Planet in Peril hits L.A…
(L to R: Animal Planet host and wildlife biologist Jeff Corwin, CNN anchor Anderson Cooper, and CNN’s chief medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta )
Last night CNN’s Planet in Peril was previewed at Grauman’s Chinese Theatre last night in Hollywood, California. Anderson Cooper, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Animal Planet’s Jeff Corwin, and the Senior Executive Producer of Planet in Peril, David Doss were all present for the event.
(L to R: CNN anchor Anderson Cooper, senior executive producer David Doss, Animal Planet host and wildlife biologist Jeff Corwin and CNN’s chief medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta)
(L to R: Athlete Lance Armstrong, Animal Planet host and wildlife biologist Jeff Corwin, actor Matthew McConaughey and CNN’s chief medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta.)
The Sky is falling! The Sky is Falling ! Shut-up and eat your Crow.
Comment by mike — October 18, 2007 @ 12:40 pm
This is a joke. Cooper and the rest of these clowns are a bunch of fluffs who are so beyond having a real clue at this point. It’s almost offensive. And this Gupta is miles out of his league - talk about a sore thumb who doesn’t belong.
Comment by Ron — October 18, 2007 @ 1:01 pm
Umm…so what are your credentials regarding this topic Ron?
Comment by myview — October 18, 2007 @ 1:14 pm
Ron’s Resume:
1883 - Present: McDonalds
Certified Burger Flipper
…
Comment by Anonymous — October 18, 2007 @ 1:19 pm
Okay, now Ron is the new Mary… Honestly, do we NEED another Mary?
Comment by Arthur — October 18, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
This is for my friends on ICN ,Just go to Youtube and do “Global warming Hoax”. Think Folks !
Comment by mike — October 18, 2007 @ 2:04 pm
What maroons, they are going to slant this to human beings bad, poor mother earth good. Pagans!! Talk to some real scientist, species have been coming and going, since the earth cooled. Expected life span for Species, around 80 thousand years. What about all the new species, nature introduces? In the words of George Carlin, if the planet wanted to, it would shake humans off like fleas. We are bigger then nature, man can control nature, CNN chained to the Al Gore -God Complex? Control Nature not on your best day. But what a lovely photo-opp.
Comment by Ree — October 18, 2007 @ 2:14 pm
Arthur I thought I was the new mary? Don’t hurt my feeling like that Art.
Comment by SHANE — October 18, 2007 @ 2:16 pm
Nothing like a big carbon-emitting premier to demonstrate your commitment to helping the environment. I’m sure CNN made up for all the resources consumed by purchasing “carbon offsets.”
And what is Sanjay Gupta doing on stage? He’s an MD, not an environmental scientist. Did CNN decide that his having “Dr.” in front of his name was good enough?
Comment by Caufield — October 18, 2007 @ 2:31 pm
It is so obvious that the nay sayers here haven’t a clue about the PIP documentary and what it all involves. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but perhaps before you come here and make some of these outageous comments do some research first. I’m not sure which comment has me laughing the most. Being directed to youtube for the truth or the person referring to AC, JC and SG as Pagans.
Comment by myview — October 18, 2007 @ 2:35 pm
Shane, you and Ron can work that out amongst yourselves. Let us know who wins.
Comment by Arthur — October 18, 2007 @ 2:44 pm
In the words of George Carlin, if the planet wanted to, it would shake humans off like fleas.
It’s a common talking point among the denialists that the earth is ‘bigger’ than the human race and our puny little selves can’t make a discernable difference to it.
ya think? Take a look at a photo of earth from space at night and tell me whether or not humans can impact the earth, okay?
Comment by Arthur — October 18, 2007 @ 2:47 pm
Arthur…If you don’t like Youtube do the samething on the google ,just THINK!
Comment by mike — October 18, 2007 @ 2:58 pm
Mike, I’ve been THINKING since before you were born. YOU should stop drinking the koolaid.
They’ve been saying since the seventies that mankind has been having deleterious effects on the planet’s environment, and for 30-40 years, True Believers like yourself have been denying that we even could. Now there are visible physical changes and you’re still denying…
Here’s a thought problem for YOU:
What’s the worst thing that could happen if you followed the environmentalists’ recommendations and they were wrong? Oops, you spent a lot of money to clean up the planet when you really didn’t ‘need’ to.
What’s the worst thing that could happen if you didn’t follow the environmentalists’ recommendations and they were right? Whoops, irreversible climate change and the planet no longer supports human life. Civilization falls and everybody eventually dies after a few generations of misery. Our bad.
No brainer. Unless, of course, you hate the people who are carrying the message so much that you’d disbelieve them if they told you it was Thursday…
Comment by Arthur — October 18, 2007 @ 3:06 pm
Arther..You are Hopeless, Belive what you want.I don’t care what you belive .But you are the one drinking the coolaid.
Comment by mike — October 18, 2007 @ 3:15 pm
Arthur..BTW I’m 65 and have been watching the sun and weather as part of my Hobby Ham/Amateur Radio for over 20 yrs .I hold a EXTRA class License .
Comment by mike — October 18, 2007 @ 3:26 pm
… and I hold a degree in physics and work in emergency management planning. Believe it or not; you’re only fooling yourself.
Comment by Arthur — October 18, 2007 @ 3:32 pm
Arthur..I don’t think so!
Comment by mike — October 18, 2007 @ 3:35 pm
you have denial down to a fine art, Mike. Enjoy.
Comment by Arthur — October 18, 2007 @ 3:40 pm
Arthur..You also Koolaid drinker!
Comment by mike — October 18, 2007 @ 3:46 pm
What is the worst that can happen if we do spend money to clean up the planet? What is the worst thing that can happen if they are right and global warming is true and we do nothing? Once an animal or plant or whatever is gone we can’t bring it back.
I have seen Planet in Peril and it’s good, but it’s not preachy. And whether people believe in global warming or not at least CNN has reported on it. What other news network does stuff like this? NONE.
Comment by LR — October 18, 2007 @ 3:49 pm
But in the 70s… isn’t that when they were talking about all that Global Cooling?
Comment by ImNotBlue — October 18, 2007 @ 4:04 pm
ImNot - no. that’s when they started talking about holes in the ozone layer and greenhouse gases (the phrase ‘global warming’ emerged later, and ‘global climate change’ even later) and fluorocarbons in the aerosols and ‘acid rain’ - remember acid rain? was that another ‘myth’, myth-busters?
Comment by Arthur — October 18, 2007 @ 4:41 pm
ImNot - you called it; who knew? there actually WAS a crackpot fringe who thought we were entering a new ice age in the 70s…
Comment by Arthur — October 18, 2007 @ 4:48 pm
Crackpot fringe like ABC CBS NBC Time Mag. I new you would come around Art.
Comment by SHANE — October 18, 2007 @ 5:48 pm
What, come around to believe something that people who DID believe it in the seventies are now disavowing? whatever for?
On October 23, 2006, Newsweek issued a correction, over 31 years after the original article, stating that it had been “so spectacularly wrong about the near-term future” (though editor Jerry Adler claimed that ‘the story wasn’t “wrong” in the journalistic sense of “inaccurate.”‘)
The OIL companies aren’t even denying global warming any more. See, this is the problem when you give up your critical thinking facility for your cult. When your cult changes direction, you’re stranded there holding the bag, still believing what they now admit they no longer believe and never really did.
Comment by Arthur — October 18, 2007 @ 5:59 pm
So you guys jumping at the idea of Nuclear power? The permits are being past out like trading cards. Isn’t that Great! Thank You ALGORE!
Comment by SHANE — October 18, 2007 @ 8:01 pm
Arthur,
Then how old is the Earth, and how many different climate changes has it gone through? You said, you hold a degree in physics. The Earth before “Hominids” underwent many extreme climate changes….why because our species is in exsistence now, would that change?
Comment by Ree — October 18, 2007 @ 10:58 pm
I think Its physis not physics, but i could be wrong.
Comment by mike — October 18, 2007 @ 11:45 pm
I’m wrong, SORRY
Comment by mike — October 19, 2007 @ 12:10 am
“why because our species is in exsistence now, would that change?”
Ree - there is no denying that there have been wild climate swings that were not caused by human activity. But that in and of itself does not PRECLUDE the possibility that humanity can and is having an effect on the climate, does it? If my basement flooded because of a broken pipe, does that mean that EVERY time it floods, it’s because a pipe broke and not because, for instance, my foundation is cracked and it’s raining?
My question to those who prefer to believe human-caused global climate change (HCGCC for brevity) is a myth or a hoax; why is it so important to you to hold a belief at variance with mainstream science? Do you at least acknowledge that if the 90% of the scientists who accept that HCGCC is a fact are correct, it’s bad news for mankind?
Comment by Arthur — October 19, 2007 @ 12:11 am
Arthur… by that logic… shouldn’t we all just watch FNC, and stop watching everything else? I mean, if the majority of the people watch FNC, and like FNC, what’s the point in even having the other stations?
Doesn’t look so good that way, does it?
Comment by ImNotBlue — October 19, 2007 @ 12:57 am
Logic? That’s what passes for logic in your mind? 90% of the scientific community agrees that humanity is having an effect on the global climate. Less than one percent of the US population watchs Fox News on any given day. Therefore Fox News is all the news we need?
I notice you avoided answering my question. If it’s religion, just say so and I’ll drop it - there’s no point in trying to discuss a scientific topic that someone else has imbued with religious meaning.
Comment by Arthur — October 19, 2007 @ 1:24 am
What happened to Mary?
Comment by susan — October 19, 2007 @ 7:55 am
I’m still here Susan.I just had a sex change.
Comment by SHANE — October 19, 2007 @ 9:00 am
Yeah, not quite Arthur. Follow my argument… I’ll make it easier for you.
You say that we should acknowledge that 90% of scientists are correct… because they are the majority. So by that “logic” you could also say, of the people who watch cable news at 8pm, the vast majority watch O’Reilly… so everyone should recognize he has the best show.
Here are the percentages from Wednesday (out of all people watching at 8pm):
56% - O’Reilly / 19% - Countdown / 12% - Out in the Open / 10% - Grace / 2% - Fast Money
With those kind of numbers, shouldn’t you at least acknowledge that the other programs are bad?
See… that “logic” doesn’t quite hold up, now does it.
Personally, I believe that it is too early to tell, and the whole issue has been turned into a political campaign… with politicians using it to garner votes (and if they’re wrong, it’ll be to so far down the road when people find out, so cares) and scientists using it to further their careers, political ideology, and funding (you get more money when you kiss the butt of the people with the government’s check book).
Also, I’ve learned that anytime a politician says “We have consensus” or “there’s a mandate,” that means all they want to do is shut down debate to stifle criticism. Right or wrong, it’s a bullying tactic… and means that someone isn’t too sure of their views… but still wants to champion them.
However, with all that said… I’m all for cleaning up the environment. A cleaner environment is better for everyone! Buy a more efficient car… use wind power… walk to the store… it’s all good, and it’s all good for everyone. (Although I don’t much subscribe to that whole ‘carbon offset’ BS) However, from the reports I’ve seen, and the scientific articles I’ve read… I believe we’re in a cyclical pattern where the planet is warming… but that’s normal. If humans have anything to do with it, it’s not significant enough to alter our planet catastrophically. And those who want to use this as a wedge issue, are only using it to get themselves in office… not for the good of the planet.
Comment by ImNotBlue — October 19, 2007 @ 10:40 am
Authur,
At one time man believed the Sun rotated around the Earth and the Earth was flat…we should always question what is being reported for public consumption as fact. I would love for the Earth to be cleaned up of toxins and pollution because that would be healthier for human beings. But the alarmist, we are in crisis reporting, to get ratings or promote a political agenda…there is a saying that covers that, don’t pee on my leg, and tell me it’s raining. CNN is preaching to the choir if they wanted to bring in more viewers, he basics of nature,including climate change,the lifespan of species ect.. would be included. If polled,I believe most people would say yes,I want the land, water and air clean, it is called stewardship,we use it and leave it in good condition for the next generation. I am from Montana this isn’t a new concept for me.
Comment by Ree — October 19, 2007 @ 10:45 am
Wow ! There are some who have the weirdest notion of logic, science and scientific reasonning. I’ve just seen one making an analogy between a TV show and a scientific phenomenon, between taste and facts.
Comment by ZapPow — October 19, 2007 @ 11:31 am
Gupta? What does climate have to do with neurology?
Comment by spiffo — October 19, 2007 @ 11:44 am
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/columnists/story.html?id=61b0590f-c5e6-4772-8cd1-2fefe0905363
Comment by spiffo — October 19, 2007 @ 12:02 pm
Zap… did you read what I wrote… or just skim? The point of comparing the two, is to show that just because the majority supports something, it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s correct.
Comment by ImNotBlue — October 19, 2007 @ 1:14 pm
Arthur, Mike, Shane, ImNotBlue, and whoever else is involved in this out of control thread…keep it peaceful. You guys get together and it’s like Uranium in a Nuclear Reactor. Don’t make me insert the control rods…
Comment by Spud — October 19, 2007 @ 1:18 pm
The point of comparing the two, is to show that just because the majority supports something, it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s correct.
ImNot - please note that I did not say ‘believe something because the VAST PREPONDERANCE of earth scientists do’. I said ‘given that the vast preponderance of earth scientists believe this, why is it so important for you to believe otherwise’.
If you have nine doctors out of ten telling you you have a heart condition and the tenth saying you’re just fine, why do you believe the tenth? No one has come anywhere near addressing this question.
WRT news sources, that’s more a matter of ‘taste’, or personal preference. Most people don’t like anchovies - does that mean I can’t like them? I don’t think so.
Comment by Arthur — October 19, 2007 @ 2:13 pm
Don’t make me insert the control rods…
–>[obvious and juvenile innuendo goes here]
Comment by Arthur — October 19, 2007 @ 2:30 pm
#42-That’s good SPUD! LOL! Algore started it.LOL
Comment by SHANE — October 19, 2007 @ 3:06 pm
Wikipedia….List of Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming .
Comment by mike — October 19, 2007 @ 3:18 pm
The Coast Guard is now having to guard the arctic coast
Comment by Arthur — October 19, 2007 @ 5:31 pm