Another reply to another featured link: Science forward, Bush backward
"I can comment little on the ICCP report, etc
Maybe tomorrow we'll avert it. Today we'll get parents heated up about kids getting heated up about heating up. If there is more debate tomorrow I shall return perhaps better informed but I doubt with some forming views much altered about the issue, and how the various protagonists (gov, med, interest/activist groups and biz) have, are and will treat it. Even in blogs. Who knows what lobbyist, PR or press officer lurks behind a "Clarkson for PM' or 'Green of Bristol moniker'.
...etc.
4 comments:
An entire half sentence in the State of the Union speech - just shows where Dubya's priorities are.
Something worthy of note in the comments though:- meekowarrior's comment [408506] may serve to explain quite a lot here :-
"What we actually know of the effects of the total disruption of any semblance of balance within all principle ecosystems on the planet is negligible. While we can predict certain outcomes; sea level raise, extreme weather intensification, etc. for which we can prepare, much of the intricate workings of the system as a whole are a mystery to us. It's the difference between knowing a glass will break if you drop it and predicting where the pieces will land. Science is not equipped for the latter."
The IPCC report is simply confirming that the glass IS going to break. Unfortunately, what humans instinctively want to know are the facts about the consequences - which is not realistically feasible for something as complex as GW/climate change.
"How big a noise will it make when it breaks?"
"How many pieces will it break into?"
"Will all the pieces be of the same size, or will it be a mixed bag?"
"Where will all the pieces land?"
"Will the pieces be grouped, clustered or randomly scattered?"
It is because these can't be answered that the AGW Deniers claim - "see, you can't prove it; you have no facts!"
Probabilities are all we have. Inexact, distasteful and irritating though they are, they are all that we have for now as a goad for mankind to avert GW. Maybe we can't avert it tomorrow, but at least 'heating up' our children whilst they are young enought to be unindoctrinated may just provide enough impetus for them to avert it in the days, weeks and years to come. (Fingers crossed we [and they] will not be too late).
Dave Goodwin
We are not differing on matters of fact, or as close to them as any halfway sane person should require.
But I think you are focussing on the issue as an engineer/scientist, which is what you are.
And although I feel fairly well qualified to handle matters of science, my interest and skill sets are in communication. I am an ad man after all.
It is vital, so I do want to come to some agreement on this, but soon I must concentrate back on what Junkk.com is all about, which making reuse fun and easy and rewarding. It's not true to say I don't care about GW, because I do, but it is a massive and complex picture I think I am going to have to leave others to play with as I have smaller fish to fry, but at least they may stand a chance of whetting others' appetites.
Where I do get very interested, and will stay involved because it impacts so much with what I am trying to, is how the average person's attention is captured, their interest piqued, a desire to act inspired... and that response nutured and facilitated in the best ways.
Your analogy is well taken, but I still feel is shared more from a purely rational, scientific viewpoint.
Take cigarettes. Who can argue the science behind this? Yet people, especially kids, still smoke, and I don't think it is for the lack of programmes and penalties to persuade them otherwise.
Unchecked, you know the glass will break. I know the glass will break. And we have a pretty dire view of the consequences. But, and forgive the physics pun (not intended) here, there are many other forces at work.
OK, I often get hung up on facts, but more on how they are shared. The agenda and the edit behind them. What stays in. What goes out. Even tones of voice.
It seems barking to me that some group of human beings would wish to bribe anyone to soften a view that impacts on the survival of their descendants, much less miss the effects of getting nabbed, but there you go.
We're seeing much more subtle stuff at work here. As you agreed elsewhere, witness that so few media have yet got on it.
And you are being very black and white, which as you know I rarely subscribe to.
Folk are not just being told that the glass will fall.
To make them more suseptible to less cataclysmic options they are alo being seduced by: 'It may or may not fall. It may or may not break'. Caution would suggest that it is still an easy decision.
But now, on top, we have: 'to stop it dropping, you must stop drinking just because you want to, and maybe later even because you are thirsty'. That's less attractive. Worse if it is 'You must not drink now so others are more likely to be able to elsewhere, or later'. Human nature, and selfishness, now kick in. Who applies a risk analysis to behaviour now on consequences later. Fries eaters? Drinkers? Frequent flyers? And that's personal. How to we then move to 3rd party impacts?
And, finally, many of the loudest, most restrictive voices are coming from those who are low on the trust threshold: ''Stop drinking so we may take water to keep our new lawn green". Or 'There are those who need your water more. We will be the ones to share it out. But first we need to top up a few plant pots of our own'. And reported by those who will say someone can turn water into wine if it will sell a paper or boost a rating. And feed off the resulting hoo-haa.
I cannot subscribe to the notion of 'indoctrination' in the age of the intenet, unless it is very skillfully done... by branding, reward and image. And truth, genuinely shared.
Well-meaning folk to whom 'it's obvious' are not always the best to do this, especially in the manner of a parent to a teenager. Even more when they can end up being used by those who can see a way to tun a buck now and let the future sort itself out when they are long gone.
These are the people I am most interested in dealing with (in all manners necessary) to achieve my objectives for my family's futures.
I am on it. Maybe just in a different way to the one you are more comfortable with. But I think our objectives are the same.
Peter,
I feel as if if been gently scolded by the headmaster. No offence was intended and our differences of opinion are, when you look at the bigger picture, nothing more than slight, though sometimes semantics get in the way. There are a few points that I would like to make in response, so please forgive the fact that I've repeated much of your post in doing so.
We are not differing on matters of fact, or as close to them as any halfway sane person should require. But I think you are focussing on the issue as an engineer/scientist, which is what you are.
I can’t argue with any of that, and yes, I am both an engineer and a scientist.
And although I feel fairly well qualified to handle matters of science, my interest and skill sets are in communication. I am an ad man after all.
It is vital, so I do want to come to some agreement on this, but soon I must concentrate back on what Junkk.com is all about, which making reuse fun and easy and rewarding. It's not true to say I don't care about GW, because I do, but it is a massive and complex picture I think I am going to have to leave others to play with as I have smaller fish to fry, but at least they may stand a chance of whetting others' appetites.
It is an issue so complex that not even 2,000+ of the planet’s best scientists can even come to agreement upon other than in terms of probabilities and likelihood. OK, you need to concentrate on junkk.com, but please do not take a back seat on this – despite being an 'ad man' you have a very rare skill that allows you to extract the nuggets from the plethora of bollocks du jour that most ‘meejah’ types churn out daily – something that the vast majority of Davos visiting journo’s are incapable of. That skill is desperately needed to highlight the outcomes that AGW will (and already is doing) inflict upon our planet. Plucking the tiny shred of truth from a morass of half truths, lies and obfuscation is a skill that you and very few others have – please continue to use it.
Where I do get very interested, and will stay involved because it impacts so much with what I am trying to, is how the average person's attention is captured, their interest piqued, a desire to act inspired... and that response nutured and facilitated in the best ways.
Your analogy is well taken, but I still feel is shared more from a purely rational, scientific viewpoint.
Yes, the analogy is strongly scientific, but it is at best an attempt to rationalise the impossible – my scientific bent means that it is the simplest way for me to get my head around it – and hopefully for others to better understand the complexity of the problem, and hopefully look forward to a potential resolution.
Take cigarettes. Who can argue the science behind this? Yet people, especially kids, still smoke, and I don't think it is for the lack of programmes and penalties to persuade them otherwise.
Unchecked, you know the glass will break. I know the glass will break. And we have a pretty dire view of the consequences. But, and forgive the physics pun (not intended) here, there are many other forces at work.
OK, I often get hung up on facts, but more on how they are shared. The agenda and the edit behind them. What stays in. What goes out. Even tones of voice.
Which is your particular skill – and more power to your elbow for it – it’s a new science I’ve decided to term ‘Re:Word Deciphering’, as invented by JunkkMale (2007).
It seems barking to me that some group of human beings would wish to bribe anyone to soften a view that impacts on the survival of their descendants, much less miss the effects of getting nabbed, but there you go.
Its not just barking, its heinous. Sadly, that’s the way big oil (and perhaps, to some extent, big government?) works. But ultimately it’s no more than a simple matter of corporate self preservation – which is also why the big oil boys are also picking up as many patents on developing renewable technologies as possible.
We're seeing much more subtle stuff at work here. As you agreed elsewhere, witness that so few media have yet got on it.
And you are being very black and white, which as you know I rarely subscribe to.
Folk are not just being told that the glass will fall.
To make them more suseptible to less cataclysmic options they are alo being seduced by: 'It may or may not fall. It may or may not break'. Caution would suggest that it is still an easy decision.
I’m being ‘black & white’ for the sake of my own sanity - I cannot deny the facts that are laid before me. You and I know the glass will fall; scientists of all persuasions, governments, all the media, and even big oil itself, know the glass will fall - yet the media silence is deafening. Most humans will believe what they are told as fact, if they are provided with the facts, and if they are reinforced sufficiently and often enough – but the ‘meejah’ taleban have misled countless millions for years on AGW (and many other important subjects too), often hiding the truth in various shades of black, dark grey, grey and white, and in the case of AGW, various shades of green too! If my scientific training means that I tend to look at things and push them to the black or white end of the spectrum to assist in resolution, then I can’t help it, but it does often help me personally to ‘see the bigger picture’, even if it scares the crap out of me.
But now, on top, we have: 'to stop it dropping, you must stop drinking just because you want to, and maybe later even because you are thirsty'. That's less attractive. Worse if it is 'You must not drink now so others are more likely to be able to elsewhere, or later'. Human nature, and selfishness, now kick in. Who applies a risk analysis to behaviour now on consequences later. Fries eaters? Drinkers? Frequent flyers? And that's personal. How to we then move to 3rd party impacts?
And, finally, many of the loudest, most restrictive voices are coming from those who are low on the trust threshold: ''Stop drinking so we may take water to keep our new lawn green". Or 'There are those who need your water more. We will be the ones to share it out. But first we need to top up a few plant pots of our own'. And reported by those who will say someone can turn water into wine if it will sell a paper or boost a rating. And feed off the resulting hoo-haa.
All true, and very, very worrying, if not terrifying, for the future – especially when ‘climatic migration’ starts to become, which it undoubtedly will, a major factor. These are the nuances that you pick up so well, whereas I look for the simple outputs and conclusions - and the conclusions of AGW are, to me, almost too terrible to contemplate.
I cannot subscribe to the notion of 'indoctrination' in the age of the intenet, unless it is very skillfully done... by branding, reward and image. And truth, genuinely shared.
Well-meaning folk to whom 'it's obvious' are not always the best to do this, especially in the manner of a parent to a teenager. Even more when they can end up being used by those who can see a way to tun a buck now and let the future sort itself out when they are long gone.
I am not suggesting any forced indoctrination of children; I’m suggesting that they are taught the truth whilst young and before their mindsets have become ‘fixed’. Yet, is not the absence of major headline coverage of the IPCC report, in a sense, indoctrination by ommission? OK, there are leading articles on many of the papers this morning, but the BBC news headlins lead with 'suspected bird flu' (amednment: this is now confirmed as H5N1 and something else serious to worry about!), 'italian football suspended after riots' and uncle Tone calling for NuLab to stay the course.
Yes, important stories in their own right, but compared to an official report that gives mankind a finite time limit to save itself, surely almost irrelevant? And you are right again, any situation will always have its share of hucksters willing to pray on the uncertain and the gullible.
These are the people I am most interested in dealing with (in all manners necessary) to achieve my objectives for my family's futures.
I am on it. Maybe just in a different way to the one you are more comfortable with. But I think our objectives are the same.
Good, and please stay on it. And whether it’s a different way to mine or not is probably irrelevant. Our objectives, I am sure, are ultimately the same.
Dave Goodwin.
Lumme... no 'scold' or offence intended in return! I am but a Padawan to your Jedi Master when it comes to living with the facts of the matter, as well as how they have been used and abused by those whom deem themselves fit for the purpose of deciding and/or speaking for us.
We should not have to worry about or apologise for what we say when it is in the spirit of global betterment, and especially conducted in a civlised manner with a reverence for accurate information, facts and objectivity. Plus a certain weather eye for chancers and scum-buckets.
Don't worry, I'm too committed to my kid's future to let go, but I do have to prioritise. This issue has value to get Junkk.com noticed by those who may see fit to help bring it higher in the public's awareness, but not at the expense of making the site work as well as it can at doing what it needs to do. Sadly I have yet to find enough support to keep all the plates I'd like spinning. Cloning is looking closer though (great... more people on the planet).But I'm not encouarged. You will note I have stuck with it and tried to wave the flag (red... green?) wherever possible (moderators and dodgy BBC site systems permitting - Newsnight is still iffy).
But it is still looking very uphill, as you will gather from today's posts. I don't just mean what I've written, but what has been written and hwo most have responded. I am astounded at some folks' biases and/or priorities.
However, onward and upward!
Post a Comment