Sony Pulls Support for Video of Exploding Children

[jalek]

This is why nobody listens to envirowackos.
Authoritarianism in a green cloak.

 

[christop]

WTF!!! LOL

 

[flaminggerbil]

I'm guessing all the people who dont like this video are Americans (no sense of humour or willingness to change their wasteful habbits).

The point is that a great number of people agree with the need for humanity to reduce our consumption of resources and destruction of the enviroment yet many when asked if they'll be actually doing anything will use the age old excuse of "Pff not my problem, it's the big companies fault" or "I dont see anyone else doing it, why should I?".

Needless to say Americans dont like this.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]that being said, anyone here think "climate change" is really? so you all know, climate change is the new term for global warming, which has been proven to be bullshit, however un scientists that said that were kicked out of the study and replaced with politicians to say whatever the un wanted them to say. if there is anything that they should do, they should have a fact, a 75watt lightbulb over the coarse of a year costs 648kwatts worth of power, (71$ where i live) or use a 7 watt led light bulb that costs 7$ a year, per light (this is assumeing 24 hours the light is on, it is possible its 1/4 that cost) showing that going green can save you a metric fuck ton of money a year would be the better thing to do that attempting to scare you[/citation]

I agree with most of what you said, but climate change is not the new term for global warming. The public has always called it global warming, while the scientific term has always been climate change because it is actually more than global warming - some parts of the world will get cooler and others experience a change in climate.

The question isn't whether or not climate change it happening - the vast majority of scientists acknowledge the climate is changing. The question whether or not it is called by manmade activities. The majority of scientists believe so, but a significant number also believe climate change is natural.

 

[2real]

i laughed so hard at the exploding people

 

[MotionMan]

In addition to being hard on the viewer - this commercial is way off target (sorry - didn't mean to pun). What's the message? Rather than - 'if we don't do something we're all doomed' it amounts to 'If you don't do something we'll blow you up.' Completely ineffective - The advertising agency that came up with this and the executives that approved it probably should find something else to do. They're clueless.

 

[akopp21]

How much carbon emmissions did they waste making this?

 

[capt_taco]

The commercial is stupid, but the exploding children are AWESOME. I went back 3 or 4 times just to laugh at it. Too bad the people who made the ad are probably so lacking in the sense-of-humor department that they didn't even mean for it to be funny.

 

[Dirtman73]

[citation][nom]shin0bi272[/nom]no. When the global average temp went down almost 1 degree in 12 years the NY times I think it was paid ALGORE 50,000 dollars to start calling "global warming" "climate change".[/citation]

I'm still correct. "Global warming" was the original term used by environmentalists until "climate change" was coined, because "climate change" better describes the overall scientific theory. The only people that use "global warming" anymore are those who like to belittle the theory. You know, wankers like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

Anyway, where did you get the dumb idea that the NY Times paid Al Gore to switch the descriptive? That's a conspiracy theory made up by wankers like, well, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

 

[guardianangel42]

[citation][nom]Dirtman73[/nom]Uhhh...global warming and climate change are terms for the same theory. One is used by disbelievers, the other by scientists.[/citation]

Not quite. Rather than just just give you a thumbs down, I will correct you. Global Warming was the theory proposed throughout the late 2000s and it stated that the earth was warming as a result of carbon emissions and other polutants. This was very specifically stating that the Earth was WARMING.

Now that the idea that the earth is warming has been all but disproven by systematic disection of the proponents theories, environmentalists are now changing the terminology to Climate Change in an effort to create ambiguity that they can hide under. This phrase encompasses all kinds of man made climate change, from global warming to global cooling. In this way the geologists can claim that humanity is still causing climate change without proving that it is changing one way or the other.

As an example, look at the terminology used by the White House throughout the Bush Administration. Global Warming was what it was called. Fast forward to 2010 and Obama has changed the terminology, just like he did when he stopped calling terrorist attacks terrorist attacks and started calling them man caused disasters.

Which makes you wonder, is Obama trying to join the right's desire to fight terrorists with left's desire to fight "climate Change" by calling them both man caused disasters?

Food for thought.

 

[guardianangel42]

[citation][nom]Dirtman73[/nom]I'm still correct. "Global warming" was the original term used by environmentalists until "climate change" was coined, because "climate change" better describes the overall scientific theory. The only people that use "global warming" anymore are those who like to belittle the theory. You know, wankers like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.Anyway, where did you get the dumb idea that the NY Times paid Al Gore to switch the descriptive? That's a conspiracy theory made up by wankers like, well, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.[/citation]

I ask you, what value is there to changing the terminology at this stage? Most people, even people who aren't Rush and Sean, still call it global warming because that is the concept at the heart of the debate. The idea that the planet is warming to the point that it could cause catastrophic harm to humanity and the rest of the earth.

I could pick apart several of the major "end result scenarios" for you if you want. Try filling a transparent glass with water and several ice cubes. Mark the level of the water and leave it alone for several minutes.

That right there destroys the "polar ice caps melting disaster scenario".

 

[jednx01]

Haha. That is one of the worst marketing campaigns ever. "If you don't listen, we'll kill you..." rofl

 

[xxsk8er101xx]

When an argument fails the human reaction is a violent verbal reaction. Perfect example here is instead of argueing with facts and science, which the data does not align with their agenda, they react with violence to force their agenda on to you.

This is typical human emotional reaction to an agenda when the argument fails.

 

[Mark_Alberta]

Quite possibly the most idiotic video I have seen in a while.

 

[Guest]

Looked like terrorists to me.

 

[climber]

Sycophantic Eco-Terrorist Propaganda BS Spouting Vermin... eerrrr... or was that just me thinking that?

 

[caqde]

[citation][nom]guardianangel42[/nom]I ask you, what value is there to changing the terminology at this stage? Most people, even people who aren't Rush and Sean, still call it global warming because that is the concept at the heart of the debate. The idea that the planet is warming to the point that it could cause catastrophic harm to humanity and the rest of the earth.I could pick apart several of the major "end result scenarios" for you if you want. Try filling a transparent glass with water and several ice cubes. Mark the level of the water and leave it alone for several minutes.That right there destroys the "polar ice caps melting disaster scenario".[/citation]

It would if the ice was all the way in the water and not above that water, but in the worlds case redo your glass filling and add some more ice the the cup above that water and see where it is, and not all of the melting ice is floating in the ocean some of it is on land draining into the oceans. So we have Icebergs that float in water with the larger ones having large amounts of ice protruding far above water level, and ice glaciers on land melting into the ocean. Although your hypothesis is correct the reality doesn't fit your scenario. Now we just need to find out how much ice is below and above the water...

Now as far as what I think of the video, very strange crazy, with a line of WTF..

 

[megamanx00]

Advertising fail. While I think it's great, to those who like it it's like preaching to the choir, and to the rest, whom this commercial is trying to target, the message is completely lost. Entertaining, funny, but sadly almost completely ineffective

 

[alyoshka]

LoL!!! Thats pretty much a farce from Sony's side since most of the movies that come out of their studios have more blood gore and guts in them, the games that come out on their PS's have a lot more crap in them, lol. I'd like to see them do a little of practicing what they preach..... and then lets see what it does to their stock ....

 

[therabiddeer]

[citation][nom]alyoshka[/nom]LoL!!! Thats pretty much a farce from Sony's side since most of the movies that come out of their studios have more blood gore and guts in them, the games that come out on their PS's have a lot more crap in them, lol. I'd like to see them do a little of practicing what they preach..... and then lets see what it does to their stock ....[/citation]
An R rated movie or a Mature game are quite different than a political/environmental message to the world. It would be like some company releasing battle royale as a G rated film for kids, not exactly the best idea.