Planet Earth II (Blu-Ray)
Actors: David Attenborough (Narrator)
Directors: Ed Charles, Justin Anderson, Various Others
Format: Blu-ray
Language: English
Region: Region B/2 (Read more about DVD/Blu-ray formats.)
Number of discs: 2
Studio: Roadshow Entertainment
DVD Release Date: 29 Mar 2017
Run Time: 342 minutes
CamelCamelCamel.
not really a spoiler, noone survives in the game of life.
I've made it this far.
Technically, however farm animals have to worry about being eaten while they are still alive, if they ever get old, sick, or trip-over.
Maybe that cheap blue-ray player I bought can come to use rather than a display box.
That was Blue Planet 2: Mariana Trench.
I think the sequel was disappointing… Too much overacting.
Go easy. That polar bear had to shoot 37 takes.
I love a good comedy movie.
Link says "from $30.16."
Assume I have done something wrong or deal has expired.
Sold out
4K still available for $17
Planet Earth II (4K Ultra HD) https://www.amazon.com.au/dp/B0776K3MNF/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i…
Those camera filters they use to make the coral look like it's dying are better in 4k
Yeah man
F*** science! It's just a made-up word liberals use to try and disprove religion!
What happened to 'scientific concensus'? Did Greta's address change everything?
Does the CSIRO's admission "Using up to 40 global climate models" qualify as science to you? 40 indeed. If one was accurate they would use that one. Instead they back 40 different horses. 40 is a bit like lotto isn't it. Believe the lotto numbers. Average a few convenient ones together and you can produce any result you want.
From Sir David's own bio:
"Sir David Attenborough is believed to be one of the most travelled men in history. In order to film the Life of Birds series [alone] he had to travel over 256,000 miles. This is equivalent to going around the world 10 times!"
Phew, that sounds like a lot of walking and not taking carbon polluting planes, right. Maybe he went by Greta's racing yacht. Oh that's right, he didn't.
@[Deactivated]: In a system as complex as the Earth's (and it's parent star) I don't expect we will ever be able to model climate change with 100% accuracy, at least in our lifetime. It's perhaps better to take into account all proposed models and average out what is most likely to happen, than make decisions based on that data.
@Gravy: Do you accept that is why scientists themselves call climate change a matter of scientific consensus, and not a science? (Concensus science only becoming a popularised term because the public would not embrace findings of a quasi-science.)
@[Deactivated]: I would say with the amount of varying climate change models it is far from an exact science due to the massive amount of variables, the average of these models would be the consensus. I'm not sure where you are heading with this though?
Regarding Attenborough, it's unfortunate that in the past he and his team have had to add to the problem a little in order to raise awareness, but that's a small price to pay in my opinion. Some are now saying that he is downplaying the severity of the problem so as not to seem too alarmist and make it a more credible watch.
@Gravy: Where am I heading? There seems to have been considerable scope creep with the word 'science' ever since a 16 year old unqualified child incorrectly labelled scientific consensus an actual science. People who throw around the word science as if it's their bed friend had better learn to understand scientific method and rigour and embrace questions and inconvenient truths.
@[Deactivated]: What is your definition of science?
So you would have been ok and/or in agreeance with her comment if she said something along the lines of "Unite behind the scientific consensus?"
@Gravy: Well, no scientific discipline in the history of mankind has achieved the status of a science as quickly and half-baked as climate change proponents want it to happen. No field of endevour has produced as many false and wrong predictions and been called a science. It's being artificially forced backwards from wanting to change people's behaviour. You don't selectively average 40 different models to meet your teleological narrative. There is more solid, hard scientific evidence that the Earth is overpopulated. Will all climate change advocates have zero children or are they overpopulation deniers, shunning the science?
@[Deactivated]: I don't think you really answered either of my two questions I asked but anyway…
I'm unsure about the validity of your comments above regarding climate change science is at the forefront of wrong predictions, but I do know that science is constantly evolving in all fields and it makes sense that studies of complex systems will show results with varying degrees of accuracy.
There's a chance that the 3% of scientists in your camp (according to NASA) are correct and I fully accept that. However I'm not the sort of person who would go to a casino and bet my house (and more importantly my children's future) on a game with those odds, are you?
I would genuinely like to know what benefits/gains are there for you in either downplaying or denying that climate change and in particular man made climate change is happening. Is it financial / health / happiness / status / other?? Are you in a field where having to make changes around how you/we deal with possible climate change will have a dramatic effect on your life?
@Gravy: The fun part is I'm carbon positive and do vastly more for the planet than do nothing slacktivists like you. If you are carbon positive, what is written on the heraldry of your carbon audit letterhead?
I'm a qualified scientist in an actual, you know, science where two actual scientists in isolation might come up with a repeatable and testable answer rather than cherry picking multiple models and averaging to reverse fit observations. This era will be known for the greatest misrepresentation and prostitution of science ever.
NASA LOL. What is their carbon footprint to the nearest 100 billion tonnes? You like science. Tell me. How many tonnes of space junk have NASA dumped recklessly into fast orbit? NASA, who crashed Skylab into Australia saying 'what are the chances of it hitting people?'. The same NASA that had their data corrected by a 17 year old UK schoolboy? That NASA? If you are going to shamelessly name drop, you'd better take responsibility. NASA will be dumping their solar probe into the sun when they are finished, just as they dumped their retired space junk into Jupiter. Do you really think the mission to Mars is carbon neutral? NASA, the organisation that planned an all female spacewalk but forgot to count spacesuits? They launched a space shuttle to its explosive deadly doom by launching in dangerously cold weather, against a senior engineer's advice and repeated warning, just to embellish Reagan's mid term address. That NASA? NASA killed Apollo 1 astronauts Ed White, Gus Grissom and Roger Chaffee in testing, why? "the test had not been considered hazardous". Who would have thought pressurised pure oxygen might accelerate a fire, huh?
@[Deactivated]: Thanks for the slur. You have indeed made me think about what I do to benefit the planet and the reality is it's a small contribution on the scale of things, I'm certainly no eco warrior. I do however buy many of my clothes secondhand, self repair broken appliances of my own and sometimes of my family and friends. I rarely update my furniture / appliances / computer gear etc unless I deem absolutely necessary and they are nearing or at the end of their usable life. We use solar on our roofspace for energy and hot water generation. I work from home so my travel is perhaps far less than those that need to travel for work. Many of these things save me money and at the same time reduce my carbon footprint as a bonus. On the downside, I drive a diesel vehicle required to tow a camper trailer, we also have recently purchased a secondhand small petrol vehicle which I resisted for many years, so yeah there is room for improvement.
All of these things above will likely seem miniscule to yourself although on a personal basis perhaps you do the same and more?
I'm accepting that there is a chance your side of the argument could be correct which would be fantastic news, but you don't seem to offer the same respect for the flipside even if your company does have policy in place to make it carbon positive. Is this a policy that has been put in place merely for public perception or a legal/govt requirement?
NASA… yeah agreed, they aren't squeaky clean by a long shot. But it's not just NASA providing those figures.
I'm a qualified scientist…
But clearly not a climate scientist, and punching out a 3-year pass degree out of a third-rate uni doesn't make you an expert.
I gave up spending too much time debating losers like you years ago. Your arguments are not rational, they are driven by fear or delusions of your own exceptionalism, and you make me sleepy. Very sleepy.
For example you bang on about 40 climate models. There are expert climate scientists working on this around the world. They have developed their own models - that's why there are multiple models. It's not that one is right and one is wrong - it's just some have a different focus than others. You don't seem to understand that, but then you're not an expert, so why would you? There are models of the heart as well used in medicine - that doesn't operate to invalidate them, dummy.
Quite apart from the models - that seek to identify the primary drivers and provide forecasts - there's a whole raft of observations out there that demonstrate beyond doubt that the climate is changing in dramatic ways. That's not modelling - that's observation. But you don't get that either do you?
But go ahead and try to pivot with your delusional BS - i don't know, talk about my carbon footprint or something. But make sure you avoid the key issues just like you did above.
Please demonstrate further why you're a failed scientist.
BTW, are you from QLD?
@[Deactivated]: If you believe climate change is a science, what is Vladimir Putin's Gazprom natural gas output going to be in 2050 thanks to permafrost thawing and why aren't you using your knowledge of commodity markets to get rich and save the world. If it's a science, it should be no problem for you.
Not QLD, LOL and internationally ranked number 1 university in Australia every year ever on record. Suck it up.
@[Deactivated]: Another delusional pivot, and thanks for confirming you're no climate scientist.
And just hot off the press: just because a uni is rated well, doesn't mean every student emerging from it is any good. You're an obvious case in point. But you clearly don't get that either do you? Logic escapes you, if indeed it was ever with you.
You're a failed scientist - it's clear from what you've already said.
BTW what did you study exactly? Rocks? And what do you do now? Work at Macca's?
@[Deactivated]: At least you recognise that Geology is the historic butt of science faculty jokes and climate science is quickly taking its mantle.
As your silence is deafening about Putin's future natural gas ambitions (what possible impact could that have on projections, LOL), what is Australia's carbon output from bushfire reduction burning in 2019 to within 10,000 tonnes, and importantly, who paid who in carbon credits to save the world and how many auditors per hectare? Thanks in advance. I heart science.
@[Deactivated]: Your initial attempt to avoid the issues with the Russia crap didn't work. It won't work the second time around. Try to learn from experience, and experiment. At least try.
Your attempt to avoid the issues by talking about carbon footprints was forecast my me, and that's without any modelling. That's not working either.
No need to thank me.
You can pick up your Failed Scientist Certificate from the Chancellery later today.
@[Deactivated]: When failed scientists have nothing left to give, they resort to pointing out simple typos.
So sad.
@[Deactivated]: I'm perfectly calm.
When failed scientists have nothing left to give, they resort to allegations that the other party are losing their cool.
So sad.
@[Deactivated]: One signature trait of the Failed Scientist is they make assumptions about pretty much everything.
The fact you've identified the 'QWERTY' keyboard implies there are others, yet you have assumed i am using one.
So sad.
@[Deactivated]: "I gave up spending too much time debating losers like you years ago."
What have you moved on to, and what's your wordcount so far?
@[Deactivated]: Apologies for making you self-conscious.
"One signature trait of the Failed Scientist is they make assumptions about pretty much everything."
Can you list the others, so I can recognise one if I see one?
They don't need filters; the reef is dying. I guess you have not visited for some time to see for yourself.
It seems they got to you too.
Back in stock !!
It's In-sanity
Spoiler alert: the Gazelle doesn't make it.