have had some substance if its punchline was different. It could have tried to make people think about how we in the West care more about 3,000 people dying in New York than we do about 280,000 dying in a third world nation, or something along those lines. Not that I'd entirely agree with that message either, but it would at least get people to think about a real sociological issue instead of some climatic fear mongering that lacks any real content.
My reading of it is that it wasn't faked, per se, but it was a mock-up ad that got rejected. The agency was commissioned to produce copy, and they did, but that one was - quite correctly - rejected. But now what? WWF is apparently "aggressively pursuing action to have it removed from websites where it is being currently featured"; but that's not going to get rid of it. Ultimately, though, this image and video should die a nice quiet death of obscurity, forgotten as they ought to be. Move along, nothing to see here...Quote:
Originally posted by Malacasta
What are your thoughts about this, I'm trying to work out why you posted it.
Someone fakes an ad and attempts to pin it to an internationally renown organization.
Therefore....
That's how I interpreted the ad. To me it was saying people are so preoccupied with the threat of terrorism, they forget that nature is capable of far, far more destruction, and that should be a greater concern than that of terrorist attacks.Quote:
It could have tried to make people think about how we in the West care more about 3,000 people dying in New York than we do about 280,000 dying in a third world nation, or something along those lines.
I posted this story to create conversation about it. I myself don't want to brush it under the carpet and forget about it, as one poster suggested.
I think it's a false comparison because terrorism is preventable whereas acts of nature typically are not. That is why I think the 3,000 on 9/11 have had more attention than the 200,000 tsunami victims - the 9/11 deaths were engineered. If 200,000 people in Indonesia had died in a terrorist attack rather than a tsunami, I think it would have generated orders of magnitude more press than 9/11.Quote:
Originally posted by kestra
That's how I interpreted the ad. To me it was saying people are so preoccupied with the threat of terrorism, they forget that nature is capable of far, far more destruction, and that should be a greater concern than that of terrorist attacks.
The WWF would probably disagree with your 2nd point regarding acts of nature. Part of their message is saying humanity's affect on the world plays a role in natural disasters. While it isn't as tangible as perhaps say the roots of terrorism, it still exists, and it's what scientists and conservationists have been warning us about for some time now.Quote:
I think it's a false comparison because terrorism is preventable whereas acts of nature typically are not.
Absolute bosh. Show me how man's actions can cause or prevent a tsunami before you talk like this.Quote:
Originally posted by kestra
The WWF would probably disagree with your 2nd point regarding acts of nature. Part of their message is saying humanity's affect on the world plays a role in natural disasters. While it isn't as tangible as perhaps say the roots of terrorism, it still exists, and it's what scientists and conservationists have been warning us about for some time now.
Kestra, can you provide any links explaining how earthquakes and tsunamis arising from tectonic plate shifts can be influenced by human action?
Dishonest inferences like the one this ad makes have all sorts of horrible impacts such as:
- Associating the WWF with a tasteless insult against 9/11 and bad science.
- Increasing the believer base in pseudo science.
- Discrediting people who believe that humans have some impact on climate.
I don't know of any evidence of human activity affecting the frequency of tsunamis, however I do know scientists are looking into the theory that human activity/ global warming are having an effect on the frequency of tropical storms & hurricanes.
1700s Japan Tsunami
I found this and thought it was a pretty interesting article about a massive tsunami to hit Japan. Apparently its source was an earthquake on the Oregon coastline only a few hours prior.
It's too bad the Japanese didn't learn their lesson and reduce the size of their carbon footprint. Maybe we wouldn't have Tsunamis today.
Don't conflate these things, Kestra.
Hurricanes are not Earthquakes.
To associate the two in this way, especially if you cannot point to any studies linking them, is bad science.
Bad science is a serious problem, things like the anti-vax movement, homeopathy and other 'alternative medicines' anti-evolution school movements and so on actually impact on the health and wealth and even democracy of nations.
That's a big call for me to make, but the inability of people to think critically and materially about things helps create an uniformed population. If people are ignorant, and have no idea how to go about informing themselves or of how to make correct judgments about information that is on offer, then their ability to assess options or make correct choices becomes seriously impaired.
I'm not ready to believe global warming contributes to tsunamis either. I am however open to the possibility that dangerous weather phenomena such as hurricanes and tropical storms ARE influenced by global warming. I'm merely pointing out what others believe. I don't speak for the WWF, so I'm willing to be wrong. Whether you agree or not that there might be a link is irrelevant. My point is there is research going into the possibility.
http://www.worldwildlife.org/who/med...item10469.html
The science on the topic of global warming influencing tropic storms is very sketchy, which is why no link has been established to any scientific standard. Not only is any such hypothesis far from being confirmed by experiment, but there isn't even a robust theoretical basis for forming the hypothesis in the first place.Quote:
Originally posted by kestra
I am however open to the possibility that dangerous weather phenomena such as hurricanes and tropical storms ARE influenced by global warming.
Beliefs are irrelevant. Advocates of teaching creationism in schools are only pointing out what others believe, too.Quote:
Originally posted by kestra
I'm merely pointing out what others believe.
You'll be wrong regardless. Just sayin'.Quote:
Originally posted by kestra
I don't speak for the WWF, so I'm willing to be wrong.
There's research going on into lots of things - much of which, like much all scientific research, will yield no results. This ad is doing nothing more than jumping to conclusions.Quote:
Originally posted by kestra
My point is there is research going into the possibility.
I read the background paper mentioned in that article. Most of the paper is dedicated to explaining how terrible hurricanes are, and how we've had a lot of hurricanes lately. But the most definitive thing it has to say about a link between global warming and hurricane frequency is,Quote:
Secondly, let's for a moment grant that global warming is having an effect on tropical storms simply for the sake of argument. You would have a lot of work ahead of you to prove that the death and mystery caused by this increase in storm activity outweighed the increased quality and length of life as the result of energy-consuming technology (because burning oil is really what we're talking about here). How well are those third world villages going to fare without, say, railway access, or desalination plants, or water treatment facilities, or electric lights, or sewage systems, etc., etc.?Quote:
The WWF wrote
The timing is certainly suggestive.
To claim human influence on tsunamis, you have to prove:
1) That a warmer globe will have more tsunamis
2) That humans are able to affect whether or not the globe gets warmer, which is usually worded in two parts:
2a) That carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will cause climate change, and
2b) that humans have significant effect on CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
Neither is proven. (2b is fairly likely, though.) Temperatures are highly cyclic (for obvious examples, look at the 24-hour and 365-day cycles familiar to most people), and the amount of effect necessary to cause an increase in violent weather activity is more than has ever been demonstrably linked to human activity.
But even if it WERE a proven fact, somehow, that our actions could increase or decrease the prevalence of ubermajor weather disasters... it would still never warrant an ad of this nature. (Anyway, does anyone honestly believe that donating to WWF will have any real effect on any of the above?)
This one actually has a very strong theoretical and experimental support. The heat-trapping effect of carbon dioxide (and other gases) is undeniable.Quote:
Originally posted by Rosuav
2a) That carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will cause climate change,
In my opinion it is actually your '2b' point that is suspicious.
If you subscribe to the theory that we are part of a real life Xmen world you can explain it.
I've actually heard this comparison many times before. 3,000 people die in one day in the US and the news goes crazy. 32,000 day each day from hunger and hunger-related causes and nobody bats an eye.Quote:
Originally posted by Snrrub
It could have tried to make people think about how we in the West care more about 3,000 people dying in New York than we do about 280,000 dying in a third world nation, or something along those lines.
I think we can all at least agree that the climate change vs terrorism is a bit of a stretch at best (even WWF does and did not think it should have ever seen the light of day).
But what about something more directly related? Is that tactful/uncalled for?
Agreed. This is a gigantic problem, especially with science becoming more and more politicized these days. The more political science becomes, the more strongly some people will react against it, forcing their children to walk the path of ignorance. Pseudo-science is forcing science to become more of a religion than a science these days, which not only robs us of potentially great scientific minds but also allows people who "believe" in science to wallow in ignorance rather than truly understand and study the subjects and theories under discussion.Quote:
Originally posted by Malacasta
To associate the two in this way, especially if you cannot point to any studies linking them, is bad science.
Bad science is a serious problem, things like the anti-vax movement, homeopathy and other 'alternative medicines' anti-evolution school movements and so on actually impact on the health and wealth and even democracy of nations.
There's already tons of people who want science and religion to be mutually exclusive. Propagating bad science in the name of politics only adds to this division.
And that's totally fine, but please don't use the expression "just sayin" with me again. This expression is often preceded by the speaker saying something to be a prick or unnecessary.Quote:
You'll be wrong regardless. Just sayin'.
I agree. More research is needed to build up the theory. It is an intriguing one nonetheless.Quote:
The science on the topic of global warming influencing tropic storms is very sketchy, which is why no link has been established to any scientific standard. Not only is any such hypothesis far from being confirmed by experiment, but there isn't even a robust theoretical basis for forming the hypothesis in the first place.
I'm sure you meant "uninformed" as opposed to uniformed, but the vision of nazi-like eco-zombies gave me a chuckle.Quote:
but the inability of people to think critically and materially about things helps create an uniformed population.
True: "and other gases". Any time you look at the actual science behind it, other gases such as sulphur dioxide (a major product of volcanic activity) have at least as much influence; but whenever the environmental lobby starts bellyaching, it's always "carbon emissions" (the "dioxide" bit is always assumed, although I suppose the constant references to "carbon" explain why CO<sub>2</sub> is depicted in black balloons - though why they rise into the air is anyone's guess). I suppose I should have said something along the lines of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere being a/the major cause of climate change, but in any case, it comes to the same thing. There is some scientific evidence to support a part of the concept, but definitely not all of it. (Equally with 2b. Humans can definitely affect the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere; every time we exhale, we emit it. Does that have any significant effect?)Quote:
Originally posted by Snrrub
This one actually has a very strong theoretical and experimental support. The heat-trapping effect of carbon dioxide (and other gases) is undeniable.
In my opinion it is actually your '2b' point that is suspicious.
This. I recently had an inspiration for an editorial cartoon in which the EPA would be putting the screws to a Lamaze class. Unfortunately, editorial cartoons need be punctual and I was a little behind on my inspiration.Quote:
Humans can definitely affect the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere; every time we exhale, we emit it.
It is hiliarious to me that the American government did officially declare CO2 to be a regulated pollutant, and you don't need a cartoon to laugh at that.
The Great Global Warming Swindle
Anyone who hasn't seen this documentary should check it out. I'm on the boat, and can't check the quality of this particular manifestation but I reckon google video is going to be okay.
The link connects us to a documentary which debates the true causes of global warming and argues the sun's role in global climate change as opposed to our own. It also theorizes on the true source of our increased "green house gasses"
Since it is important for us not to be a "uniformed" population I recommend that anyone interested in global climate change watch this documentary.
It should be noted that not a single liberal American television network wanted to air this documentary. I guess the American people can't be trusted to make their own decisions.
I personally think identifying what parts of the environment we have an adverse effect on and which parts we do not, is important so we can focus those millions of dollars on finding solutions to problems we can fix.
The Great Warming Swindle, was a film made as a polemic.
Polemics aren't the best method of informing people, especially when this particular one is extremely controversial and has been criticized by a large section of the scientific community as being inaccurate, using old data, misinterpreting data, misrepresenting interviewees and taking them out of context etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gre...arming_Swindle
I haven't seen this show, or Al Gores, mostly because when I don't even begin to understand the science, I don't particularly want to be proselytized to. How on earth would I be able to judge who was lying to me about what?
I have not seen this particular film, but I have seen a number of articles (yeah, I prefer to read a document on screen than to watch a documentary) which include tabulated or graphed data showing CO<sub>2</sub> levels in the atmosphere and global average temperatures, and the correlation is far from enough for an unbiased observer to declare a link. Obviously there are other factors involved (eg SO<sub>2</sub> or H<sub>2</sub>O, or possibly the actual location of the gases involved (upper/lower atmosphere) or somesuch); it's even possible that carbon dioxide actually has NO appreciable effect on surface temperature, although unlikely. As to the type of film... so it's called a polemic. So what? That just means it's challenging the most-held view, nothing more. And challenging a widely-held view is one of the best ways to promote scholarly discussion.Quote:
Originally posted by Malacasta
The Great Warming Swindle, was a film made as a polemic.
Polemics aren't the best method of informing people, especially when this particular one is extremely controversial and has been criticized by a large section of the scientific community as being inaccurate, using old data, misinterpreting data, misrepresenting interviewees and taking them out of context etc.
This thread has drifted rather a lot from its original topic... although, it's probably not worth forking, as the OT is mostly a dead topic now anyway.
I wonder if the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are among the films critics. If so, I see a conflict of interest. It would seem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change consists of people whose jobs depend on anthropogenic climate change.Quote:
From Wikipedia
The film's critics argued that it had misused and fabricated data, relied on out-of-date research, employed misleading arguments, and misrepresented the position of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.[
One controversial subject of the documentary is the amount of people whose job balances precariously on the idea of anthropogenic climate change, so I am not surprised that there is also a large outcry against "The Great Global Warming Swindle".
Like I wrote previously, "I recommend that anyone interested in global climate change watch this documentary." If that's not something that interests you or that you don't care to debate on either side of the subject then I wasn't referring to you.Quote:
Originally posted by Malacasta
I haven't seen this show, or Al Gores, mostly because when I don't even begin to understand the science, I don't particularly want to be proselytized to. How on earth would I be able to judge who was lying to me about what?
I also recommend that people see Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth". Though I wouldn't site these documentaries as valid scientific studies, they are both entertaining and educational. Also when debating global climate change with the layperson (Which is pretty much what goes on in most of these threads) someone is inevitably going to site one or both of these documentaries, and it helps to recognize allusions to either.
Any cross-examination by any attourney in any court of law could be labeled a "polemic". The purpose is to inform people to pursuade them to see an alternate point of view. Group A presents their evidence as fact, and Group B presents evidence refuting the claims of Group A, which they also claim is fact.Quote:
Polemics aren't the best method of informing people
The Wikipedia article could easily have been written by an environmental journalist whose job depends on the belief in anthropogenic climate change. Even if that's not the case, I think the documentary is a fun watch, and poses a number of questions that should be asked. Let'snot write it off because it goes against what we've all been told for so long. That's what we did when Margaret Thatcher invented anthropogenic climate change in the first place. :)