"Hacking the Planet", new cable show

Leifer

Senior Member.
The Weather Company (TWC, formerly The Weather Channel)'s newest show "Hacking the Planet", will debut soon.

"Produced by Castle Pictures, Inc., “Hacking the Planet” features 6x 30-minute episodes and will premiere Thursday, Feb. 28, 2013 at 8:00 p.m. ET."
Content from External Source
http://press.weather.com/press-releases/hacking-the-planet-new-series-on-the-weather-channel-asks-can-man-control-mother-nature/
"What if humans were no longer as susceptible to Mother Nature’s wrath? Geo-engineers are exploring seemingly unimaginable concepts, including attempts to deflect hurricanes, increase and decrease rainfall, channel lightning, and harness the power of tornadoes. Each episode of “Hacking the Planet” will follow host and former Scientific American editor-in-chief John Rennie through a series of field experiments, illustrated by unique animated graphics, to uncover strategies for potentially manipulating the Earth, and whether those plans would help mankind, harm the planet, or both. Rennie will be joined by Huffington Post’s“Talk Nerdy to Me” Science Correspondent Cara Santa Maria and Brian Malow, science writer and science comedian, who will help Rennie talk through each scenario and its plausibility."
Content from External Source



 

Leifer

Senior Member.
I'm guessing these 30 minute episodes are mostly for entertainment purposes but will also be science oriented.
Watch for keywords/phrases in the script like..."could be possible", "some day", "in the future", "might be able to", "studies suggest".....etc....

Then find that CT'ers cannot hear those keywords.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I predict that the conspiracists will suggest these shows are "propaganda", designed to "soften us up" and "get us used to the idea".
 

Met Watch

Moderator
Dutchsinse has already made comments about this show. He thinks it's going to validate his claims about NEXRAD and HAARP.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Dutchsinse has already made comments about this show. He thinks it's going to validate his claims about NEXRAD and HAARP.

Well, they do mention "zapping a tornado with microwaves". Which probably relates to an old Eastlund story that crops up occasionally, here with some critique:

http://tornado.sfsu.edu/geosciences/classes/m302/Microwave_Destroying_Tornadoes/Microwave.html

And here:

http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/9321/InTech-Development_of_space_based_solar_power.pdf



 
Last edited:

JRBids

Senior Member.
1. TWC is aware that there are people who think the government is controlling the weather.

2. They try to cash in by making a series about how "it may be possible" to control weather.

Seems right.
 

scombrid

Senior Member.
1. TWC is aware that there are people who think the government is controlling the weather.

2. They try to cash in by making a series about how "it may be possible" to control weather.

Seems right.

It's the business model that the Discovery Channel and the History Channel have used to great success with all of their horseshit about ghosts, bigfoot, ancient aliens, conspiracy theories, whatever other superstitious bullshit or pseudoscience that they can hype. Why shouldn't NBC Universal take TWC in that direction? They've already dove fully into the bullshit pool with their hype filled winter storm naming.

It is a great business model. Shows about pseudoscience and superstition are easier and cheaper to research and product than real science documentaries and they attract an audience that is much more to the liking of advertisers. Advertiser says "If they'll believe that bullshit they'll believe anything".
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
It's the business model that the Discovery Channel and the History Channel have used to great success with all of their horseshit about ghosts, bigfoot, ancient aliens, conspiracy theories, whatever other superstitious bullshit or pseudoscience that they can hype. Why shouldn't NBC Universal take TWC in that direction? They've already dove fully into the bullshit pool with their hype filled winter storm naming.

It is a great business model. Shows about pseudoscience and superstition are easier and cheaper to research and product than real science documentaries and they attract an audience that is much more to the liking of advertisers. Advertiser says "If they'll believe that bullshit they'll believe anything".

I knew one of the Producers on the Discovery Channel . . . I think he would disagree some with your observations. . . true they are either told what to produce or they push up ideas which are approved for or disapproved by the higher ups. . . they are basically entertainment. . . and they do take license with vetting their sources (IMO their biggest error) they do present the extremes of almost any issue and while the sensational is presented the opposite is also presented. . . do they manipulate the viewer. . . depends on the viewer. . . ??? Should they be held to a higher standard. . . if presented as a white paper or documentary of course! . . . should there be a disclaimer . . . this entertainment and speculation at its finest . . . YES!!! Should they be removed from public view . . . NO!!!
 

scombrid

Senior Member.
They rest on their history of having produced something approaching factual programming in the past to give bullshit credibility. That they still call themselves "The History Channel" and "Discovery Channel" while "stretching" the truth is dishonest. Taking license with vetting their sources is dishonest whether it is deliberate or not. Like I said, it is easier and cheaper to produce a show if you are not careful in your research. They give far more weight to the extreme and sensational than they do to the odd token skeptic that they bring in. At best they might approach 50/50 skeptic to bunk advocate but even then they are playing at false equivalency and giving undue credibility to the bunk advocates and hoaxers.

I didn't say they should be removed from public view. I just said they were not trust worthy and speculated that production costs and ad sales were trumped any attempt to approach reality.
 
Top